Free Traffic Legal Advice

So weird. When I click the link using private browser it all shows. Anyway, here’s a new Dropbox link

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/qmi329sctq0yqm9l94b8z/AM-7FkzxoXSSBuPL4THDdVs?rlkey=0jdh7c6phe0efjbr30jwsxzfd&st=ju892end&dl=0

Just recieved my decision from LT appeal and sadly it’s been refused. 

Adjudicator's Reasons
1. The penalty charge notice (PCN) in this case was issued on the basis that the Appellant's vehicle
was parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours at Brady Street on 26 February 2025 at
19:27.
2. The appeal was decided following a video hearing attended by the Appellant, Mohammed Khan.
The appellant relies upon the ground of appeal that there was procedural impropriety on the part of
the Enforcement Authority (EA).
3. The Appellant does not dispute the facts of the contravention, but raises a number of issues
regarding the contravention circumstances and whether it should be enforced. The Appellant states
that he parked his vehicle at approximately 18:32 at which time the parking bay was subject to a pay
by phone requirement. However, the Appellant was transporting a family member who had a Blue
Badge. This was displayed in the vehicle upon parking and so no payment was made to park.
4. The Appellant states that, at the time he parked, Blue Badge holders could park without restriction.
He therefore did not display the parking clock. However, he acknowledges that after 19:00 the bay
becomes restricted for parking or waiting and then a Blue Badge holder may only park for up to 3
hours and is required to display the parking clock showing when they began parking. The Appellant
was unaware at the time of the transition between restrictions. He returned to his vehicle around
20:00 by which time the PCN had already been issued.
5. The Appellant submits that the signage was confusing and inadequate. It primarily highlighted the
pay to park obligation, with only a smaller sign showing the restrictions between 19:30 and 07:30. The
signs make no reference to Blue Badge holders nor the requirement to display a parking clock after
19:00. Where signage fails to specify a condition, it is unenforceable (Moses v Barnet LBC [2005]
EWHC 1900 (Admin)). He submits that a reasonable person would understand from this that
displaying just the Blue Badge is sufficient. In oral evidence, the Appellant stated that in all his years
of driving he had never seen signs, such as are at this location, where restrictions change from pay to
park to single yellow line restrictions.
6. Further, he submits that failure to display the parking clock is purely a minor technical oversight
which should not lead to a PCN. He refers to similar cases where this position was upheld
(2110072817 & 2250128346). He also submits that any breach was "de minimis" as the restriction did
not commence until 19:00 and the PCN was issued at 19:27.
7. The Appellant emphasised in his oral submissions that, even without the parking clock being
displayed, the maximum amount of time that his vehicle could have been parked while the single
yellow line restriction was in force was 27 minutes when the PCN was issued. This is well within the
three hours allowed to Blue Badge holders and this would have been evident to the CEO whether the
clock was displayed or not. This is similar to the circumstances in case no. 2250128346.
8. Finally, and the Appellant emphasised that this is his main point of challenge, the Appellant has
made two Freedom of Information requests to the EA which establish that the EA's policy on
cancellation of PCNs dates from 2017 and that the EA fail to show that they have reviewed the policy
in light of guidance issued in October 2022 by the Secretary of State under s.87 of the Traffic
Management Act 2004 (TMA). The Appellant submits that there is a duty on the EA under the TMA to
have regard to this guidance and that their failure to do so amounts to procedural impropriety.
9. The Appellant also expressed his belief that the circumstances of this case are such that the EA
could and should have exercised discretion under part 6) of the section headed "Compelling
Reasons/Mitigating Circumstances" of their cancellation policy. The Appellant acknowledged his
understanding that adjudicators do not have discretion and cannot compel EA's to exercise discretion.
10. The EA have provided photographs taken by a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) showing the
contravention, including the Appellant's vehicle parked on a marked single yellow line next to a
signpost showing signs relating to "Pay to park" and that "No waiting" restrictions apply "Mon-Sat
between Midnight - 7am and 7pm - Midnight". They submit that it is a driver's responsibility to check
all sign plates and road markings when they park.

