Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: cyrilljww on July 24, 2026, 07:50:34 pm
-
I LOVE this forum, thank you so much for all who help contribute in the name of fairness & justice, we all appreciate your help.
Thank you to all.
-
Please see review decision rejection basis:
Mr XXXXXX, representing Mrs XXXXXX, applies for the review of the appeal decision, dated 7th August 2026, in the interests of justice.
An application for review is not however a further appeal or an opportunity to repeat submissions, it is a process of review; an assessment as to whether the appeal adjudicator’s decision was wholly unreasonable on the evidence submitted by the parties.
The core issue in this case was whether the motorist was adequately alerted to the requirements of the permit space in Wood Street. The adjudicator has properly addressed this at paragraphs 22-24 of the written decision. The adjudicator’s reasonable conclusion is supported by the evidence showing the marked bay and the restriction sign (at evidence tab 2, 18 and 25). The vehicle can be seen parked directly adjacent to the sign advising that the bay is reserved for permit holders only.
As explained by the adjudicator at paragraph 20 of the written decision, the badge holder is advised of requirements in the government’s booklet: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-blue-badge-scheme-rights-and-responsibilities-in-england
The blue badge concession does not apply in the permit bay at this location. This was also properly explained to Mr and Mrs XXXXXX by the council in its letter dated 1st May 2026 (at evidence tab 16) and in the detailed Notice of Rejection document dated 12th June 2026 (at evidence tab 24).
Mr XXXXXX explains that representations regarding his successful challenge to a moving traffic contravention caused him to believe that he was a “permit holder” for the purposes of parking in a permit bay but this mistaken belief amounts to mitigation rather than a ground of appeal. The adjudicator’s reference to the pedestrian zone at paragraph 12 has in any event no impact on the appeal outcome. The same applies to Mr XXXXXX reliance on other vehicles that he considers to have been parked in contravention.
As noted at paragraph 32 -33 of the written decision, the adjudicator had no power to take the mitigation circumstances raised by Mr XXXXXX into account. This applies at the appeal and review stages of these proceedings.
A contravention having occurred, I can identify no proper reason for revisiting the justly determined appeal.
The application for a review is rejected.
The appeal remains refused for the cogent reasons provided to the parties on 7th August 2026.
-
Pl post the response.
-
Rejected review of the decision.
Typical, yet expected IMHO.
Council running low on money almost bankrupt, and Wakefield Town Centre is almost as dead as the Dodo itself.
Will only be downhill from here.
-
I wish you well.
-
I submitted a request to review the Tribunal decision as follows:
Grounds for Review I respectfully request a review of the adjudicator's decision on the basis that the interests of justice require a review. I am not seeking a review simply because I disagree with the conclusion reached. Nor am I seeking to re-argue that a Blue Badge is universally synonymous with a Council-issued parking permit. I accept that the Traffic Regulation Order ("TRO") distinguishes between a Council-issued parking permit and a disabled person's Blue Badge. My submission is instead that a central part of my original case appears to have been misunderstood, and that this misunderstanding materially affected the adjudicator's treatment of evidence concerning the adjoining Wakefield pedestrian zone and the meaning and practical application of the words "permit holders" within the local traffic environment.
I did not submit that Wood Street was within the pedestrian zone The adjudicator states: "I am satisfied that Wood Street is not located within a pedestrian zone and, accordingly, I must conclude that Mr xxxxxx is mistaken in this regard and that any references to the same are irrelevant." With respect, this is not what I submitted. At no point was my case that Wood Street itself was situated within the pedestrian zone. My case was that the pedestrian zone is a separate nearby restriction, and that the way in which the Council's "permit holders" exemption operates and is represented within that pedestrian zone was relevant evidence when considering how the same terminology was understood and applied within Wakefield town centre. The geographical location of Wood Street was therefore not the issue. The relevance of the pedestrian-zone evidence was evidential rather than geographical. I relied upon the pedestrian-zone arrangements because: the pedestrian-zone entry signage expressly refers to an exemption for "permit holders"; Blue Badge holders have historically accessed the pedestrian zone; designated Blue Badge parking exists within the pedestrian zone; I had been advised by local enforcement personnel over a prolonged period that Blue Badge holders were understood to fall within the relevant permit-holder access arrangements; I supplied evidence of other Blue Badge holders accessing and parking within the zone; and importantly, I supplied correspondence relating to a separate enforcement matter in which West Yorkshire Police ultimately cancelled a Notice of Intended Prosecution concerning access to that pedestrian zone. Accordingly, I respectfully submit that the finding that I was "mistaken" about Wood Street being within the pedestrian zone is based upon a misunderstanding of my submission.
