When Your Excuse Doesn't Match the Evidence: A Red Route Appeal That Fell Apart

Why This Case Should Make Every Driver Think Twice Before Appealing

Appealing a parking ticket is your right. It's a process designed to ensure fairness, and when drivers have a genuine case, the system can and does work in their favour. But there's a fundamental rule that sits at the heart of every tribunal hearing: your story has to hold up. Not just sound plausible — actually hold up against the evidence.

This case, decided by a Transport for London tribunal adjudicator, is a masterclass in what happens when a compelling-sounding appeal unravels the moment the camera footage is reviewed. It involves a red route, a Blue Badge, a child with autism and ADHD, and a sequence of events that the adjudicator simply could not reconcile with what the video showed.

What Happened

The driver was issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) by Transport for London for stopping on a red route — one of London's strictly enforced no-stopping corridors. The specific contravention was "stopped where prohibited on a red route or clearway."

The time plate at the location stated no stopping Monday to Saturday, 7am to 7pm, with one narrow exception: loading and unloading was permitted between 10am and 4pm.

The vehicle was captured on enforcement camera on a Monday afternoon, stopped between approximately 4:25pm and 4:35pm — well within the no-stopping period and, crucially, just outside the loading exemption window, which had ended at 4pm.

So far, a fairly standard red route PCN. What made this case unusual was the explanation offered.

The Driver's Argument

The appellant — the driver appealing the ticket — did not dispute that she had stopped on the red route. Instead, she put forward what, on the face of it, sounds like a compelling human reason for doing so.

She explained that her seven-year-old daughter, who has both ADHD and autism, had suddenly removed her seatbelt and begun climbing into the front seat while the vehicle was moving. Faced with a dangerous situation, she said she had no choice but to pull over safely and restrain her child.

She also provided evidence that her daughter holds a Blue Badge, issued on account of her disability.

This is the kind of appeal that tugs at the heartstrings. A mother, a vulnerable child, a split-second safety decision. It sounds entirely reasonable — and in the right circumstances, an emergency stop to manage a child's sudden, dangerous behaviour could potentially constitute a valid defence.

But here's where things went wrong.

What the Council Argued — and What the Camera Showed

Transport for London didn't need to argue much. They submitted the camera footage, and the footage told a very different story.

The enforcement video showed the vehicle parked for a sustained period — over ten minutes. During that time, the driver was seen getting out of the vehicle. A male figure also appeared. The two of them were observed moving back and forth, taking items from the vehicle — behaviour that looks, to any reasonable observer, far more like loading or unloading than an emergency stop to manage a distressed child.

The driver was then seen returning to the vehicle alone and preparing to drive away.

At no point in the footage was a child visible.

The Decision — and Why the Appeal Was Refused

The adjudicator refused the appeal, and the reasoning was pointed.

The core of the decision came down to credibility. The adjudicator was not persuaded that the child was even present in the vehicle, let alone that she had caused the stop. The footage showed sustained activity consistent with loading — not a brief, distressed intervention to restrain a child in crisis. And a seven-year-old left alone in a vehicle for ten or more minutes while adults moved items to and from the car was, the adjudicator concluded, simply not a believable scenario.

The Blue Badge evidence, whilst accepted as genuine, was ultimately beside the point. A Blue Badge provides specific, defined exemptions in designated disabled bays and in certain other circumstances — but it does not provide a blanket right to stop on a red route. The adjudicator found no applicable exemption here.

The contravention was confirmed. The PCN stood.

The Legal Reasoning in Plain English

Let's break down the key legal points, because there are several layers worth understanding.

Red routes and the law. Red routes in London are governed under the Traffic Management Act 2004 and associated regulations. The double red lines mean no stopping at any time. Single red lines, like those in this case, operate during the hours shown on nearby time plates. During those hours, stopping — even briefly — is prohibited unless a specific exemption applies.

What counts as an exemption. The time plate in this case allowed loading and unloading between 10am and 4pm. That window had closed. There is also a general exemption for genuine emergencies — but the burden falls on the driver to demonstrate that an emergency actually occurred. Claiming an emergency without evidence, or where the evidence actively contradicts the claim, will not succeed.

Blue Badges and red routes. This is a common misunderstanding. Blue Badges grant valuable rights — including the ability to park on single yellow lines and in pay-and-display bays without charge — but they do not override all restrictions. On red routes, Blue Badge holders have limited additional rights, and those rights do not extend to stopping during prohibited hours simply by virtue of holding a badge.

The role of camera evidence. Enforcement camera footage is central to most red route cases. Adjudicators review it carefully, and it often proves decisive. In this case, the footage directly contradicted the appellant's account. When your stated reason for stopping cannot be seen in the video — and what can be seen suggests a different purpose entirely — your appeal faces an almost insurmountable obstacle.

Credibility matters. Tribunal adjudicators are experienced in assessing evidence. An appeal that relies entirely on an unverifiable account, and which is actively undermined by objective footage, is unlikely to succeed regardless of how sympathetic the underlying circumstances might be.

Lessons for Drivers

1. Camera footage will be reviewed — and it doesn't lie. If you stopped on a red route and intend to appeal, think carefully about what the footage will show. If your actions on camera don't match your explanation, the adjudicator will notice. Always consider what a neutral observer watching the video would conclude.

2. A Blue Badge is not a universal pass. Blue Badges are enormously valuable, but they operate within a defined legal framework. Before assuming your badge exempts you from a restriction, check the specific rules for that type of restriction. Red routes have their own rules, and a badge alone will not override them.

3. If you stopped in a genuine emergency, document it immediately. If a child's sudden behaviour, a medical episode, or another genuine emergency forced you to stop, note the time, the circumstances, and any witnesses as soon as it is safe to do so. If your child was in the vehicle, a photograph, a witness, or even a contemporaneous note can make the difference between a successful appeal and a refused one.

4. The burden of proof rests with you. In parking tribunal cases, once the enforcement authority demonstrates that the contravention occurred — which camera evidence typically does — the burden shifts to the driver to show that an exemption applies or that the PCN was improperly issued. Assertions without supporting evidence rarely succeed.

5. Only appeal if your account is consistent with the evidence. This sounds obvious, but it's worth stating plainly: if your explanation cannot be corroborated — and especially if the footage appears to show something different — an appeal may result in the full penalty being confirmed rather than the discounted amount you'd pay by settling early. Consider your position honestly before proceeding.

The Key Takeaway

A compelling story is not the same as a compelling case.

Tribunal adjudicators are not unsympathetic to difficult personal circumstances — but they are bound by evidence. In this case, the camera footage undermined the driver's account at every turn. No child was visible. The activity observed was consistent with loading, not an emergency. The exemption window had already closed.

If you find yourself in a genuinely difficult situation on a red route — a medical issue, a child in distress, a real emergency — your best protection is evidence gathered at the time. Without it, even the most understandable human explanation may not be enough to overturn a PCN at tribunal.

This case was decided by a Transport for London adjudicator. The decision is publicly available through the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.