Author Topic: Wakefield Wood Street - Parking in Permit Holders Only Bay  (Read 19 times)

cyrilljww and 54 Guests are viewing this topic.

NOTICE OF REJECTION OF INFORMAL CHALLENGE
The Traffic Management Act 2004 s78
Penalty Charge Notice Number: WP10696770
Date of Contravention: 30/04/2026 at 14:27
Location: Wood Street, Wakefield

Parking in Permit Holders Bay

Dear Sir / Madam,

Thank you for the letter dated 12th June 2026 - Notice of Rejection of Representations.
I strongly disagree with the allegation made in the letter - “parking in a permitted space without displaying a valid permit” and there are quite a few reasons why the vehicle was genuinely believed to be lawfully parked having displayed an eligible permit on Wood Street within the permit holders bay.

On the day of the PCN issuance, the car did have a valid Blue Disability Badge permit on clear display and it was at all times our understanding that such a permit is eligible throughout the Wakefield town centre given the nature of the road restriction and language used on the signage. The road markings and signage on Wood street itself was worn unclear and therefore ambiguous.

Given the attached evidence articles and references in relation to the Wakefield Pedestrian Zone, it can be seen that there is a similar restriction in operation (see photo of the sign order restriction). The restriction states explicitly: “Pedestrian Zone. No vehicular access except for buses, permit holders and loading.” Myself along with many other Blue Disability Badge permit holders have accessed and navigated the Pedestrian Zone for at least the past 5 years - the only way of doing so is by driving in the zone itself; but solely on the advice of the local traffic wardens and their own understanding of the local sign restrictions and orders and they independently have confirmed their understanding of the term "Permit Holders." To be clear the local traffic wardens have on a multitude of occasions advised on the scope of "Permit Holders" in relation to the Pedestrian zone and generalisation of Wakefield town centre. Furthermore within the Pedestrian Zone itself there are dedicated parking spaces specifically for Blue Disability Badge permit holders (see photo of the signs). This would ensure that a car navigating within the Pedestrian Zone is lawful and permitted in accordance with the road signs restriction orders and markings.

Attached are various examples of vehicles displaying the relevant Blue Disability Badge permit whilst parked compliantly on Lower Warrengate, Westmorland Street and the Springs located within the Pedestrian Zone (see photos). These vehicles are parked here within the Pedestrian Zone under the granted exemption of qualifying under the eligible permit holders language used in the restriction order. The only way to navigate a vehicle into these streets is to actively drive a car into the street on the basis of the road signage and explicit exemption permissible for permit holders (in this case a Blue Disability Badge permit).

My understanding is that having consulted with a multitude of the patrolling local traffic wardens over the past 5 years; that an eligible permit holder does include local residents with relevant issued permit, business premise owners within the zone, contractors performing duties with the relevant permit and Blue Disability Badge permit holders.
Therefore the local patrol wardens understand that wherever the road restriction signage uses “Permit Holders” then an eligible permit includes the Blue Disability Badge. This is why there have been zero PCNs issued in relation to inappropriate use of a Blue Disability Badge permit within the Pedestrian Zone to date by any traffic warden and confirmed by the Wakefield Council enforcement team and furthermore via a Freedom of Information Act request (see attached email).
Furthermore, Wakefield Cathedral (a government owned entity) has similar guidance on parking matters in the context of eligibility of Blue Disability Badge permit holders and corroborates the permit eligibility status (see website image - this guidance clearly states that parking access is permitted within the Pedestrian Zone given the use of a Blue Disability Badge permit). Please also see the email from the Wakefield Council Legal team following a Subject Access Request to seek information on the upholding of the Road Traffic Act and local planning laws within Wakefield centre. Clearly, an eligible permit does include a Blue Disability Badge permit for the cases outlined and appears to be the case within the local planning laws.

If Wakefield Council were to enforce the PCN it potentially would be a matter of inconsistent application of the Road Traffic Act regulations given the evidences, emails and sources of information provided as outlined above and uneven application of the law.
If the term “permit holders” apply to one particular set of roads and for the eligibility to include Blue Disability Badge permit holders and then for another road only 50 meters away for the same to not then apply - this is a direct conflict and 2 tiered legal framework. The road signs should be made much more clear and unambiguous given my understanding of these circumstances because there are contradicting narratives being provided by Wakefield Council itself, the signage used and the sources of information contained within my appeal.
This means that application of the legal terms would not be uniformly consistently applied across Wakefield town centre and therefore it would have subjective meaning across the entirety of Wakefield (which I hope would not be applicable).

Given that this is my first PCN and combined with the evidences provided I would like to think that Wakefield Council would be willing to cancel this for a first time offender of such a restriction.
My understanding was and always has been that whenever the term “Permit Holders” is used under the Road Traffic Act and Local Planning Law restrictions within Wakefield, then that would include a Blue Disability Badge permit holder as being eligible. I am generally a considerate person and do engage with the local traffic wardens over the years and they each did independently confirm the same perspective on the eligibility scope of "Permit Holders." If they are mistaken or they have conveyed incorrect information then I can only apologise.

Kind Regards,
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 07:52:24 pm by cyrilljww »

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


Re: Wakefield Wood Street - Parking in Permit Holders Only Bay
« Reply #1 on: »
Sorry, but I have to ask why, when your informal challenge to a PCN served, (presumably), has been rejected, you have written back to them. They are under no legal obligation to respond to your second informal submission.

The enforcement process is that if you want to take the matter further, you must wait for the Notice to Owner, and submit a formal representation against this. This begs the question - are you the owner, and is the address on your V5C Registration Certificate up-to-date.

Assuming you are the owner, at the NtO stage the discount option is lost, although many councils do re-offer it when rejecting formal representations. If representations against an NtO are rejected, and no re-offer of the discount is made, then it becomes a complete no-brainer, to take them to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, because the penalty remains the same, and there are no additional costs.

Therefore to help us, please post up the PCN, all sides, and your original representations. Redact nothing except name and address on all documents you post. We don't often see PCNs from outside London, and the "small print" on them can sometimes be so wrong as to make it void. PCN content is mandated in regulations, hence the need to see all of it.

Re: Wakefield Wood Street - Parking in Permit Holders Only Bay
« Reply #2 on: »
Apologies, a bit misleading initial post. That post was actually the Tribunal representations in the initial post.

My informal challenge was rejected by Wakefield Council - probably because I was being a bit brash with them because their online document upload process is entirely not functional:

"Hello,

Missing evidence as your website is corrupted, has an error, not functional and not fit for purpose.
If there are inadequate road markings, causing known interpretation problems because the road markings are unclear and not marked properly and especially for a person with a known disability then that's the Council's own fault for being incompetent at maintaining the road.

Regards"

To give more wider context, and not to go off on a tangent too much, this alleged offence is somewhat interrelated with another PCN (which was cancelled by the Police) because there appears to be conflicting road restrictions specifically in the Pedestrian Only Zone: part of which is owned by the Police and the other part owned by the Council and "nobody wants to own up to it." Dare I say it that due to the Police cancelling the PCN they have admitted that the road signage is incorrect. One party is assigning blame to the other party.
Since there appears to be a road signage error, like on an exam paper where you get "Error Carried Forward" this is affecting other parts of the Road Traffic Order restrictions, specifically on the definition of "Permit Holders."

I know this doesnt help you and the other experts, but I dont have the full PCN actual document with me right now. Can I try to describe the nature of the PCN in question itself?