The pedestrian-zone evidence was not relied upon to establish that the Blue Badge was legally a permit under the Wood Street TRO I wish to make this distinction particularly clear. I accept the adjudicator's finding that the Wood Street TRO defines a Council-issued "permit" separately from a disabled person's Blue Badge. My argument was not that the Blue Badge Scheme legislation automatically converts a Blue Badge into a Council parking permit. Rather, my argument was that the Council's local signage, access arrangements, enforcement practice and information given to motorists provided an objectively reasonable basis for my understanding that the expression "permit holders", when used in the relevant Wakefield town-centre context, encompassed Blue Badge holders for the purposes of the particular access arrangements with which I had become familiar. That is a different question from whether a Blue Badge is, as a matter of definition within Article 7 of the TRO, a Council-issued parking permit. The distinction is important because the two questions were effectively conflated in the decision.
The relevance of signage and the information conveyed to motorists The Court of Appeal considered the importance of adequate traffic information in: R (Herron & another) v The Parking Adjudicator & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 905. That case concerned the enforceability of parking restrictions and irregularities in traffic signage. The Court of Appeal adopted a purposive approach and considered whether the traffic arrangements adequately informed the motorist of the relevant restriction. The Court also considered whether deficiencies could mislead a road user. I do not rely upon Herron as establishing that a Blue Badge is a permit. It does not do so. I rely upon it for the narrower proposition that the practical question in relation to traffic signing is whether the restriction was adequately conveyed to the motorist and whether the traffic arrangements could mislead the motorist as to the significance or operation of the restriction. Similarly, in Hassan v Director of Public Prosecutions [1992] RTR 209, the absence of adequate information on a parking sign was sufficient for the relevant enforcement to fail. That authority was subsequently considered in Herron. In the present case, the issue is not simply whether the sign immediately adjacent to my vehicle contained the words "permit holders only". I accept that it did. The issue is whether the Council's wider traffic-signing and enforcement arrangements, considered in context, created a reasonable and objectively understandable basis for my interpretation of the term "permit holders", particularly given the treatment of Blue Badge holders elsewhere within the same town-centre traffic environment.
The West Yorkshire Police evidence The adjudicator stated that the police correspondence: "appears to relate to a moving traffic offence within a pedestrian zone" and that there were: "insufficient details on the circumstances of the incident or any explanation as to why the matter was not proceeded with by the police." I respectfully submit that the police correspondence should be considered in its proper context. The correspondence shows that I contemporaneously raised with West Yorkshire Police the precise issue concerning the pedestrian-zone signage and the permit-holder exemption. In my correspondence of 30 July 2024 I explained that I had displayed my Blue Badge and had relied upon the pedestrian-zone signage, which expressly identified a permit-holder exemption. I also explained that I had been lawfully parked within the pedestrian zone and therefore needed to travel through the zone in order to leave it. The police matter was subsequently cancelled. On 1 October 2025, West Yorkshire Police confirmed: "Please be advised that this matter has been cancelled on our systems and therefore no further action required." I do not contend that this cancellation creates a binding legal precedent or, by itself, proves that a Blue Badge is legally a Council parking permit. Rather, it is relevant corroborative evidence that the interpretation I relied upon was not an argument manufactured after the issue of my PCN. It was an interpretation which I had contemporaneously raised with another enforcement authority in relation to the same pedestrian-zone signage and access arrangements. The cancellation therefore forms part of the evidential background against which the reasonableness of my understanding should be assessed.
The distinction between legal definition and reasonable interpretation I respectfully submit that the decision places considerable weight upon the proposition that the TRO defines a "permit" separately from a Blue Badge. That proposition is not disputed. However, the existence of a technical definition within the TRO does not necessarily answer the separate question of whether the Council's signage and practical enforcement arrangements adequately communicated that distinction to motorists. My understanding did not arise from an assertion that the national Blue Badge Scheme automatically overrides permit-holder restrictions. It arose from the particular circumstances of Wakefield town centre, including: the wording of the pedestrian-zone signage; the existence of Blue Badge parking within that zone; longstanding access by Blue Badge holders; advice I had received from local enforcement personnel; the apparent treatment of Blue Badge holders as eligible to access the zone; the police correspondence and subsequent cancellation; and information published or displayed by local organisations concerning Blue Badge access and parking. The cumulative effect of these matters is materially different from a motorist simply ignoring a clearly signed "permit holders only" restriction.
