Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thank you. Very kind of you.

So I've come to the right place! (maybe not the right topic place).

I will keep you posted.

1) It is purely based in disability discrimination where appeals have not given consideration where the contravention is linked to disability.

2) My PCN was just what started this and I went to the Tribunal knowing that my appeal would be refused. However the adjudicator said the website change and a few examples of where PCNs have been cancelled in similar facts to mine would have helped.

3) The website change is after I compiled a list of councils who have clear guidance around disabled badge related contraventions.

4) My FOI requests haven't given me what I really needed. This was the appeal data related to disability related mitigation. As this would require going through each case, which would take 2 mins each. For 2 codes 6 months of 2025 there were a total of 2600 PCNs.

This was also the case for appeal data for just mitigating circumstances. What I was able to get the appeal data under two codes related to the disabled badge for 2024/2025 - again not knowing what grounds they were appealed on... In short based on 40 and 87

1) How many were appealed, irrespective of the "grounds"

1091

   
2) How many were successful on first appeal.   

43
   
3) How many were refused on first appeal.   

1038
   
4) How many were appealed a second time.

287
      
5) How many were successful on second appeal.

81
      
6) How many were refused on second appeal   

185

I think I will request the total number of PCNS for each year as this would provide better context. I can link this to the policy that other councils have on their website around disabled badges.

But I feel like I am clutching at straws.

5) Due to not being able to access specific data I decided that I could possibly find examples of where discretion has been applied for badge related errors by asking around - I can only cite two examples but there are plenty, hence reaching out online.

6) Contact with Redbridge Parking Enforcement has been made by MP and councillors. We have only received the generic response as you have correctly said.

A) It was asked if the discretion policy around disability would withstand a legal challenge - to which they replied yes.

B) Head of Enforcement replied with generic response related to IAS. Equality actions taken before the appeal but disability grounds cannot over-ride the legal framework.

C) Still awaiting equalities impact assessment report.

7) From your last paragraph, I think a Pre action letter would be the way. As I have done everything possible as a concerned resident. I cannot get any coherent data. My first option was now writing to the Ombudsman. As you correctly said the onus is on me to provide the evidence.

My aim after the second rejection was to bring about change on the website at the very least. Which I am so glad was agreed and last correspondence was that it has been added - but to date still hasn't.

The only case I found which gave me motivation was a Scottish one. Where an appeal to the upper tribunal decided that by not considering the disability was incorrect. Here is the link.

More importantly, disability related errors should get the discretion it deserves. Many as we can see do not appeal, many are wrongfully fearful that they may lose their badge, some probably don't even know they can appeal.

If Redbridge had a clear framework like other councils who will cancel a PCN in these circumstances - I wonder about how much revenue was generated from vulnerable residents.

The help I recieved from MP's and Councillor was because they rightly agreed that there is no clear and consistent policy. I had to emphasise my PCN is irrelevant and I would like to see disabled residents protected.

End Note:

My main aim is for policy change however questions need to be answered. Redbridge Parking Enforcement must be held accountable as only they decide their use of discretion for disability-related appeals, unchallenged. Ultimately they can refuse every appeal as even if a Tribunal upholds an appeal, they can only make recommendations. So are disabled drivers purely at the mercy of Redbridge Parking Enforcement.

Are Redbridge Parking Enforcement profiting from someone else's misfortune?

Thank you so much for your post as it has given me a lot of clarity and also helped plug holes in my overall argument.

My next is writing to the Ombudsman with written support from councillors. Who thankfully have taken this on with me.

I look forward to your thoughts. Apologies about the delay.

Dear All,

I have tried to summarise and I understand some specific information may be missing.

I hope you are all well. I am hoping I can rely on your support with my legal challenge against Redbridge Parking Enforcement. With the help of a few representatives from Redbridge Council I have been investigating the use of discretion by RC for parking PCNs, since August 2025. More specifically towards disability.

