Here’s my reps for the nto
I parked at approximately [time] in a bay governed by the sign shown in the attached image. During that time, the bay permitted Blue Badge holders to park without time restriction (within the 07:00–19:00 pay and display/business permit hours), which I correctly interpreted, so I displayed my valid Blue Badge.
However, after 19:00, the bay becomes restricted as a single yellow line, and Blue Badge holders may only park for up to 3 hours provided a parking clock is also displayed. I was unaware of this transition. As a result, while my badge was clearly displayed, I did not display the clock, not realising the restriction had changed.
I returned to my car at 20:00 to find the PCN issued at 19:27 — just 27 minutes after the restriction changed, and well within the allowed 3-hour Blue Badge exemption.
⸻
Grounds for Challenge
⸻
1. Signage is Confusing and Inadequate
The signage (see photo) is not sufficiently clear about the change in restrictions after 19:00. It primarily highlights pay-by-phone and permit holder regulations, with a small yellow sign above referring to Mon–Sat “Midnight–7am, 7pm–Midnight” restrictions.
The bay is physically marked as a parking bay — yet after 19:00 it reverts to single yellow line restrictions. A driver seeing a parking bay with signs referencing parking and pay-by-phone would not expect a sudden switch to a yellow-line rule after 7pm. This is ambiguous and fails to adequately convey the transition in restriction type.
This contravenes Regulation 18 of The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, which states:
“The order-making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road.”
As established in Camden v. The Parking Adjudicator (Moses LJ), signage must clearly convey the operational rules to the reasonable driver. In this case, it does not.
⸻
2. Badge Was Valid, and Contravention Was Technical and Non-Prejudicial
Under the Blue Badge Scheme Guidance (DfT, 2011), badge holders may park on single yellow lines for up to 3 hours if no obstruction is caused and the badge and time clock are displayed. I fully complied with the spirit and function of this exemption — I was parked for less than 3 hours, caused no obstruction, and displayed my valid badge.
My sole omission was not displaying the clock — a technical oversight, made due to the misleading signage and misunderstanding of the restriction switch. There was no attempt to evade restrictions or overstay.
Adjudicators have accepted in many similar cases — such as Case 2110072817 (PATAS) — that minor omissions (like not displaying the clock where the badge is shown and no overstay has occurred) can render enforcement disproportionate, especially where no public interest is served by penalising the motorist.
⸻
3. Procedural Impropriety – Failure to Consider Representations
My initial informal representations were rejected with a template response that failed to address the specific grounds I raised. This breaches Paragraph 85 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 Operational Guidance, which requires that authorities:
“give proper consideration to the representations and respond to the motorist’s points.”
This amounts to a procedural impropriety, which is grounds for cancellation.
⸻
4. Proportionality
The PCN does not serve a deterrent or regulatory function in this case. The badge was valid. The duration was lawful. The mistake — not displaying the clock — did not result in overstay or abuse of the scheme.
It is disproportionate to penalise a disabled badge holder for a technical oversight caused by unclear signage.
⸻
Conclusion
I respectfully request the cancellation of this PCN on the following grounds:
• The signage was confusing and failed to convey the change in restriction clearly.
• I was parked legally under Blue Badge rules but inadvertently omitted the clock — a technical, not substantive, contravention.
• No overstay occurred.
• The council failed to properly consider my initial informal appeal.
• Enforcement in this case is disproportionate and contrary to the intent of the Blue Badge Scheme.
If this appeal is rejected, I request a full and reasoned response to each point raised and intend to take the matter to the independent adjudicator if necessary.