The treatment of the pedestrian-zone evidence as "irrelevant" I respectfully submit that this is the most significant issue requiring review. The adjudicator's reasoning was: Wood Street is not within the pedestrian zone → therefore the pedestrian-zone evidence is irrelevant. That reasoning does not address the argument actually advanced. My argument was: The pedestrian zone is a separate restriction ; its "permit holders" exemption is evidence of how that terminology was being interpreted and applied within the same local traffic environment - that evidence is relevant to the reasonableness of my understanding of the restriction. The first proposition is geographical. The second is evidential. I respectfully submit that the latter was my actual case. Had the pedestrian-zone evidence been considered on that basis, rather than dismissed because Wood Street was outside the pedestrian zone, the Tribunal would have been able to consider whether the Council's wider arrangements created an objectively reasonable basis for my interpretation.
The cancelled police matter should not be treated as proving the law, but as evidence requiring consideration For completeness, I do not suggest that a police officer's decision to discontinue an NIP changes the TRO. Nor do I suggest that actions of other motorists establish a legal right to park. The evidence is relied upon cumulatively. The question is whether a motorist, confronted with the Council's signage and the established local arrangements, could reasonably have understood the term "permit holders" in the way I did. The police cancellation is one part of that evidential picture. The pedestrian-zone signage, Blue Badge parking arrangements, local enforcement advice and other evidence form the remainder.
The distinction between the Wood Street parking restriction and the pedestrian-zone access restriction I respectfully acknowledge that the Council is legally capable of creating different restrictions on adjoining streets. My case is not that two nearby restrictions must necessarily have identical legal exemptions. My case is that where the same authority uses the expression "permit holders" in a nearby and related access restriction, while Blue Badge holders are apparently permitted to rely upon that exemption in practice, the distinction between the two regimes needs to be conveyed sufficiently clearly if the Council intends the same expression to have materially different practical meanings. That is particularly important where the motorist's understanding was based upon the Council's own local traffic arrangements rather than upon an attempt to disregard the restriction.
Mitigation is not the sole basis of this request I note the adjudicator's conclusion that the circumstances might amount to mitigation but that the Council had considered and rejected mitigation. I am not asking the Tribunal simply to substitute its view for the Council's exercise of discretion. The request is based upon the more fundamental issue that the evidence concerning the pedestrian-zone arrangements was relevant to the circumstances in which I interpreted the restriction, but appears to have been dismissed on the basis of a factual misunderstanding of my submission. This is therefore not merely an application for leniency. It is a request that the Tribunal reconsider the decision in the interests of justice because a material part of the case was not considered on the basis on which it was actually advanced.
Request For the reasons above, I respectfully request that the adjudicator's decision be reviewed. In particular, I respectfully ask the Tribunal to reconsider: whether my submission regarding the pedestrian zone was misunderstood; whether the pedestrian-zone evidence was incorrectly treated as irrelevant solely because Wood Street itself is outside that zone; the evidential significance of the pedestrian-zone "permit holders" exemption and the treatment of Blue Badge holders within that regime; the significance of the West Yorkshire Police correspondence and cancellation; whether the cumulative evidence provided an objectively reasonable basis for my understanding of the local restrictions; and whether, in those circumstances, the interests of justice require the original decision to be reviewed. I fully recognise that a Blue Badge does not universally confer a right to park in a permit-holder-only bay. That is not the proposition I am asking the Tribunal to accept. Rather, I respectfully ask the Tribunal to consider whether, in the particular circumstances of Wakefield town centre, the Council's signage, access arrangements and enforcement practice conveyed sufficiently clear information to enable a motorist to understand the distinction which the Council now seeks to rely upon. I acted in good faith, displayed a valid Blue Badge openly and relied upon an interpretation of the local restrictions which was based upon the way those restrictions appeared to operate in practice. I therefore respectfully request that the appeal be reviewed and that the PCN be cancelled, or alternatively that the matter be reconsidered in light of the material misunderstanding identified
Ground for review: The interests of justice require a review I respectfully request a review because a material part of my original submission appears to have been misunderstood by the adjudicator, and that misunderstanding materially affected the way the evidence concerning the Wakefield pedestrian zone was considered. I did not submit that Wood Street was within the pedestrian zone. My submission was that the pedestrian zone is a separate nearby restriction and that the way the Council's "permit holders" exemption was signed and operated there was relevant evidence when considering how that terminology was understood and applied within the wider Wakefield town-centre traffic environment. The adjudicator's decision states that I was "mistaken" because Wood Street is not within the pedestrian zone and consequently concludes that my references to the pedestrian zone were irrelevant. This appears to