Free Traffic Legal Advice

My wife got the same ticket as I did here.

At the time, from the comments of the previous thread, I said she is allowed to park there due to being a blue badge holder and having a virtual/courtesy blue badge. As advised by Pastbybest, she can park there but only with the blue badge visible as the virtual permit only allows parking in resident or disabled bays in the CPZ - she did not have the blue badge on display.

I challenged using the one written up previously by Pastmybest:

I make representations against the above mentioned PCN under the statutory ground that.
The contravention did not occur.
The vehicle in question VRM EN 72 WYS is a Motability vehicle leased to me/ my wife I/she holds a valid Blue Badge giving the exemptions available under regulation 7 of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Exemptions for Disabled Persons) (England) Regulations 2000

I/my wife also holds a permit issued by Barking and Dagenham council exempting the display of the Blue badge. This exemption permit is valid within the HW zone. Heathway in Dagenham is squarely within the HW zone and as such the Exemption afforded by the above regulation allows parking without time limit, the exemption from display of the BB permit affords just such exemption from the display of the BB and as a consequence the contravention did not occur and the PCN should now be cancelled

and they rejected (attached) - this time they said the permit cannot be used to park in a limited waiting bay for longer than permitted, so they have addressed the usage of the permit this time.

I think I don't have a challenge with regards to the permit and will have to rely on the PCN and maybe the rejection response for errors.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

You cannot rely on the permit argument but you have the wording error on the PCN and if you like a gamble perhaps they will omit the TMO again other arguments may well arise as you go on

I have received the NTO.

According to the cancellation guidance,

MC13: Where the motorist is a Blue Badge holder/transporting a Blue Badge holder and they did not have their Blue Badge and/or clock on display or could not be read or had expired If it can be established that this is the motorist’s first contravention of this type and they can provide evidence that they are a Blue badge holder or were transporting a Blue Badge holder.  If the motorist has previously had a PCN cancelled for the same contravention and has been warned to display a valid badge/time clock, correctly in the future  If the motorist was parked on a waiting restriction beyond the 3-hour time limit permitted by the Blue Badge Scheme, or on another restriction for which the Blue Badge does not provide an exemption.

I've had this contravention before but it was cancelled for different reasons.

I'm wondering if I can request they cancel it for not displaying BB and it being the first time they cancel it for this type of contravention?

I had my tribunal yesterday - this PCN has been cancelled. He accepted that the PCN was missing info required by legislation and that the council did not attach my challenge in full.

I argued that the courtesy blue badge terms and conditions are not clear, even on the permit itself. I feel like he agreed with this, but irrelevant because we discussed if the blue badge was even exempt from the time limit. I did reference the legislation as well as provide that as evidence - he did not tell me in the call if he agreed or not but in the reasons, he said it fails.

The Appellant has attended his appeal by telephone.

The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked for longer than permitted when in Holgate Road on 18 April 2024 at 13.55.
The Appellant's case is advanced on three grounds.

First, that it is unclear from the evidence that the Authority is correct in stating that a blue badge and a courtesy blue badge does not provide an exemption from the limited 1 hour time restriction allowed in this timed bay in Barking and Dagenham.
Second that the Authority has omitted from the reverse of the PCN the requirement to record paragraph 3. (1) (c) of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions(Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022, which is as follows:

(c) that if a notice to owner is served despite the representations mentioned in sub-paragraph (b), representations against the penalty charge must be made to the enforcement authority in the form and manner and at the time specified in the notice to owner. (my emphasis)

Third, that the Authority has failed to include all the evidence in support of the Appellant's formal representations as required by the 2022 Appeals Regulations.

I have considered the evidence in this case and I find that ground 1 of the Appellant's submission fails, because I find that the time limitation of 1 hour applies to blue badge and courtesy blue badge holders in Barking and Dagenham.

However, I find the omission from the PCN to record the effect paragraph 3. (1) (c) of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions(Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022, to be a procedural impropriety.

Further, I have accepted the Appellant's evidence that he submitted further evidence with his formal representations, and that the Authority has failed to produce it in evidence to the Tribunal. I find that this is also a procedural impropriety.

Accordingly, I am satisfied that the Appellant's second and third grounds of appeal are well founded and this appeal must in such circumstances be allowed.

The appeal is allowed.

At last an adjudicator recognises the importance of paragraph 3. (1) (c) of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions(Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022, and its absence makes the PCN void.