My own experience, where Redbridge agreed my disability had led to the contravention but nonetheless refused to apply their discretion. The appeal to the Tribunal was always a forgone conclusion as the Tribunal does not have any authority to cancel a PCN in discretion matters.

Importantly, changes in policy regarding disability and PCNs has been agreed and is awaiting implementation. I have also made some progress with FOIs - but still working on this.

In short, RC has denied they use their discretion unfairly and there is no legal requirement on them to prove this. Hence the legal challenge.

Help Needed:

I am looking for examples where discretion has been used to cancel a PCN where, a disabled badge was not displayed, the timer  was incorrectly set and even where an expired badge was used.

I am aware of many instances PCNs are cancelled for the above, but at the moment I only have one example (PCN Number).

I am waiting on one more FOI Request, as I have had to find a way to meet the threshold and thankfully the FOI team have been extremely helpful in working with me. After this, I will be ready to make a legal challenge but having individual examples will help as we are trying to hold Redbridge accountable.

If you have any questions please feel free to ask.

End - The struggle and effort has resulted in changes to policy which will benefit 1000s of disabled drivers. However Redbridge Parking Enforcement must still be held accountable as a public body and especially with the amount of revenue which is being generated without any transparency.

Thank you for your time.

I am the registered keeper on the log book.

IMO, your circumstances go to mitigation only which an adjudicator could not consider.

If you drive, then you're deemed competent to understand and comply with traffic signs.

IMO, if you were to take this further then as a minimum you would need to obtain written support from competent persons/bodies regarding your claim as regards your son's issue with alighting when you aren't present.

As regards the signs, does anyone know what the actual prohibition is in this street? The council's position is that this is as per the sign and is 'actively enforced during term time'.

IMO, this is unlawful.

If the order states 52 weeks per year then officers are required by law to enforce such a restriction. It does NOT lie with officers or members to interfere with the law.

So, is it a 'term-time' only restriction in law i.e. in an order, or not?

OP, and judging by the addressee on the NOR, there's a backstory here. Who is 'the Company Secretary'?

Are you, as in you by name, actually the registered keeper. If so, then 'The Company Secretary', which indicates a corporate body and not private individual,  cannot be you IMO, although you may be authorised. Pl clarify who's who so that should this go to appeal this is conducted by a competent person.

I must say that the odd numbers in St Andrews Road have more than their fair share of entries in the Companies House registers!

    

Thank you for your reply.

Exactly, as there is no option for mitigation and again it would purely be advisory. So do I accept the £80 charge or do I fight ahead to prove their obvious lack of compassion when dealing with the most vulnerable by relying on a contravention has occrued.

Yep, I can get a letter regarding his issues about leaving transport.There was plenty of evidence for my son. As well as photos of what happens when things go wrong. The photos are pretty graphic.

With regards to myself, there was a lot of evidence explaining how my disability and medication impact me.

It is on lease so that might be why.

The case for the emergency is conclusive but I feel I will stall fall foul.

As I said I haven't come across an appeal of this kind.

I understand their argument but from a moral standpoint I don't think I can walk away.

Apologies. Have made this public now.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/191o4wuMOnOZOWx93AdKE0Yr1M2HiKClT/view?usp=drivesdk

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pCO0TSp-vgaLh6LIMV-geitp9SglS834/view?usp=drivesdk

Below are the two files which explain the nature of the emergency. My representation was purely based on this until I found this forum.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vgWSNH10JPX0Si6YzU6IDfqUgNTMooDl/view?usp=drivesdk

https://drive.google.com/file/d/139TuNk1pjTjE7e3llP1ArrDSlxiNPzNq/view?usp=drivesdk

Below is a video I made today of the route.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WkOK36WixcOzoOh20LCV9ox9lSVVg5L7/view?usp=drivesdk

Thank you for your help as yesterday by the end my brain was fried with the legality of the sign, I just signed out!