Free Traffic Legal Advice

I expect all you have is an ask for discretion and they must consider it for a BB holder. But the bay is only for disabled resident permit holders for that zone (it's not exclusive for one person).

I think the contravention and code (16) on the PCN are correct. It may be worth checking the traffic order for these bays.   

The suffix 5 qualifies code 16 as a dedicated disabled bay. I agree it's misleading but permit bays do have legends such as doctor.

This case suggests that Newham will not as usual play nice.

---------

2240129331
London Borough of Newham
08 Oct 2023
Lathom Road
Parked in permit space without a valid permit

Appeal refused
The issue of this appeal is whether the said vehicle was parked in a disabled resident permit holders’ only parking place without clearly displaying a valid permit or having a virtual permit.
The administrative practicalities of the parking scheme require a vehicle’s owner, at all times it waits in a bay or space, to pay for that time and display proof of that by way of a ticket or voucher or meter reading. The Scheme imposes owner liability. That implies that the owner may be liable even if he did not know about the contravention, which in turn implies liability without fault. An Adjudicator must balance any decision between fairness and administrative practicality. Sometimes the latter overrides the former. A Scheme requires that parked vehicles pay for their waiting time and that the payment is visibly displayed. Should either requirement be absent then a contravention occurs. Regarding telephone payments, the correct vehicle registration mark and location must be recorded. Otherwise, it is not a due payment. I I find that this principle must also apply to permit parking spaces.
The local authority took photographs and made notes. A Blue Badge and clock can be seen displayed.
The driver has stated that the vehicle was used for a severely disabled passenger, who became agitated. The appellant took the first available turning and saw this parking space. The appellant has provided a certificate of motor insurance in evidence.
There is no persuasive evidence before me that the appellant had an appropriate permit to park there.
The evidence leads me to conclude that a contravention occurred.
The circumstances described by the appellant are mitigating circumstances or extenuating factors. They do not amount to a ground of appeal. Mitigation moderates the seriousness of something but does not amount to a full ground of appeal.
The local authority has clearly considered the relevant circumstances but has chosen not to exercise their discretion in the appellant’s favour. Mitigation is the province of the local authority. An Adjudicator may only cancel a penalty charge notice if a ground of appeal has been established. An Adjudicator may not exercise their discretion and cancel or reduce a fixed penalty when mitigating circumstances and not a ground of appeal has been established. Mitigation is for the local authority. An Adjudicator is not permitted to mitigate a fixed penalty, a penalty fixed by law.
I have to find that the local authority was entitled to issue the penalty notice. I am satisfied that the penalty notice expressed the correct penalty amount, fixed by law. It did not therefore exceed the relevant amount in all the circumstances.
In those circumstances, as I find that no ground of appeal has been established, I have to refuse the appeal.

The TSRGD diagram (1028.4) for this type of bay carries a road marking, 'DOCTOR'.

'1.—(1) ”DOCTOR” may be omitted.

(2) “DOCTOR” may be varied to: “BUSES”, “CAR CLUB”, “CYCLE HIRE”, “DISABLED”, “ELECTRIC VEHICLES”, “ELECTRIC VEHS”, “ELECTRIC MOTORCYCLES”, “ELECTRIC M/CYCLES”, “ELECTRIC M/Cs”, “LOADING”, “LARGE OR SLOW VEHICLES”, “PERMIT HOLDERS”, “SOLO MOTORCYCLES”, “SOLO M/CYCLES”, “SOLO M/CS”.'

So 'DISABLED' is a valid variation but only when the restriction applies to disabled persons.

In this case it does not. IMO, the cited decision bolsters the OP's argument.

LATOR requires by inference if not stated in words that any 'traffic signs' (and a marking is a traffic sign) must be lawful and compatible.

IMO, the combination here is not. We have the adjudicator determining that these bays are permit bays. Therefore the council must justify using an unlawful combination of traffic signs. (and if the marking did apply, the bay's still wrong because it doesn't meet the min. width criterion)

One for cp, as regards the road marking, surely if a BB holder sees this and knows that they are not in any of the exempt boroughs then they may presume a minimum of 3 hours' parking on display of a BB and clock without needing to look for a traffic sign?

OP, for other comments. 

Thanks all for the contribution.

There is loads of techincal discussion some I understood some just passed over my head.

Can someone please help draft the representaiton?

Thanks.