So dissapointingly I got the below response, are they right that despite TfL's issuance of a new design for the sign they're not allowed to use it under the TSRGD 2002? Thank you for your communication regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). I have considered the comments made in your challenge and I am now in a position to provide an overview which I hope will allow for some further understanding. The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a disabled parking bay without displaying a valid Disabled Person's Badge. Your vehicle was seen and recorded as being parked in contravention in XX on 18/05/2013. The PCN was subsequently issued at 12:12. You will appreciate that the City of London is required to designate certain bays to accommodate disabled persons within the City and that we must ensure that these bays are kept clear for the exclusive use of disabled badge holders only. These bays are clearly signed both on roadside signs and within the bay itself. The use of these bays by unauthorised vehicles can not be permitted and we discourage drivers from doing so by the issue of a PCN. In an effort to help you avoid a PCN under similar circumstances in future, I will explain how to interpret the signs that we use to advise drivers accordingly. I would be grateful if you would note the above photograph which shows a typical disabled bay sign. The first part of the sign advises that the bay is for disabled badge holders only. The second part of the sign advises badge holders that they are limited to a maximum stay between Monday and Friday (currently 4 hours) and prohibited from returning to the same parking place within 1 hour of leaving. The notice below the sign advises of any upcoming suspensions. Disabled badge holders can therefore park in the bay on Saturday or Sunday for as long as they like. There is an argument that the sign could be made clearer by stating 'Disabled badge holders only at any time' but unfortunately the law (The Traffic Signs and General Directions Regulations 2002) states that we are not permitted to put 'at any time' on this particular sign. Therefore we have made the sign as clear as the regulations permit. The Department for Transport's position is effectively that if a sign does not mention days then a motorist should know that it applies at any time. The only other option would be to change the system (and the traffic management order) to make the three-hour maximum stay and the no return period apply at all times (as is the case with the six-hour maximum stay for the disabled parking bays around Saint Bartholomew's Hospital). However this is unlikely to be popular with disabled badge holders as it would restrict their use of the disabled parking bays on the weekends. It would also be against our traffic management principles of improving access for badge holders where kerbside space is less limited. A contravention will occur if any part of a vehicle is within a disabled bay and no valid disabled badge is displayed in the vehicle. Signs used in the City of London meets the requirements set out in The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002. Having considered your challenge, I am not prepared to cancel the PCN on this occasion unfortunately for the reasons I have explained. That said, you should be aware that the penalty level was held while your comments were considered and on this occasion only, the charge will be kept at the discount rate of £65.00 for a further 21 days from the date of this letter. If you wish to take advantage of this discount you must pay within the next 21 days. If you choose to write to us again, the discount period will not be extended and the full charge of £130.00 will be due thereafter. If you wish to make payment and bring this matter to a close, the City offers the following ways in which payment can be made: Online at http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/pcn using a credit or debit card (MasterCard, Visa, Visa Delta, Visa Purchasing, Visa Electron, JCB and Switch) By telephone using a credit or debit card (MasterCard, Visa, Delta and Switch) on telephone number 0845 004 0374 (calls are charged at local rate) (Credit and debit card holders may pay their PCNs securely using the above services which are available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Have your card, PCN number and vehicle registration mark ready.) By post to: City of London, PO Box 4561, Worthing, BN13 1XW. Cheques and postal orders should be crossed and made payable to the “CHAMBERLAIN OF LONDON”. You must write the PCN number and vehicle registration number on the reverse of the cheque or postal order. Cash should only be sent by registered post in a Post Office Registered envelope. All communication must be properly stamped. Please allow sufficient time to ensure that payment is received by the due date. However, if you wish to contest this matter further please do not make any payment at this stage. The registered owner / keeper of the vehicle will be sent a statutory document, a Notice to Owner / Keeper / Hirer (NtO) form or an Enforcement Notice (EN). The NtO/EN allows the owner/keeper to make formal representations to the City of London. Please note that the discount charge will no longer be available if you choose to make formal representations and the charge will revert to the original amount of £130.00. If formal representations are rejected, the recipient will be given details on how to appeal to the Parking & Traffic Appeals Service who provide an adjudication service which is completely independent of all local authorities. An adjudicator will consider the appeal under set grounds relating to whether or not a contravention occurred, but is unable to take mitigating circumstances into account. Yours faithfully C Josef For Parking Ticket Office

