Free Traffic Legal Advice

My mum parked in this bay with her blue badge assuming it was a normal disabled bay, she received a ticket. Is there any grounds for appealing it because it was a genuine mistake.

The PCN states that the bay is reserved to permit holders, in this case permit DB308.

It is therefore a permit bay.

The road marking DISABLED DB308 is NOT prescribed(AKA not permitted unless the authority has obtained DfT authorisation). In addition, IMO the bay's dimensions are too narrow for a 'DISABLED' bay, which adds to the conclusion that this is a permit bay.

The regs which apply to road markings as here(the specimen in the regs is marked with 'DOCTOR' and what follows deals with prescribed alternatives:

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”.

(3) “ONLY” may be added after “DOCTOR” (or after a word or phrase used pursuant to sub-paragraph (2)).

(4) Where the bay is reserved for an individual disabled badge holder, an alphanumeric identifier, with or without the word “ONLY” may be added after “DISABLED”.

[but this bay isn't reserved to a disabled badge holder, it's reserved to a permit holder]
......


And this reference from the Traffic Signs Manual: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c78f895e5274a0ebfec719b/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf  See s13.11

So, the road marking 'PERMIT HOLDER DB308' is permitted provided that where an upright traffic is placed this also states 'P' Permit Holder DB308 without a wheelchair symbol.

Or, 'DISABLED DB308' is permitted as a marking provided that the width of the bay meets the statutory requirements and where an upright sign is placed this carries the information above AND a wheelchair symbol.

There is no third way as shown here which is a road marking using the word DISABLED, a bay which doesn't meet minimum width requirements and an upright sign which omits the wheelchair symbol.

In short: if you mark a bay with the word DISABLED' then the bay must be reserved to a disabled badge holder(s)(who may or may not also hold a permit) AND carry the wheelchair symbol.

But what would an adjudicator make of this?

Is the photo of the actual car in situ, or simply a photo showing the bay?

I noticed the omission of the wheelchair symbol on the sign but otherwise the bay conforms to the signs manual guidance I think.

This case shows that where the permit number is put on the sign is a factor but Islington have got it right plus it's on the road legend in the correct order.

------------

Case reference 226008931A
Appellant xxxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Havering
VRM DG09EDV

PCN Details
PCN HG50426430
Contravention date 12 Nov 2025
Contravention time 11:10:00
Contravention location The Mews
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Parked in disabled bay without displaying badge

Referral date -

Decision Date 18 Jun 2026
Adjudicator Chez Cotton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons Introduction
1. The Appellant challenges a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued for being parked in a disabled bay without displaying a badge (Code 40).
2. This a postal appeal.
The Appellant’s case
3. The Appellant’s case is that they are a Blue Badge holder and had both the badge and timer properly displayed whilst parked in the relevant bay. Although the Enforcement Authority (EA) has stated that the disabled bay was for a specified Blue Badge holder, this was not obvious from the signage.
4. The Appellant asks for the PCN to be cancelled on the basis of that they were validly parked, and due to the inadequacy of the signage in relation to what the EA state it is meant to convey.
Enforcement Authority’s Case
5. The Enforcement Authority (EA) rely on photographic evidence to show the contravention occurred. A plan and photographs of the signage has been provided. The EA says this shows the restriction is signed and clear, and, further, enforceable under a valid Traffic Management Order (TMO), a copy of which is provided.
6. The EA has considered the Appellant's representations. The EA state, ‘The disabled bay where the appellant had parked their vehicle, is for Disabled Badge holders that have a Permit DB014. Evidence in Photos attached.’
7. The EA does not wish to exercise their discretion.
8. The EA maintain the PCN was correctly issued.
Findings and Conclusion
9. I have considered the evidence of both parties carefully. I make the following findings based on a balance of probabilities.
10. Based on the photographic evidence provided, and additional evidential materials from the EA, I am satisfied the Appellant’s vehicle was in the relevant location, at the relevant time. This is not in dispute.
11. I am satisfied the Appellant is a Blue Badge holder, and had their Blue Badge and timer displayed at the relevant time. These can be seen in the windscreen of the Appellant’s vehicle in the Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) photographs.
12. A question I must decide relates to whether the signage in place was substantially compliant, clear and adequate. In this respect I note there is ‘Disabled’ marked on the road surface at the bay. The signage states ‘P’, with a wheelchair logo, ‘Disabled badge holder only’. Underneath this is a black rectangle with ‘DB014’ in white writing and letters.
13. I accept this is inadequate to convey that the disabled bay is intended for the use of an individual badge holder, rather than for disabled badge holders generally. This is because the way the signage is set out could reasonably be interpreted as the ‘DB014’ being a location code, or another type of official identification. Currently, the sign reads,
14. ‘Disabled badge holder only’ DB014.
15. For it to be clear that the bay is intended for an individual badge holder, I find the reference ‘DB014’ needs to come before ‘only’. This would mean the sign read:
‘Disabled badge holder DB014 only’
16. I therefore find the signage at the relevant location is not substantially compliant, clear and adequate. I find it was reasonable for the Appellant to interpret the current signage on the basis that they were entitled to park there as a disabled badge holder, with the badge and timer correctly displayed.
17. Further, although the TMO sets out that disabled bays are created the relevant location, the EA has not directed to any section that allocates the bay to a particular disabled badge holder. As I have made a finding based on the inadequacy of the signage, I have not had to determine in relation to this point, but I note it for the decision record.
18. For these reasons I find a contravention did not occur and the PCN has not been validly issued.
Decision
19. The appeal is allowed for the reasons set out.

