Arrested While Parked: How a Job Centre Incident Wiped Out a Greenwich Parking Fine

Most parking appeals begin with a broken meter, a confusing sign or a ticket machine that swallowed a coin. This one began with a visit to the Job Centre that went badly wrong, ended with handcuffs and a trip to Plumstead police station, and still produced a parking ticket. Greenwich Council's penalty charge notice (PCN) was ultimately cancelled, but the reasoning is more interesting than the outcome. It shows what adjudicators can and cannot do, why paperwork gaps can sink a council's case, and how much depends on the exact rules for the bay you parked in.

The case: what happened

The contravention was "Parked after the expiry of paid for time". In plain terms, the driver had paid for a period in a pay and display bay, and the civil enforcement officer found the car still there after that time had run out.

The driver did not dispute that the time had expired. His case was that he had been unable to return to the car because of what happened at the Job Centre. According to the adjudicator's summary, staff there called the police. The driver described being handcuffed and taken to Plumstead police station. His written account was lengthy and covered difficulties in the period leading up to that day. The adjudicator described it as "sad reading" and accepted that he was, at the time, "rather on the edge and fragile".

Importantly, the adjudicator said the enforcement officer could not be criticised for issuing the ticket. On the face of it, the car was parked beyond its paid time. If the appeal was going to succeed, it would have to be for a different reason.

The arguments

The driver's case. The core of his argument was simple. The overrun happened because he was detained by police, not because he chose to overstay. He spent considerable energy on the handcuffing and a possible injury, and on the way he felt he had been treated. The adjudicator noted that his evidence was "rather vague" about how the officers engaged with him, particularly whether anyone discussed the car.

The council's case. Greenwich did not want to cancel the penalty because it had no corroboration. Neither the police nor the government office had confirmed the story. From a council's point of view, that is an understandable position. A PCN is issued on what the officer sees, and councils are wary of cancelling on an uncorroborated account of events they cannot check.

The decision

The appeal was allowed, meaning the PCN was cancelled.

The adjudicator was careful to say what he was not deciding. He would not judge who was right or wrong in the build-up to the police being called, or whether the arrest was justified. An investigation into those issues, he said, is not the adjudicator's role in a parking dispute. He also stated plainly that he has no power to cancel a penalty charge on mitigation alone. Sympathy, however genuine, is not a legal ground of appeal.

Instead, he found a route through the rules of the parking place itself. He accepted by inference that the officers had been told about the car and had given some approval for it to stay where it was in the circumstances. On that basis, the appeal succeeded.

The legal reasoning, in plain English

This is where the case becomes useful, because the adjudicator's thinking involved several distinct ideas.

1. Sympathy is not a defence

Adjudicators in parking cases decide whether the legal grounds for cancelling a PCN are made out. They are not a mercy tribunal. A very sad story, a bad day or a personal crisis does not on its own cancel a penalty. The adjudicator said this explicitly. Councils do have discretion to cancel on compassionate grounds, and they are expected to consider that seriously, but that is a separate matter from what an adjudicator can order. (In some circumstances adjudicators can invite a council to think again, but that is not the same as cancelling a charge themselves.)

2. The rules of the bay matter

Every controlled parking place is governed by a legal document called a traffic management order (TMO). It sets out when and how you can park, and, crucially, what exceptions apply. The adjudicator observed that many such orders include two relevant provisions:

• Circumstances beyond the motorist's control. Orders often say that a driver is not liable if they overstayed because of something they could not help. The adjudicator said that he and, he believed, other adjudicators construe such provisions "very narrowly", but he could still see an argument that an arrest might fall under it.
• Police permission. Orders often allow a vehicle to be left where it is with the permission or consent of a uniformed police constable.

Think of it like a contract with a list of exceptions. A ticket may look straightforward until you read the small print that says when it does not apply.

3. The missing order

Ideally, the adjudicator wanted to read the actual TMO for the bay, to check which exemptions it contained. Greenwich did not include it in its evidence bundle. Councils must show that a contravention occurred under the relevant legal order, and omitting the order leaves a gap in what the adjudicator can check. He chose not to delay matters by calling for it, and instead took a broad view of the evidence he did have.

4. Inference

The most striking step is the adjudicator's decision to accept "by inference" that the officers knew about the car and gave some approval for it to remain. Adjudicators decide cases on the balance of probabilities, meaning what is more likely than not. The driver's evidence on this point was vague, but the whole story was about police involvement, and an adjudicator can draw reasonable conclusions from the overall picture rather than demanding precise proof of every detail.

That said, it is fair to treat this as a fact-specific decision. An adjudicator's ruling on one set of circumstances does not bind others, and the adjudicator himself framed this as a "broad view" taken in the circumstances.

5. Corroboration is helpful, not always essential

Greenwich leaned on the lack of corroboration. The adjudicator did not treat that as fatal. It would be wrong, however, to read this case as meaning that a driver's word alone will always be enough. Here, the council had not produced the governing order, and the account, though imperfect, was detailed and coherent. Independent evidence, such as a custody record or a letter from the police, would normally make a case stronger.

Lessons for drivers

This is general commentary rather than advice for any individual situation, but several practical points emerge.

1. A genuine emergency is worth explaining, but explain it in legal terms. Describing what happened is not enough. The more useful question is whether the circumstances engage a specific exemption in the rules governing the bay, such as circumstances beyond your control or police permission. Your penalty notice and the council's own guidance explain how to challenge a PCN, and the tribunal's published guidance covers what grounds it can consider.

2. Gather independent evidence where you can. The council in this case was uneasy about the absence of confirmation from the police or the Job Centre. If something similar happens, records such as custody paperwork, hospital attendance notes or correspondence from the organisation involved can carry real weight. If the stakes are high, such as a large charge or a pattern of enforcement, it may be worth speaking to a solicitor or an advice charity.

3. Ask whether the council has proved its case. The council is the party pursuing the penalty. Here, the traffic management order was not in the bundle. Check the evidence the council provides and whether it includes the documents that matter. Our guide to formal representations for PCNs walks through how to build a challenge, and our explainer on PCN code 82, parked after paid time expired covers this contravention in more depth.

4. Be clear about what happened with the vehicle. The driver's evidence was vague on whether officers discussed the car. In a similar situation, anything you can recall about whether anyone was told about the vehicle, and whether permission was given, can be important. Write down details as soon as you can, while memory is fresh.

5. Keep your account focused. A lengthy narrative about wider grievances may show how distressing events were, but the tribunal has to decide a narrow question. The adjudicator expressly declined to investigate the rights and wrongs of the arrest. Accounts that tie facts directly to the parking issue tend to be more useful than those that do not.

Key takeaway

An adjudicator cannot cancel a parking fine because your day went terribly wrong, but they can cancel it if the rules for that bay, read with the evidence, show you were not in breach. Look past the sympathy and ask what the legal order actually says, and whether the council has proved its case.

This article is general information and commentary on a tribunal decision, not legal advice. Outcomes depend on the specific facts and the rules governing the parking place concerned. If you are facing a penalty with significant consequences, consider seeking independent advice.