misunderstand the actual basis of my submission. The relevance of the pedestrian-zone evidence was evidential, not geographical. I accept that the Wood Street TRO makes a distinction between a Council-issued parking permit and a Blue Badge. I am not asking the Tribunal to find that a Blue Badge is universally synonymous with a Council parking permit. My submission is instead that the Council's local signage, access arrangements and enforcement practice provided an objectively reasonable basis for my understanding of the term "permit holders", particularly in circumstances where Blue Badge holders have been permitted to access the adjoining pedestrian zone and use designated Blue Badge parking within it. I also provided evidence concerning a separate Notice of Intended Prosecution issued by West Yorkshire Police in connection with the pedestrian-zone restrictions. The correspondence demonstrates that I contemporaneously raised the precise issue of the pedestrian-zone "permit holder" exemption and my reliance upon my Blue Badge. West Yorkshire Police subsequently confirmed that the matter had been cancelled and that no further action was required. I do not rely upon that cancellation as creating a binding legal precedent or as proving that a Blue Badge is legally a Council parking permit. I rely upon it as corroborative evidence that my interpretation of the local traffic arrangements was not an argument subsequently manufactured to challenge this PCN, but was an interpretation that I had contemporaneously raised with another enforcement authority. The issue therefore remains whether the Council's signage and wider local traffic arrangements conveyed sufficiently clear information to a motorist, in the particular circumstances, to understand the distinction which the Council now seeks to rely upon. I respectfully submit that the adjudicator's finding that Wood Street was not within the pedestrian zone does not answer that question and should not have resulted in the pedestrian-zone evidence being treated as irrelevant. The interests of justice therefore require the decision to be reviewed so that this evidence can be considered on the basis upon which it was actually submitted.
-
YOu have come to the end of the enforcement process and lost. Of course you can request a review, but with your appeal claiming that a BB entitles you to park in "permit only" bays and that the TRO is invalid, neither of which is true in law, you were just asking to be rejected.
However, whilst you can request a review, but it won't necessarily be granted. The final place is to seek a Judicial Review where the financial implications could get very large as this is a court of law where the loser pays the costs of the winner.
I think you just have to accept you were wrong.
-
Please could Incandescent or Stamfordman provide an opinion if possible?
I would just like to understand my chances of making a successful review of the Tribunal decision, given that there seems to be inconsistent information and signage, but it would be better to have some sort of legal case precedent to analogue from perhaps?
Thanks for your help to all.
-
Thank you for your help tincombe and I fully understand your point of view.
Perhaps any other super user/knowledgable person could kindly provide another opinion on the matter?
A legal precedent case might help too if any is known.
-
I cannot add to what I've already posted.
The decision is yours, whether to request a review, but the tribunal's whether to accept.
-
I could be wrong, but I feel that since the Police cancelled the FPN related to the "Pedestrian Zone: No vehicular access except for buses, and ""permit holders"" on the basis that the "permit holders" part includes Blue Disability Badge holder permit as in scope of the exemption, with the police stating that the signage is incorrect as the reason.
If the signage is incorrect (and the council have let it stay this way for over 5 years) and then for many Blue Badge Disability badge holders to have a common understanding that navigating a vehicle within the Pedestrian Zone (with the Blue Disability Badge permit) as being compliant behaviour (seemingly under the allowance of being a "permit holder"), then how can it be that the term "Permit Holders" does not not now include the same category of permit eligibility outside of the Pedestrian Zone given that it is the same TRO uniformly applied to Wakefield Town Centre?
And BTW I NEVER claimed that the Permit Holders Only sign was "inside the Pedestrian Zone" - this is simply incorrect on the part of the adjudicator whom has misrepresented that claim.
It seems to be inconsistent and hence the signage is incorrect?
-
You are misleading yourself by simply repeating what you have asserted previously, but which the adjudicator dismissed because there was no compelling evidence in support, in fact as regards the 'police' aspect your correspondence had NOTHING to do with the contravention because there wasn't a PZ.
email correspondence with the police. This appears to relate to a moving traffic offence within a pedestrian zone.
Having viewed the TRO and the map tile, I am satisfied that Wood Street is not located within a pedestrian zone
You are repeating what you advanced at your hearing and this is NOT grounds for a review.
But you are free to apply, of course.
-
Hello,
Thanks for your message.
I would say that each of the following would apply in my humble opinion but I could be wrong:
(b)any decision to determine that a notice of appeal does not accord with paragraph 2 or to dismiss or allow an appeal, or any decision as to costs, on one or more of the following grounds—
(i)the decision was wrongly made as the result of an administrative error;
(ii)the adjudicator was wrong to reject the notice of appeal;
(vi)the interests of justice require such a review.
I would strongly argue that because the sign order/restrictions is incorrect in the particular scenario as outlined and the FPN cancelled by the police, it has set a precedent for other sign order/restrictions to not be consistent on that basis?