11. The EA submits that Blue Badges are not valid for parking in areas where loading restrictions or
waiting restrictions are in force. Also, that all actions pertaining to the PCN have been dealt with in
accordance with the TMA. A copy of the relevant Traffic Management Order for the restrictions on
Brady Street is produced.
12. I am satisfied from the evidence, which is not disputed, that, as a matter of fact, the Appellant's
vehicle was parked on Brady Street on 26 February 2025 at 19:27 when there was a single yellow line
waiting restriction in place which operated from 7pm until 7am. I find that the Appellant's vehicle
displayed a Blue Badge while parked. I accept the Appellant's evidence that he was entitled to use the
Blue Badge in his vehicle as it belonged to a family member who he had been transporting at the time
he parked.
13. I find that the signage at the location was clear and compliant. The times and dates when pay to
park applied and when the single yellow line no waiting restrictions applied are clearly set out on signs
immediately above one another and are displayed immediately adjacent to the parking bay. I accept
the EA's submission that it is incumbent upon a driver to check all restrictions that apply when they
park.
14. The use of a Blue Badge is governed by its own legislation which sets out the terms of use of the
Blue Badge. The responsibility is upon the holder of a Blue Badge, or those people who use their
vehicle to transport a holder of a Blue Badge, to know and understand the relevant terms of use. I am
satisfied that there was no obligation on the EA to include within its signage reference to either Blue
Badge holders generally or the need to display a parking clock if parking on a single yellow line during
restricted hours. These are general matters covered by the terms of Blue Badge use which do not
require any separate signage.
15. I find that, in order to be allowed to park for up to three hours on a single yellow line during
restricted hours, it is a requirement that both the front of the Blue Badge and a parking clock, showing
the time that parking commenced, are displayed. The Appellant did not display a parking clock as
required. I do not accept that this is purely a technical breach. The clock is essential to fix the time
that the three hours allowed runs from.
16. I have considered the two cases referred to by the Appellant. Although I am not bound by the
decisions of other adjudicators and all cases are decided upon their own facts and merits, cases can
sometimes provide persuasive support for a case advanced.
17. Case no. 2110072817 does not appear relevant to any of the matters raised by the Appellant. It
primarily deals with the wording of a Notice of Rejection.
18. Case no. 2250128346 is a recent appeal where the appeal was allowed as the adjudicator found
that the absence of a parking clock with a Blue Badge was not necessary as the restricted time only
lasted two and a half hours, therefore a Blue Badge holder could never exceed the three hours
parking allowed in such a restricted area. The current appeal differs significantly due to the fact that
the Appellant was parked in an area where the restriction lasted for 12 hours. It is essential that a
parking clock is displayed in order to establish when the three hour parking period commenced. While
the PCN was issued only 27 minutes into the restricted time period, the requirement for the parking
clock was an essential element of the Blue Badge parking concession at that location and the PCN
was therefore validly issued. I do not accept that 27 minutes out of a twelve hour period is a "de
minimis" period of time.
19. Finally, in respect of the issues raised regarding the EA's policy on cancelling PCNs, I accept the
Appellant's evidence that the Secretary of State issued guidance in October 2022 under s.87 of the
TMA. However, that guidance is headed "Statutory guidance for local authorities outside London on
civil enforcement of bus lane and moving traffic contraventions". Whether the EA considered 2022
guidance issued for local authorities outside London and relating to moving traffic and bus lane
contraventions can have no relevance, and cannot amount to a procedural irregularity, in the current
appeal which relates to a parking contravention occurring within London.
20. The matters raised by the Appellant regarding the use of the Blue Badge amount to mitigation
only. They have been considered by the EA who have declined to exercise their discretion.
Adjudicators have no discretion to consider mitigation, as confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Walmsley v Transport for London [2005] EWCA Civ 1540. Adjudicators also have no jurisdiction to
review the manner in which EA's exercise their discretion. Adjudicators are limited to considering the
legislative grounds for appeal against a PCN.
21. The Appellant has not established a ground of appeal. The appeal is refused. The Appellant
must pay the penalty of £130.00 within 28 days of the date of this letter.
Graeme Wallington
Adjudicator
29th November 2025
2250368543
TT58827100

I even emphasised the point that while they cannot apply discretion at this stage they can recommend the EA to cancel the PCN. They didn’t even recommend that. Sad

However, that guidance is headed "Statutory guidance for local authorities outside London on civil enforcement of bus lane and moving traffic contraventions". Whether the EA considered 2022 guidance issued for local authorities outside London and relating to moving traffic and bus lane
contraventions can have no relevance, and cannot amount to a procedural irregularity, in the current appeal which relates to a parking contravention occurring within London.


What nonsense.

Statutory guidance for local authorities in England on civil enforcement of parking contraventions

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-enforcing-parking-restrictions#introduction-and-legal-basis

I'd request a review in the interests of justice. No adjudicator acting reasonably and knowledgeably could have made such a mistake.

From the Introduction:
Local authorities will be expected to explain any decision not to implement the terms of the guidance, and adjudicators may consider it to be a procedural impropriety, sufficient to allow an appeal if no sufficient explanation is provided.

I was completely baffled by that also. I have no idea where he got that from!

How do I request a review?

For peer review by others.

OP, note the time limit on applying for a review.

See para. 12 of Schedule 1:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348231564


12(1)(vi)the interests of justice require such a review.

Re: Case No. ********, ******* v **********

I refer to the above and hereby submit a request for review under the provisions of para. 12(1)(vi) of Schedule 1 to the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022:

(vi)the interests of justice require such a review.

