Free Traffic Legal Advice

A BB is not a clock.

Can anyone else offer their input please?

@cp8759

What is the date of the NOR. The discount was time-limited and if it's expired then you might as well go to tribunal.

So should I just pay? 

Hi all. I found the councils own cancellation policy. Please see point 6 on page 6. Do I have a case? AI seems to think I have a strong case? lol

Here is AI’s defence write up:


Grounds for Appeal

1. Procedural Impropriety (Failure to consider evidence, baseless criminal allegation). 
2. Inadequate Signage (Sign failed to specify Blue Badge clock requirement after 19:00). 
3. Council’s Failure to Apply Own Policy (Valid Blue Badge held but clock not displayed). 
4. Misapplication of Blue Badge Law (Badge used lawfully with holder present). 

Detailed Arguments

1. Procedural Impropriety & False Allegation
The council’s rejection letter falsely alleged Blue Badge "misuse" – a criminal accusation. This is unlawful because: 
- Regulation 9(1)(b) of the Disabled Persons (Badges for Vehicles) Regulations 2000 permits use of the badge by a third party when the disabled person is present.
- Fact: My mother (the badge holder) was in the vehicle during the journey and parking. 
- The council provided no evidence of misuse and ignored this statutory exemption. This prejudiced the entire process. 

2. Legally Deficient Signage
The sign at the location breaches TSRGD 2016:
- It states restrictions for "Business permit holders" and "Pay by phone" after 19:00 but omits all information about Blue Badge concessions. 
- No mention that a parking clock must be displayed alongside the Blue Badge after 19:00. 
- Legal Precedent: 
  >Where signage fails to specify a condition (e.g., clock display), the penalty is unenforceable."
  > Moses v Barnet LBC [2005] EWHC 1900 (Admin) 
A reasonable person would assume displaying the Blue Badge alone was sufficient (as in daytime pay-and-display bays). 

3. Council’s Breach of Cancellation Policy
Tower Hamlets’ own [Policy: Cancellation of PCNs (p.6, §6)](553208338-Tower-Hamlets-Council-Policy-Cancellation-of-PCNs.pdf) states: 
> The Council will consider using its discretion to cancel the PCN... [if] the motorist had a valid permit or other required item... but the item was not displayed.
- I held a valid Blue Badge and was entitled to park for 3 hours on single yellow lines. 
- The only failure was not displaying the clock – a minor technical oversight covered by this policy. 
- The council’s refusal to exercise discretion was unreasonable and irrational.

4. De Minimis Breach
- The PCN was issued at 19:27– just 27 minutes after restrictions began. 
- I had substantive entitlement to park under Blue Badge rules. 
- Penalising a technical oversight ignores the spirit of the law (*Davies v Camden LBC*). 

---

Remedy Sought
Cancel the PCN because: 
1. The badge was used legally (holder present). 
2. Signage failed to warn of the clock requirement. 
3. The council breached its policy by not cancelling for a forgotten item. 
4. The "misuse" allegation tainted the process with procedural unfairness. 

Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Going by their own cancellation policy, they should cancel first time offences for blue badge users. So I don’t get why you’d need a separate SYL policy?

To quote their policy:

“When in a place that requires a permit, scratchcard, pay & display ticket,
Disabled Person's Badge or any other item to be displayed in the vehicle, that
item must be displayed so that all details are clearly visible. If a CEO cannot see
all the details then a PCN may be issued. It is not a defence against a PCN
simply to possess an item. If the item can be produced with the representations,
however, and was valid at the time of the contravention then the Council will
consider using its discretion to cancel the PCN. In general, discretion will only be
applied once.”

So the blue badge was valid at the time, only mistake being clock missing. Only contention would be if more than 3 hours of the allowed time had elapsed. However, since the PCN was issued at 1927, this was only 27 minutes into the allowed 3 hours, using common sense you’d comfortably say that 3 hours hadn’t been violated.

So the council could easily have cancelled had they implemented their own cancellation policy.

Document is attached to my post with the AI written appeal. Ive attached it here again. I think you’re now stretching. It said “place” not “parking bay”. So the “place” was a SYL. It required a blue badge and so on.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Then you must take this to the adjudicator who is the arbiter in this matter. IMO, given that this policy gives effect to the council's intention to 'have regard to' the Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance issued pursuant to s87 of the TMA then the council has failed to comply because what you've posted is out of date. It states 'Next review - April 2018'.

The previous Stat Guidance(and non-stat Operational Guidance) were withdrawn in 2022. There is now only Stat Guidance: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-enforcing-parking-restrictions

IMO, your argument that the council did not exercise discretion in your favour is flawed anyway - the policy states 'these guidelines do not replace the exercise of discretion'. IMO, as you're past the discount date and should appeal then you would be on stronger ground with the council's failure to comply with their duty under s87(2) of the TMA which would be a 'procedural impropriety':

2) A “procedural impropriety” means a failure by an enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed on it by[in this case]-

(a)the TMA 2004,

Sorry I didn’t quite understand what you meant? Please could you clarify regarding the procedural impropriety