When Your Work Permit Beats a Pedestrian Zone Fine: The Croydon Case That Every Driver Should Know About

There is a particular kind of frustration reserved for the driver who knows they are in the right but cannot get anyone in authority to listen. You have the paperwork. You have followed the rules. And yet the penalty charge notice sits on your doormat, and the council simply will not engage with your explanation.

That is precisely what happened to an anti-social behaviour officer working for the London Borough of Croydon — the very same council that issued them a fine. The case that followed offers a masterclass in how a well-documented appeal can succeed at tribunal, and why councils ignore their own permit-holders at their peril.

What Happened

The driver in this case was employed by Croydon Council as an anti-social behaviour officer — the sort of frontline public servant who responds to urgent situations across the borough, often at short notice and often in circumstances that require getting somewhere quickly.

On the day in question, the officer drove into a pedestrian zone. Cameras captured the vehicle entering the restricted area, and a Penalty Charge Notice was duly issued for the contravention: "Fail to comply with restriction — vehicles entering pedestrian zone."

The officer did not dispute that they had entered the zone. What they argued, clearly and with supporting evidence, was that they held a valid permit issued by the council itself — a permit that expressly allowed them to drive or park on any roads within the borough, across all zones and without restriction, in order to carry out their duties. They had entered the zone to attend what they described as a burning building, and the route through the zone was the one they needed to take.

They raised this with the parking enforcement team. The team refused to cancel the PCN. The officer then appealed to the independent adjudicator at the London Tribunals.

The Arguments

The driver's case was straightforward. They produced a copy of their permit, along with its terms and conditions, which supported the claim that the permit covered all zones without restriction. The permit showed an expiry date of 20 May 2025. They argued that on the day of the alleged contravention, the permit was valid, they were acting in the course of their employment, and they had taken a route through the pedestrian zone because the situation — a burning building — required it.

The council's case was also fairly standard in its construction. They produced CCTV footage showing the vehicle entering the restricted zone. They provided a plan and photographs of the signage, arguing that the restriction was clearly signed and enforceable under a valid Traffic Management Order — the legal instrument that gives councils the power to restrict vehicle access to certain areas. They maintained the PCN had been correctly issued and should stand.

What the Adjudicator Decided

The adjudicator allowed the appeal — meaning the PCN was cancelled.

But the reasoning here is worth unpacking carefully, because it was not a simple case of the council being wrong about the rules.

The adjudicator actually agreed with the council on several points. The footage showed the vehicle entering the zone. The signage was clear and compliant with the relevant regulations. The Traffic Management Order was valid. In other words, the contravention did technically occur.

So why did the driver win?

Because the adjudicator found, on the balance of probabilities, that the driver held a valid permit that authorised entry to the zone — and that the council had completely failed to engage with this evidence.

The Legal Reasoning, Explained

There are a few legal concepts at play here that are worth understanding.

The balance of probabilities is the standard of proof used in civil and administrative proceedings like parking appeals. It simply means: is it more likely than not that something is true? It is a lower bar than the criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt." In this case, the adjudicator weighed the driver's evidence — the permit, the terms and conditions, the employment context — and concluded it was more likely than not that the permit was genuine and covered the zone in question.

The unexplained document is where the council's case really unravelled. Within the council's own submission to the tribunal, there was a document referring to the same permit reference number — but suggesting the permit had been extended only to 11 February 2025, not the 20 May 2025 date shown on the permit itself. The council offered no explanation for this discrepancy. The adjudicator noted this explicitly. Rather than helping the council's case, the unexplained document actually undermined it, because it suggested the council had access to information about the permit and simply chose not to address it.

The duty to engage with representations is perhaps the most important lesson here. When a driver submits evidence to challenge a PCN — whether at the informal stage or through formal representations — the enforcement authority is expected to actually consider that evidence and explain their reasoning if they reject it. Saying you have "carefully considered" the representations, as Croydon did, whilst making no reference whatsoever to the permit or the contractual arrangement, is not good enough. The adjudicator saw through this immediately.

Reasonable reliance is the final piece of the puzzle. Even if there had been some ambiguity about the permit's scope, the driver had reasonably relied on it. They were a council employee, acting in the course of their duties, responding to an urgent situation, and using a permit issued to them by their employer — who happened to be the same organisation issuing the fine. The adjudicator found it entirely reasonable that the driver trusted their permit to cover the situation.

Lessons for Drivers

This case is rich with practical guidance for anyone who finds themselves fighting a parking fine.

1. Document your exemption thoroughly — and submit it all Whether you hold a trade permit, a council-issued exemption, a blue badge, or any other authorisation that might justify your presence in a restricted area, gather every piece of supporting documentation you have. The driver here submitted the permit itself and the terms and conditions. That combination was persuasive. A permit without supporting context is easier to dismiss.

2. If the council ignores your evidence, say so explicitly in your appeal One of the most powerful points in this appeal was that the council claimed to have "carefully considered" the driver's representations but then made no mention of the permit at all. If you find yourself in this situation, highlight the contradiction directly. Adjudicators notice when an authority's response does not match the evidence that was put before them.

3. A contravention can occur and you can still win Many drivers assume that if the camera footage clearly shows them doing something — entering a zone, making a turn, stopping on a red route — then the appeal is lost before it begins. That is not always true. The question is not only whether the contravention occurred, but whether there was a lawful justification for it. Permits, exemptions, and authorisations can provide exactly that justification.

4. Unexplained discrepancies in the council's own evidence work in your favour In this case, the council's submission contained a document that appeared to contradict their own position — and they said nothing about it. Adjudicators are experienced at spotting inconsistencies. If the enforcement authority's own paperwork raises questions they cannot answer, that strengthens your case considerably.

5. Context matters — describe the circumstances clearly The driver explained that they entered the zone to reach a burning building and that the route required it. This was not just background colour — it helped establish that the entry was purposeful, proportionate, and within the scope of their employment duties. When you write your appeal, do not just state what happened. Explain why it happened.

The Key Takeaway

A permit is only as useful as the evidence you can produce to support it. This driver won not simply because they had a permit, but because they could prove it, explain it, and demonstrate that the council had no coherent answer to it. If you have a legitimate authorisation to be where a PCN says you should not have been, document it carefully, submit it fully, and hold the enforcement authority to account if they fail to engage with it properly. That is exactly what happened here — and it worked.