Free Traffic Legal Advice

Just thought I'd come back and update everyone, as I know it's always useful to hear how these cases end.

Firstly, a huge thank you to everyone here who took the time to give advice and pointed me in the right direction. It really helped.

My case was also the 52M "No Motor Vehicles" restriction at Rivercourt Road (northbound), turning in from the A4.

I was driving there for the first time, coming down from the Midlands and following Google Maps. I genuinely didn't see any advance warning on the A4 before making the turn. By the time I'd turned left and saw the yellow restriction signs at the mouth of Rivercourt Road, I didn't think there was enough time to read the exemption plate properly, and there certainly wasn't a safe place to stop, reverse or turn around.

My first challenge was rejected(for sure!), so I took some time to study from all the advices available here and decided to register an appeal with London Tribunals on 27/7.

With the help of the advice here, I put together an appeal bundle including:

a concise written submission;
annotated Google Street View images showing the driver's approach;
annotated CCTV screenshots showing the point where the vehicle had already committed to the turn;
an explanation of why reversing back towards the A4 wasn't a realistic or safe option;
the council's 95-day delay in responding after I'd chased them for an update.

The appeal was accepted by London Tribunals and listed for a personal video hearing.

Yesterday I received a letter from LBHF saying they had decided not to contest the appeal and had cancelled the PCN.

Interestingly, the letter also says this is "without prejudice to our position" and that they do not accept my arguments, maintaining that the signage is compliant. So there won't be an adjudicator's decision on the issues I raised.

Although I'm obviously pleased with the outcome, I still think the approach from the A4 could be improved for drivers unfamiliar with the area. My concern has never really been about avoiding a PCN; it's that the current layout seems capable of catching careful drivers who simply don't have enough time to understand the exemption before they're committed to the turn.

Hopefully this update is useful for anyone else who ends up searching for Rivercourt Road 52M in the future.

The amount or lack of obstruction caused isn't really relevant to the offence so I'd stop concerning yourself with this. You either parked with the entirety of your vehicle more then 50cm from the edge of the carriageway or you didn't (spoiler, you didn't!).

ok to attach my mother's BB as evidence?

Thank you for this!

So an update....

It seems I received the first PCN late, it's dated 22/07 but I received it on 30/07 when I made the first post.

On 05/08, I received another, same event, "further to the recent parking charge notice, this PCN remains outstanding and you have until 4/08 or the amount due will increase.

It seems that the wrong reg was entered in the store and after reading the signage, the time limit in the car park is 1 hour 30, the car was in he car park from 15:39 to 17:13 (1hour 34)

I am planning to now go ahead and appeal basing on the keying error and I have a store receipt.

My draft:

I am appealing Parking Charge Notice XYZ.

I was a genuine customer at Lidl Sutton on 18/07/26 and entered a vehicle registration into the in-store parking terminal. Unfortunately, I mistakenly entered XYZ instead of the registration of the vehicle I was driving, XYZ

The parking conditions were otherwise complied with, and this was a genuine keying error rather than an attempt to avoid the parking requirements. I have attached evidence of my visit/purchase and would ask that the charge be cancelled.

Please also check the terminal records for XYZ REGISTRATION which should confirm that a registration was entered during my visit.

If the charge is not cancelled, please apply Annex F.3 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice, which identifies entering the wrong vehicle registration as a major keying error warranting a reduction of the charge to £20.



Many thanks,
Bill

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