Are there any UK Road Traffic case precedents to illustrate if signage has been incorrect it has set the precedent for interrelated signage to be incorrect? Or if there are conflicts of interest between parties over a particular shared common term used on signage and said term to not have consistent scope such that it renders signage ambiguous?
-
See para. 12. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348231564/schedule/1
Which of these grounds apply?
The adjudicator seems to have been thorough in identifying your grounds of appeal, addressing them, making findings of fact and then coming to decisions, sadly not in your favour.
-
Hello,
Would anyone have any suggestions on this adjudication outcome please?
I have the opportunity to request a review of the decision on the Tribunal portal?
Thanks
-
Hello, please see below from the Adjudicator, the appeal is lost.
Mr xxxxx, representing his mother xxxxxxxxxx, took part in a hearing on 24 July 2026. The Council were represented by Mrs Chloe xxxxx.
The Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) was issued for being parked in a permit space or zone without clearly displaying a valid permit.
At the hearing Mr xxxxx offered to submit further evidence in support of his appeal. The Tribunal reserved judgement and granted him extra time to do so. The Council confirmed to the Tribunal that they had viewed the additional evidence submitted by him. The Tribunal has considered all of the evidence submitted to the Tribunal, including the additional evidence submitted by Mr xxxxx.
Mr xxxxx did not dispute that he had parked his mother’s vehicle in a permit holder only parking bay (‘the bay’), located along a section of Wood Street, or that it was her vehicle which was shown in the Civil Enforcement Officer’s (CEO’s) photographs. He ,instead, appealed on three grounds: that the alleged parking contravention did not occur, that the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) was invalid and that the authority had made a procedural error.
Mr xxxxx stated that he had displayed his disabled persons badge (‘blue badge’) in the vehicle at the time the PCN had been issued, which is not disputed by the Council. The central tenet of Mr xxxxx submission is that a blue badge constituted a permit and that consequently, he had been permitted to park his vehicle in the bay. He did not rely upon any legal precedent to support his view but, instead, made the following submissions:
that as a blue badge holder he was entitled to enter the pedestrian zone and supplied a google street view image and photograph in support;
that local traffic wardens had on numerous occasions advised him that permits included blue badges and that he had followed their advice when parking in Wakefield Town Centre (WTC) over the last 5 years;
that other blue badge holders had similarly parked their vehicles in WTC and supplied photographs in support;
that a Wakefield Cathedral sign, a photograph of which he supplied, corroborated his submission;
that a freedom of information act enquiry had confirmed that no PCN had been issued to date for the inappropriate use of a blue badge within the pedestrian zone; and
that the police had accepted that he was permitted to enter the pedestrian zone and utilise his blue badge within it (as per email correspondence supplied).
Mr xxxxx supplied photographs of the location and also submitted that the road markings and signage at the location were worn and unclear, concluding that they were ambiguous.
The Council must, on the balance of probabilities, prove that the contravention occurred.
The Council submit that a valid permit is required to be displayed in the vehicle when using the bay. Regarding Mr xxxxx display of his blue badge in the vehicle, the Council’s position is that permits do not include blue badges and that the display of a blue badge does not exempt vehicles from permit holders only restrictions.
In relation to the TRO, Mr xxxxx made no submission as to how he believed the Order was invalid. The validity of a TRO may only be challenged within six weeks of its creation. In this case, the TRO and its subsequent amendment were enacted on 1 May 2024, with its amending TRO enacted in 2016 and 2024, respectively. They are, therefore, well beyond any challenge period.
The TRO is map based and provides the legal framework for the regulations in force. The map tile supplied by the Council shows a section of WTC which includes Wood Street. Different restrictions within the area are indicated on the map tile by distinct colours and hatched areas. Although the map tile contains a legend or key to the different restriction types, the map also details the restrictions in writing. I have reproduced a section of the map tile (Image 1) and accompanying legend (Image 2).
Image 1 Image 2
The map tile reveals that a permit holder only parking place is indicated by magenta coloured shading whilst a pedestrian zone is indicated by blue hatched markings (such as that shown above in a separate area situated to the south of Wood Street).
Mr xxxxx dos does not state where the two sets of pedestrian zone signage he has supplied are located. Having viewed the TRO and the map tile, I am satisfied that Wood Street is not located within a pedestrian zone and, accordingly, I must conclude that Mr xxxxx is mistaken in this regard and that any references to the same are irrelevant.
Article 7.11 of the TRO details the classes of vehicles authorised to use permit holder only parking bays as being ‘a passenger vehicle, goods vehicle dual purpose vehicle, invalid carriage, or motorcycle (when displaying a valid permit)…’
A permit is defined in the TRO as being ‘a formal document issued by the Council to either a resident, business or visitor of the relevant zone to exempt a vehicle from waiting where a permit holder only restriction applies …’
Article 7.25 of the TRO states that a permit shall bear the word ‘parking permit’ or ‘visitors parking permit’ and details several particulars that are required to be displayed on the permit.