So you think the absence of the disabled symbol could swing it? Even though that if anythng reinforces the permit nature of the bay.

These are decisions here - there are two such bays adjacent there.

OP - any compelling mitigation?

--------

Case reference 2230556019
Appellant Atef Amin
Authority London Borough of Islington
VRM AP19XXN

PCN Details
PCN IZ27511744
Contravention date 19 Sep 2023
Contravention time 14:51:00
Contravention location Digswell Street
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked in permit space without a valid permit

Referral date -

Decision Date 01 Mar 2024
Adjudicator Anju Kaler
Appeal decision Appeal refused with recommendation
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons The agreed facts are that the vehicle was at the stated location and a Penalty Charge Notice was issued. The vehicle was parked ion a disabled bay displaying a disabled badge. The bay is marked for badgeholder DB308 as displayed on the upright sign and the roadmarkings.
The Appellant says he is a doctor with a disabled badge and had to attend an emergency assessment of a patient at Highbury Magistrates Court. His case is supported by an email from the Mental Health Trust. The Authority rejected the representations as there was insufficient mitigation and the says the Appellant should have made suitable arrangements to park correctly.
I am satisfied that the bay is correctly marked for the holder of a specific disabled badge. I acknowledge that the Appellant was unfamiliar with this notion. It is plain that he is the holder of a disabled badge and was in fact attending court in his professional capacity when the contravention occurred. I find that there is compelling mitigation and this is a situation where the Authority should have exercised their discretion. The Adjudicator cannot allow an appeal because of mitigation but does urge the Authority to carefully consider the circumstances and to exercise their power not to enforce.
Recommendation cancel the Notice to Owner.

------------

Case reference 2250280271
Appellant Mulinda Xavier
Authority London Borough of Islington
VRM LS24XJN

PCN Details
PCN IZ34265455
Contravention date 04 Mar 2025
Contravention time 10:13:00
Contravention location Digswell Street
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked in permit space without a valid permit

Referral date -

Decision Date 05 Sep 2025
Adjudicator Martin Hoare
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons Ms Xavier attended her video appeal hearing. The Authority did not attend.
Ms Xavier relied on her appeal notice which explained ‘disabled bay besides Islington and Highbury Courthouse and parked my vehicle so I could go and use the toilet. However, when I returned, I witnessed an Enforcement Officer placing a ticket on my vehicle. I asked the Officer what are you doing? I have displayed my disabled Badge and clock. The Officer reports that the disabled Bay is for residents only. I replied how would someone like me who is Dyslexic know this? There is disabled writing on the floor and a disabled sign. The sign does not say these disabled bays are for Islington Residents Only’.
Ms Xavier explained that her medical condition required her to stop and use the bathroom.
The civil enforcement officer present should have warned her.
The civil enforcement officer’s notes and photographs establish that this vehicle parked, displaying a Blue Badge , in a disabled permit holder’s bay. The signage indicated that the bay was for the use of a specific disabled permit holder only. The conspicuous surface lettering and sign plate referred to the permit number. Ms Xavier did not hold a disabled permit with this number or at all.
The civil enforcement officer’s notes record the car was parked in this bay between 10.08 and 10.13. The officer’s photographs of the vehicle were taken between 1014 and 10.15
According to the Blue Badge booklet
‘Places where you cannot park
The Blue Badge is not a licence to park anywhere. Like other road users, you must obey the rules of the road, as laid out in the Highway Code. Here is a list of places where you must not park………………………...Parking places reserved for specific users’.
An officer is not under a duty to warn.
Ms Xavier’s representations amount to mitigation and are noted. Adjudicators are not permitted to take into account mitigation when considering whether a contravention occurred.
The appeal is refused.

-------

Case reference 2250378456
Appellant Jemma Rose
Authority London Borough of Islington
VRM LF24NWY

PCN Details
PCN IZ34630266
Contravention date 31 Mar 2025
Contravention time 08:34:00
Contravention location Digswell Street
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked in permit space without a valid permit

Referral date -

Decision Date 11 Dec 2025
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons The contravention alleged in these proceedings is that this vehicle was parked in a permit space without a valid permit. I am satisfied on the evidence before me that the vehicle was parked in a designated disabled permit holder bay for the use of permit holder number DB308 only, as is clearly stated on signage. I acknowledge that there was a blue badge and time clock displayed in the vehicle's windscreen, and I accept that the appellant intended to park correctly, but only the designated permit holder is permitted to use this bay. There is no exemption that allows blue badge holders to do so. This contravention has occurred. The appeal must be refused.