Payment for the neighbouring bays did not authorise a disabled space (2026)
Case 2250148591 / 2025-06-10 / Adjudicator Anju Kaler
Ilford Lane
Anju Kaler found that directional signs adequately distinguished a disabled bay from paid parking despite faded markings. Reading only the payment panel did not establish permission to use the space.
“Drivers should look at signs and not just the bay markings.”
Anju Kaler, case 2250148591
The driver had paid through an app but parked in a disabled bay without displaying a badge. They argued that the space was indistinguishable from the adjoining paid bays because the separating lines and disabled road marking were faded.
Anju Kaler accepted that the markings alone were insufficient. However, the signpost between the bays had a payment panel with arrows pointing left and a disabled-badge-holders-only panel with an arrow pointing right.
The driver acknowledged reading only the upper payment panel. The adjudicator found the clear directional signs and remaining markings adequate when considered together, and the appeal was refused. It was not a finding that the paint was in perfect condition.
For a comparable bay-boundary dispute, photograph the whole signpost and show which side of it the vehicle occupied. A payment receipt does not answer whether the payment option applied to that particular space.
Source and case reference
Search for 2250148591 in the London Tribunals register to read the decision. This case explains how the adjudicator assessed its evidence; another appeal depends on its own facts and applicable restriction.
Find the official decision