By contrast, the TRO defines a disabled persons badge as being a ‘badge issued by a local authority in the form prescribed by The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Exemptions for Disabled Persons) (England) Regulations 2000.’
Article 10.1 provides that only blue badge holders may park in parking places referred to as ‘disabled badges holder only’ parking places detailed on the map tile.
I find that the TRO makes a clear distinction between permits and blue badges and their operation and, further, that it makes no provision for any overlap in their use.
The issue and use of disabled persons' parking badges is known as the Blue Badge Scheme (‘the scheme’) and is primarily governed by Section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, as well as Sections 115 and 117 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The specific administration, enforcement, and eligibility criteria are detailed in The Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) Regulations 2000, The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Exemptions for Disabled Persons) (England) Regulations 2000 and The Disabled Persons' Parking Badges Act 2013. None of the legislation referred to makes any reference to the blue badge as being a permit. The scheme, instead, grants a parking concession for blue badge holders.
Blue badge holders are advised of their obligations in the scheme rule book known as ‘The Blue Badge Rights and Responsibility booklet’. It includes a list of places blue badge holder are not permitted to park, for example, ‘parking places reserved for specific users such as resident’s bays or loading bays’. This would include permit holder only parking places.
In short, having regard to the above, I am satisfied that a blue badge does not equate to a permit.
Turning to the signage and road markings at the location, I have reproduced one of Mr xxxxx photographs (Image 3) and one of the CEO’s photographs below (Image 4)
Image 3 Image 4
Although I accept that the legend, shown in image 1, is quite worn, the regulations1 provide that, for permit holder parking places, accompanying legends are no longer required. Motorists are alerted to the restriction by signage. In this case, the relevant sign, stating ‘permit holders only’, is sited on a pole immediately to the front nearside of the vehicle. The sign is tilted slightly but, nevertheless, in my view, is fully visible to motorists approaching the location.
On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the signage is adequate to inform motorists that parking in the bay is limited to permit holders.
As I am satisfied that the display of a blue badge by Mr xxxxx in the vehicle did not constitute the display of a valid permit, I find that a contravention occurred.
I note Mr xxxxx reference to advice he states that he has received from traffic wardens, however, he has supplied no supporting evidence in this regard.
The actions of other blue badge holders are irrelevant.
I have viewed the Cathedral signage supplied by Mr xxxxx. I note that it refers to the availability of parking for blue badge holders on Wood Street, however, I note that Image 1 details a separate disabled badge holders parking place (shaded in blue) sited immediately adjacent to the bay. I am satisfied that neither this sign nor the other images of other disabled parking signs supplied by Mr xxxxx, further his cause.
I have also viewed Mr xxxxx email correspondence with the police. This appears to relate to a moving traffic offence within a pedestrian zone. There is a reference to a permit parking within the zone but there are insufficient details on the circumstances of the incident or any explanation as to why the matter was not proceeded with by the police. I find that the email correspondence also does not further Mr xxxxx cause.
In relation to the freedom of information request referred to by Mr xxxxx, the Council stated that they did not hold the information requested. It does not follow that no PCNs were issued. Again, I find that this does not assist Mr xxxxx.
On the evidence before me, I find nothing to suggest that the Council are procedurally in error.
The circumstances described by Mr xxxxx might have amounted to mitigating circumstances for the Council to consider the exercise of their discretion and cancel the penalty charge, however, in this case they have chosen not to do so.
I accept that the Council did consider the mitigating circumstances put to them but that these were rejected. Where mitigation has been considered and rejected, an adjudicator has no power to set this decision aside. I do, therefore, find the contravention proven and refuse the appeal.
Appeal refused.
1Schedule 4 Part 4 Item 2 - The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016
-
Hello,
Just a little update, there is still no decision made by the adjudicator of the Tribunal Hearing which took place on Friday 24th July 2026 conducted over Teams.
I did call the Tribunal appeal hotline and spoke to a clerk last week, but she informed me that there is still no decision (but she would let the adjudicator know that I called) and when it is decided they shall email the decision. I logged into the Tribunal portal and its still at the decision making stage.
Is there a time limit set for adjudication decisions as tomorrow it shall be 2 weeks since the hearing?
Thanks in advance and appreciate everyone's help to date.
