Free Traffic Legal Advice

Since purchasing a car and receiving my blue badge, I have received 4 tickets because the parking information is not autism friendly.

As an autistic person, I encounter challenges understanding information designed for neurotypicals, including parking rules and signage. Researchers (e.g. Professor Kate Cain from Lancaster University and Professor Jane Oakhill from the University of Sussex), have shown that reading comprehension involves more than just recognising words; it also requires connecting different text parts to grasp the broader context. Unfortunately, individuals like me, who experience weak central coherence, may struggle to compile information effectively, hindering our understanding of complex instructions, such as parking guidelines.

While attempting to comprehend the parking rules, I diligently conducted Google searches to decipher the meaning of "clearly marked and signed." However, my efforts were in vain, as the available information did not provide the clarity I needed. It was difficult for me to discern what a "reserved disabled bay" looks like, leading me to assume that it would be labelled as "reserved for specific blue badge holders." I included a screenshot of my search history as evidence of my attempts in the appeal.

Upon further investigation, I discovered an essential piece of information in The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 that was unavailable on the H&F website. According to the regulations, where a bay is reserved for an individual disabled badge holder, an alphanumeric identifier, possibly followed by the word "ONLY," should be added after the term "DISABLED." This addition would have been immensely helpful for someone like me, as it would enable my brain to comprehend the alphanumeric identifier as a combination of letters and numbers, thus making the sign more interpretable.

The correspondence officer rejected my initial appeal, stating that the parking signage met statutory requirements; in other words, enough signs were clearly visible. However, my vision is not the issue, nor did my appeal mention the lack of signage. I specifically mentioned it was the clarity of the information provided. Nonetheless, after researching the regulations, I do not believe they have been updated to consider hidden disabilities. In addition, as highlighted by the National Autistic Society (NAS), despite introducing the Autism Act 2009, the only act for a specific disability, autistic people (myself included) are still facing challenges with services in understanding what autism is and how it impacts us. For example, the NAS 2016 report indicates that only 16% of autistic people and their families feel the public understands autism. With this, I am unsure if there is any point in appealing my ticket further and instead focus on trying to make some changes by contacting the local government social care ombudsman. Implementing changes is more important to me, and I would rather not waste my time and energy if this appeal isn’t in my favour.

I appreciate your help and guidance on this appeal + any other people to contact about making the driving information more accessible. As an aspiring autism researcher who is also autistic I believe I could offer some cost-effective and easy-to-implement solutions.

Photos:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Jdn1vdcDXcoH1m6VNiVrHMuzU5rmWZnF/view?usp=sharing
Correspondence letter: https://drive.google.com/file/d/19Js3bsqcTq1MgI8lGG5pa6ebzKFxHnCv/view?usp=drive_link

Street view link:
https://goo.gl/maps/EBhevWA4ahL7tDix5

Hey, thank you! Sorry for the late reply. Yes! I have the PCN here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fIgQSMIsWI...iew?usp=sharing
back: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wnXzsATXn7DbS9ANJR9-Nk4es8a-vZTK/view?usp=drivesdk

The link to the front of the PCN is broken and I can't fix it, you'll have to re-post it please.

Well it's the wrong contravention, parked in a restricted area in a car park would be hatched markings or double yellow lines or similar, you were parked in a bay.

Really they should have issued the PCN for code 85 - Parked without a valid virtual permit or clearly displaying a valid physical permit where required, but they only get one chance to get it right. Once the wrong code has been used, the council cannot go back and fix it, and they can only enforce what is stated on the PCN.

As you were not within a restricted part of a car park, it's hard to see how you could possibly lose, especially when we add in all the problems with the signage.

If you pursue this I will be happy to represent you at the tribunal. Assuming you want to carry on, all you need to do is wait for the Notice to Owner, as long as it's your car, you have the V5C, and the address on the V5C is correct (we recommend you physically get the V5C and check, do not assume).

When you make reps you must push them with questions. Not open-ended questions but those which scope the consideration which the council are required to give. Call them a helping hand if you wish.

It is common ground that the PCN gives the location as a car park and therefore not a road. In addition, the council claim that the sign in their photos gives effect to a restriction. However, the sign in evidence is a 'traffic sign' as defined in Part V of the Road Traffic Regulation Act. The RTRA only has effect on roads. In the absence of this sign, the council have no evidence of any restriction or contravention and therefore the PCN must be cancelled.

Should the council reject these grounds, they must explain, with necessary legal references, why they believe that this sign created any restriction within the 'car park'. For information, while it is clear from reports presented to the council that the use of Civil Enforcement Officers in this 'car park' provides operational efficiencies, it does not create an identical environment in which they may operate. Other than with regard to its enabling powers, the RTRA does not extend the scope of prescribed traffic signs into car parks, neither is their use for this purpose referred to in or endorsed by the Highway Code.

Should the council claim that use of these signs is permitted by virtue of their use having been brought to a motorist's attention by other means then they are obliged to:
1. Provide authoritative evidence as to their use;
2. Ditto for their existence on the day, and
3. Provide photos as to how they would have been brought to a motorist's attention.

Just some thoughts.

For later reference: The Hammersmith and Fulham (Wood Lane Estate) (Off Street Car Park) Order 2016.

Hey all,

Thank you for all your responses and sorry for the late reply.

I attempted to understand all of what was said; it's all so confusing! Is this why people end up paying?

Luckily, the council PCN is less confusing than what I am currently going through with a private PCN. 

I received the notice to owner through the post today. It has 2 double-sided pages. Do you want me to take a photo of all sides to put on here, or will one side suffice?



[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Thank you! Will do.