Best to check with Motability that the logbook details are correct - they'll send you a copy too.
Here are two recent tribunal decision, incidentally both in Tower Hamlets, which takes a hard line on blue badge contraventions. I have highlighted the relevant parts.
The first is good because it raises the fundamental point about the purpose of the clock in enforcement.
The second is a recommendation to cancel only but it seems to have escaped the adjudicator that 3 hours had not elapsed so we don't know if he would have changed his mind if this had been drawn to his attention.
----------------------
Case reference 2250128346
Appellant Rezso Voros
Authority London Borough of Tower Hamlets
VRM LV73OTU
PCN Details
PCN TT58416922
Contravention date 11 Dec 2024
Contravention time 18:59:00
Contravention location Cuba Street
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked restricted street during prescribed hours
Referral date -
Decision Date 11 Jul 2025
Adjudicator Mackenzie Robinson
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
1. Reasons Mr Voros is a blue badge holder. He parked his car on a single yellow line during the hours of its operation. He displayed his blue badge, but his clock was upside down on the dashboard.
2. Display of a blue badge entitles the holder to park on a single or double yellow line for a maximum of three hours. The relevance of the parking clock is to declare the time of arrival. This allows the civil enforcement officer to know whether or not a contravention has occurred, and make a decision regarding issuing a penalty charge notice.
3. Mr. Voros makes the point that the restriction at this location applies from 5:00 PM to 7:30 PM. This is a period of 2 1/2 hours, and therefore less than the three hour maximum which would apply to blue badge use. It is therefore impossible for a blue badge holder to breach the restriction at this location.
4. The council contests the appeal on the basis that a blue badge only provides a valid exemption on a single or double yellow line if the accompanying clock is displayed.
5. I find that a parking clock is more than a useful piece of evidence which can help to establish whether a contravention has occurred. For example, if someone parks on double yellow lines, which apply 24 hours a day, and fails to set their parking clock, it is no defence to prove, using other evidence, that the stay was for less than three hours. In those circumstances, the display of the blue badge provides no exemption at all without the accompanying clock also being displayed. This is because it would be impossible for the civil enforcement officer to know whether to issue a PCN, if no clock were on display.
The purpose of the clock is to allow the enforcement process to function properly. This is similar to the requirement for a pay and display ticket to be displayed, and not simply purchased.
6. However, this case raises a different issue.
Is display of a clock mandatory, without which the blue badge would provide no exemption, in circumstances where it is impossible for a contravention to occur, because the restriction applies for less than three hours? This is an issue with real consequences for Mr Voros. He has been issued the blue badge because of his limited mobility. If he parks at this location at, say, 3 PM, two hours before the yellow line restriction commences, is he required to leave his flat, and return to where has parked at 5 PM just to set his clock?
7.
The actual contravention is that of ‘parking in a restricted street’, not a ‘failure to follow the rules of the blue badge scheme’. A blue badge holder is entitled to park at such a location for three hours. Since it is impossible for a blue badge holder to breach the three hour time limit (because the restriction only applies for 2 1/2 hours) I find that the normal rule requiring the display of a blue badge has no application. In these circumstances, the civil enforcement officer does not have to decide whether a contravention has occurred – it is clear that it has not.8. I therefore find that, in these particular circumstances, no contravention occurred.
9. This appeal is allowed.
-------------
Case reference 2240516338
Appellant Jean Webb
Authority London Borough of Tower Hamlets
VRM AJ04ZZL
PCN Details
PCN TT57690248
Contravention date 03 Aug 2024
Contravention time 10:21:00
Contravention location Ford Street
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked restricted street during prescribed hours
Referral date -
Decision Date 27 Feb 2025
Adjudicator George Dodd
Appeal decision Appeal refused with recommendation
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons The Appellant’s representative, Ms Kate Scarlet attended the hearing of the appeal by video link. The Appellant, who is Miss Scarlet’s mother, did not attend.
It is the Authority’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle was parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours on 3 August 2024 at 10:21 am. They rely in evidence on the CEO’s notes and their photographs of the vehicle. The vehicle was parked on a single yellow line and although it was displaying a Blue Badge and clock, the clock was not set to cover the said time.Miss Scarlet explained that she parked the car the night before and the Blue Badge and clock were left on display but were secure. She intended to set the clock following morning for 08:30, but she was unable to do so because her very elderly mother who has serious dementia and for whom Miss Scarlet cares, had a fall at about 7:15am. Whilst not seriously injured, Miss Scarlett’s mother was quite battered and bruised and was extremely distressed by the incident and leaving her alone even for a very short period of time was simply not an option for a large part of that day. In those circumstances, Ms Scarlet was unable to attend the vehicle prior to 8:30 am to set the clock.
I found Ms Scarlet to be a reliable and credible witness and I accept her evidence.
I appreciate that Ms Scarlet was in a very difficult situation and quite clearly the priority was to care for her mother. It would have been negligent of her to have left her mother to attend her vehicle even for a very short time.
However, the case put by Ms Scarlet does not amount to a ground of appeal. It is, instead, mitigation. Although the Authority are entitled to take mitigation into account at the representation stage, it is well established law that an Adjudicator is not permitted to do so on appeal, which means that I am unable to exercise any discretion in the Appellant’s favour. It follows that, being satisfied there was a contravention, I must refuse the appeal. However, I am satisfied that there are compelling reasons why, in the particular circumstances of the case, the PCN should be cancelled, and I make a recommendation to the Authority to this effect in accordance with section 7 (
of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
Recommendation cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