-
Here are the original paper ticket PCN details, both sides:
(https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jE-da7_EqgXcaMYuaW-obn9OvLKxr5JE/view?usp=share_link)
(https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ea7V8wo1DnWQma7dPnQ_L5Bg29k6TWyw/view?usp=share_link)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jE-da7_EqgXcaMYuaW-obn9OvLKxr5JE/view?usp=share_link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ea7V8wo1DnWQma7dPnQ_L5Bg29k6TWyw/view?usp=share_link
-
We can look back at what occurred after you receive the decision.
-
Hello,
Still not had a decision by the Tribunal even though the adjudicator suggested there were no grounds for appeal. That was until I showed the adjudicator the West Yorkshire Police cancelling the Fixed Penalty Notice relating to the Pedestrian Only Zone with the exemption for Permit Holders (on the basis of the Blue Disability Badge permit being eligible).
I still don't have the original physical document PCN with me just yet, but when I do, I shall upload it at the earliest opportunity.
Here is what Wakefield Council claim on the Tribunal portal:
"The vehicle was parked in a permit holders only parking bay as detailed on the nearby signs and there was no valid permit on display in the vehicle, which is why the PCN was issued. The Council accepts that there is a disabled badge on display in the vehicle, however the disabled badge does not exempt vehicles from permit holders only restrictions.
The Council agree that the words that were written on the highway are worn, however the lines demarcating the bay are clear. There is also a clear upright sign that reads “Permit holders only” and the vehicle was parked adjacent to this signage. The signage which covers this permit holders only parking bay meets the requirements of The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016.
Mr xxxxxx has referred to different traffic restriction signs for pedestrian zones in Wakefield City Centre. These signs read “Pedestrian Zone, except for buses, permit holders and loading.” The Council understands that one of the grounds of the appeal is that Mr xxxxxx believes disabled badge holders are exempt from these moving traffic restrictions, meaning they would be included as a "permit holder, " therefore Mr xxxx believes the term "permit holder" would include disabled badge holders in relation to parking restrictions also.
Disabled badge holders are not exempt from this moving traffic restriction, therefore the term "permit holder" does not include them in this situation either. If disabled badge holders are exempt from a moving traffic restriction, this would be specified on the signage as “Disabled badge holders”. The Council understands Mr xxxxxx says he and other disabled badge holders have driven through pedestrian areas several times to park and has provided a photo of what appears to be an off-street parking area within one of the pedestrian areas. The Council understands Mr xxxxx says that traffic wardens have advised him that he can drive through a pedestrian zone, though not exempt. Whilst the Council cannot confirm if this is the case, Civil Enforcement Officers (CEO)s are not expected to offer advice on whether vehicles can drive through a moving traffic restriction as they do not enforce these restrictions. CEOs are also aware that a Disabled Badge does not exempt vehicles from parking in permit holders only parking places and it is unlikely that they would advise a motorist otherwise.
Moving traffic restriction enforcement is the responsibility of the Police; If disabled badge holders have driven through a pedestrian area and with no exemption and have not received a penalty from the Police, this does not mean it is allowed. The Council believes this ascertains that there is no evidence of inconsistent use of language by the Council, particularly with the term “permit holder” when referring to traffic management.
Mr xxxx states 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". Having viewed the response to the FOI request, it appears Mr xxxxx was advised the Council did not hold this information; This does not mean there were 0 PCNs recorded but it means the Council could not provide the information that had requested.
The screenshot showing the Wakefield Cathedral website is not controlled by Parking Services and therefore does not have any bearing on this case. However, the Council advise again that whilst vehicles are exempt from certain parking restrictions when displaying a disabled badge in the correct manner, this does not mean they can contravene a moving traffic restriction to do so.
Evidence number 28 shows the Traffic Regulation Order for waiting restrictions and street parking places. Part VII, 7.25 details the form of a permit.
PCNs issued for parking contraventions are issued under the Traffic Management Act 2004 and the Council do not agree that there has been any inconsistent application of this. PCNs for parking contraventions are not issued under Planning Law. Mr xxxxxx's evidence does not show the Council advising that a Disabled Badge holder is classed as a permit holder.
To conclude, the Council are not aware of any part of the Traffic Regulation Order that classifies a Disabled Badge holder as a Permit Holder.
The Council understands that the appellant may not have intended to park in contravention, and appreciates it may be a first offence, however the Council do not consider this as grounds to cancel the PCN, should the adjudicator find that the contravention occurred."
-
Yes there was an adjudication hearing yesterday.
When you get the result, please post it here.
-
Typo from above apologies and clarification:
((Police) Criminal Law) Statutory Civil Fixed Penalty Notice For violation of restriction: “Pedestrian Zone. No vehicular access except for buses, permit holders and loading.” - This FPN was cancelled because of the road signage error (on the basis of eligibility of the permit (Blue Disability Badge Permit))
((Council) Civil Law) Restriction Permit Holders Only offence “parking in a permitted space without displaying a valid permit” - This PCN is still under dispute.