My reasons are as follows:

On ***, Adjudicator Wallington rejected my appeal after a hearing which I attended. His reasons were set out in writing and were thorough, addressing each of my grounds of appeal in detail and making corresponding findings of fact and, in one case, dismissing my grounds for lack of relevance.

My request for a review is in respect of this determination which is objectively and manifestly incorrect.

Specifically his written decision stated:

19. Finally, in respect of the issues raised regarding the EA's policy on cancelling PCNs, I accept the Appellant's evidence that the Secretary of State issued guidance in October 2022 under s.87 of the TMA. However, that guidance is headed "Statutory guidance for local authorities outside London on
civil enforcement of bus lane and moving traffic contraventions". Whether the EA considered 2022 guidance issued for local authorities outside London and relating to moving traffic and bus lane contraventions can have no relevance, and cannot amount to a procedural irregularity, in the current
appeal which relates to a parking contravention occurring within London.

I was flummoxed by this statement and did not have rebutting proof to hand. However, as the reviewing adjudicator will know, the Statutory Guidance to which I was referring is:

Statutory guidance for local authorities in England on civil enforcement of parking contraventions
(Updated 20 October 2022)

Which states, as far as is relevant in the Introduction:

Introduction and legal basis

This statutory guidance is published by the Secretary of State for Transport under section 87 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 (TMA).

This document is also the Secretary of State’s guidelines on uniforms that section 76(3) of the TMA allows the appropriate authority to issue.

The guidance sets out the policy framework for civil parking enforcement. It explains how to approach, carry out and review parking enforcement.
......

All local authorities in England with designated civil parking enforcement powers to which schedule 8 to the TMA applies should use this guidance in conjunction with the following regulations that give effect to the parking provisions in part 6 of the TMA:

.........

The guidance has no special authority in regard to matters of legal interpretation. Where there appear to be differences between the guidance and the legislation, the legislation always takes precedence.

......

Authorities must have regard to this statutory guidance (as stipulated by section 87 of the TMA) when exercising their functions.

These functions include developing, implementing and reviewing their civil parking enforcement regimes.

Local authorities will be expected to explain any decision not to implement the terms of the guidance, and adjudicators may consider it to be a procedural impropriety, sufficient to allow an appeal if no sufficient explanation is provided. This guidance should also be read in conjunction with the guidance on Certification of Approved Devices, and the Home Office Surveillance Camera Code of Practice.

I submit that it was not open to the adjudicator to fail to consider this ground of appeal. Furthermore, as it is accepted that the authority's extant policy is dated 2017 then it must follow that the council in this case has failed in its duty to have regard to the Guidance and, given that no reason was offered in evidence by the council in regards to this failure, I submit that the adjudicator should have 'considered it to be a procedural impropriety'.

I ask that the reviewing adjudicator substitutes their own decision and allows my appeal on these grounds.

Thank you. He did not make a decision during the call. He listened to what I had to say and then said he will look into everything including the statutory guidance point and then make a decision. Also, I’ve made payment to TH last night. Will I still be ok to ask for a review?

IMO, yes. Asking for a review doesn't stop the authority's enforcement powers i.e. they could still issue a CC while LT are cogitating on a review request, so IMO paying simply protects your position, it doesn't imply that you feel that a review is not possible.

As regards the exact process of decision making, how would we know?

I'm certain you can amend to reflect the sequence.

Many thanks. I’ll submit the email now with what you’ve written up. Thanks again

End of the road so you must pay to avoid escalation.

Just got a response and it’s been rejected.

Further to your correspondence, the adjudicator, Anthony Chan, has directed that there are no
grounds for there to be a review of this case.
The Appellant said that the adjudicator found that the guidance issued pursuant to section 87 of the
Traffic Management Act 2004 was statutory guidance for local authorities outside London on civil
enforcement of bus lane and moving traffic contraventions". This is true but the guidance if of course
also guidance for parking throughout England.
However, I do not agree with the Appellant's submissions regarding the guidance. The legislation
places an obligation on an authority to have regard to the guidance. It does not mean that an authority
is bound by the guidance.
As the adjudicator has found, and it is not challenged by the Appellant, the Appellant did not display a
parking clock when he was required to do so. This is not de minimums. The clock used in conjunction
with the badge establishes the right to park and it is the tool with which a CEO whether there was an
overstay.
I do not accept therefore that the refusal to cancel a PCN issued as a result of the missing clock is
itself evidence of a failure to have regard to the guidance.
As to the Authority's policy to cancel PCNs, adjudicator's do not have the power to police theauthority' s exercise of discretion.
Your application for review is therefore rejected.
The Enforcement Authority has been notified of this decision, and is entitled to continue with its
enforcement procedures. You are liable for the penalty, which you should pay without delay if you
have not already done so.
Do not wait for the Enforcement Authority to contact you. If you do not pay the penalty promptly, the
Enforcement Authority may issue a Charge Certificate increasing the penalty by 50%. 

@H C Andersen did you get a chance to read the decision?