[ATTACH=CONFIG]43911[/ATTACH] So a bit of a potential break-through here, I found this in DoT's October 2011 "Traffic Signs Policy Paper" https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4346/signing-the-way.pdf Clearly the DoT have been advising Councils to change the design of this very sign as it is confusing. This must add some weight to my case?

Deleted in light of new info (below)

[ATTACH=CONFIG]43907[/ATTACH] It was 11am on a Saturday at which time it is ok to park on single yellows. So I parked on a single yellow with my two front tires over the edge of a disabled parking bay. In the bay was another car (without a blue badge for what it's worth). I knew I had two wheels over the bay, but I'd checked the sign above the disabled bay and saw that it wasn't in effect. There were plenty of other clear single yellow lines around so I could have moved had it been. I returned to my car two hours later to find a PCN had been stuck on it for "parked in a designated disabled persons’ parking place without displaying a validdisabled person’s badge in the prescribed matter" . I want to appeal the fine on the basis that the contravention did not occur as per the sign the bay way not in effect. I know they will counter with the timings only applied to the 4 hour maximum bit, but my argument is that it just isn't clear (obviously otherwise I wouldn't have parked there!). Any advice / thoughts / my odds? Many thanks

Ignore it. In my opinion the odds of this going to court and virtually nil and even if it did the odds of them winning are probably even less!

Yeh there's been a phone call and a threatening letter from "Graham White" sent to the address they have on file for me. Also something was sent to the address via recorded mail (I don't live there so it wasn't signed for- am wondering if anyone else has had recorded mail relevant to this? Might be unrelated). In my final reply to them months ago I mentioned that I would treat any further correspondence from them as harrasment and take action under the Protection from Harrasment Act 1997, would it be worthwhile pursuing this?

I think there are cases of PPC going to court, though I don't think they've ever won. As for making no difference if it went to court, that'd be up to the judge.

Hi Lauren, I received three letters from them, all of which I replied to with letters modeled on the ones available from here, all basically saying that yes I am the registered keeper of the car [not necessarily owner] but expect them to show who was driving or otherwise prove that its my duty to disclose who was driving. They replied with various letters, all with official sounding jargon, like it being my duty under such and such an act to know who was in control of the vehicle, all rubbish of course. By the third I was getting a bit bored of the letters so I sent a cease and desist letter, they responded with photos of the car and more demands that I pay. I ignored this and haven't heard anything since (been a couple of months). If I got another, I'd do the same. Most on here suggest ignoring all the letters, which you'd probably be fine doing, but personally I'd rather follow this process (and paper trail), this way I feel you'd have an advantage at court. I could post up the letters I sent later if you'd think it useful?

Hi, Sorry it's taken me a while to reply. My logic has been that if this did go to court (though judging from this forum it never does) I'd be able to prove from the correspondence history that I've been acting sensibly and reasonably throughout whilst dealing with a company unable to justify its claim against me and therefore essentially attempting to extort money. I've also considered that perhaps VCS would be less likely to pursue someone who has done the research and responded coherently to their accusations and would instead go for someone who's ignored everything and might not present a defence. That said this approach has cost me a few quid in recorded letters and some time, though worth it for me I think for the experience of dealing with these sorts of things. Cheers

Well apart from the cost and hassle of getting things sent by registered mail I'm almost enjoying the squabble. And just in case they do pursue me to court I want to be in a position to quash their claim. That said I wish the government would actually do something and clamp down on the extortion, I'd imagine most people just pay-up.

I'm having to dispute a ticket from these rip-off merchants at the moment. I'll let you know how it goes and will upload the letters and whatnot when I feel its no longer ongoing. Many thanks to all those who've contributed on these forums.