-
Ok, I will upload the documents when I am able to be hopefully over this weekend (just they aren't physically with me at present as I didn't take photos of them yet).
But, you have hit the crux of the matter:
((Police) Criminal Law) Statutory Civil Penalty of Fixed Penalty Notice For violation of restriction: “Pedestrian Zone. No vehicular access except for buses, permit holders and loading.” - This FPN was cancelled because of the road signage error (specifically on the basis of the permit holders eligibility)
(Council) Civil Law) Restriction Permit Holders Only offence “parking in a permitted space without displaying a valid permit” - This PCN is still under dispute.
So there is an apparent conflict over the common term used here "Permit Holders" which is reflected on the road signage restrictions, namely you cannot have such signage on display and have it have different scope because it would be determined in the local authority TRO if I am not mistaken (i.e. a common generic term)? If there is a precedent set for the definition scope of "Permit Holders" it must be consistent? Otherwise it would be ambiguous. The way how they would reduce the potential for ambiguity would be like they do in London where they would qualify the exact type of Permit on the road signage itself (for example type M, P1, L etc for residents whom reside in a specific geographical postcode) - something which in this case Wakefield Council didn't do on the road sign in question (its generically stated Permit Holders Only (without qualifying the permit type))
Yes there was an adjudication hearing yesterday.
-
+1, but for your benefit:
Traffic Orders create restrictions;
Reg. 18 of this requires such restrictions to be signed adequately: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/contents
Part V (specifically s64) of this specifies 'traffic signs': https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/contents
These are the applicable regulations (with limited exceptions) for Great Britain as regards prescribed signs, their definitions, size, format, variations and directions as regards siting etc: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/contents
In addition, the Secretary of State may authorise traffic signs.
-
Until we know the result of your adjudication, it is pointless trying to advise, sorry. Best if you post-up the adjudication decision as soon as you get it.
-
Thanks for your replies.
May I ask what is the UK legal definition of a permit (or that which usually applies in England & Wales)? My understanding is that sometimes a Blue Disability Badge is a permit and sometimes it is a badge - it depends on the scheme that the local authority has adopted and effected in its local TRO?
However, if observationally speaking there are multiple frequent contradictions of such definitions (namely what was expected formally written in the TRO definition versus the actual reality of the situation due to frequent violations of the road signage in practice "which go unpunished yet compliant" (because in fact the road signage is incorrect and an error carried forward)), a conflict has seemingly occurred because a new precedent has been set in law (due to observation) since the facts contradict the definition? Sorry if this is unclear but I can give you a clear example by what I mean if necessary.
-
Yes there was an adjudication hearing yesterday.
In which case, all that matters at this stage is the adjudicator's decision and reasons. Do you have these?
As I understand it, there isn't a legal requirement for councils to exempt BB parking in parking places otherwise reserved to specific users e.g. permit holders etc. They may choose to do so of their own volition, but otherwise BB holders are not exempt(from permit holder restrictions).
-
Ok, I will upload the documents when I am able to be hopefully over this weekend (just they aren't physically with me at present as I didn't take photos of them yet).
But, you have hit the crux of the matter:
(Police) Civil Law Fixed Penalty Notice For violation of restriction: “Pedestrian Zone. No vehicular access except for buses, permit holders and loading.” - This FPN was cancelled because of the road signage error.
(Council) Restriction Permit Holders Only offence “parking in a permitted space without displaying a valid permit” - This PCN is still under dispute.
So there is an apparent conflict over the common term used here "Permit Holders" which is reflected on the road signage restrictions, namely you cannot have such signage on display and have it have different scope because it would be determined in the local authority TRO if I am not mistaken (i.e. a common generic term)? If there is a precedent set for the definition scope of "Permit Holders" it must be consistent? Otherwise it would be ambiguous. The way how they would reduce the potential for ambiguity would be like they do in London where they would qualify the exact type of Permit on the road signage itself (for example type M, P1, L etc for residents whom reside in a specific geographical postcode) - something which in this case Wakefield Council didn't do on the road sign in question (its generically stated Permit Holders Only (without qualifying the permit type))
Yes there was an adjudication hearing yesterday.
-
Sorry, we really do need to see documents. You say this: -
another PCN (which was cancelled by the Police)
The police do not issue PCNs which come under civil law, they issue Fixed Penalty Notices, which come under the criminal law.
and also this -
the Tribunal representations in the initial post.
So you have been as far as adjudication ? Then the matter is closed.
So sorry, can't help unless you can tell us more and provide documents because at the moment, I am baffled.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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,