When Your Ex Takes Your Car: The Parking Tribunal Case That Shows Domestic Abuse Victims Can Win

A London tribunal has cancelled a disabled bay parking fine after accepting that a driver's abusive ex-partner took her car without permission — even though she had no crime report and initially gave a completely different reason for appealing. Here's why this matters.

Why This Case Matters

Most parking appeals are fairly straightforward: wrong sign, broken meter, valid permit not spotted by the warden. But occasionally a case lands at the tribunal that reveals something far more important — that the system, when working properly, can recognise the messy, complicated reality of people's lives.

This is one of those cases. It involves domestic abuse, a car taken without consent, and a driver who initially told the council something completely different. The fact that she still won tells us a great deal about how adjudicators approach evidence, credibility, and the limits of what councils can reasonably demand from vulnerable people.

If you have ever wondered whether a tribunal will listen to your full story — or whether one inconsistency will sink your appeal — this case is essential reading.

The Case: A Disabled Bay, a Missing Badge, and a Complicated Backstory

The Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) was issued by the London Borough of Waltham Forest. The contravention recorded by the Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) was straightforward: a vehicle was parked in a designated disabled bay without a blue badge on display.

Under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and associated regulations, parking in a disabled bay without displaying a valid blue badge is a clear offence. Local authorities have the power to issue PCNs for this contravention, and it is one that adjudicators take seriously — disabled bays exist to protect some of the most vulnerable road users, and abuse of them is widespread.

The registered keeper of the vehicle was Ms Lupson. She was scheduled for a personal video-link hearing but did not attend on the day. The adjudicator therefore decided the case on the written evidence alone.

The Arguments: Two Very Different Stories

What the council said

Waltham Forest's case was simple and solid. The CEO's images showed the car in the disabled bay. No blue badge was displayed. Open and shut, in their view.

The council also raised two pointed objections to Ms Lupson's appeal:

1. She had changed her story. Her original challenge to the PCN had been based on extreme financial hardship — not on the vehicle being taken without her consent. The domestic abuse angle had not been mentioned at all in her initial representations.
2. There was no crime report. If someone had genuinely taken her car without permission, why had she not reported it to the police?

Both are fair points. Councils see plenty of drivers who shift their story when the first excuse doesn't work. And the absence of a police report is exactly the kind of gap that undermines credibility.

What Ms Lupson said

In her Notice of Appeal, Ms Lupson told a very different story. She said that on the day in question, her abusive ex-partner had taken the car without her knowledge or consent. He had access to a spare key, and this had happened more than once. She added that she had since sold the vehicle — suggesting she had taken steps to prevent it happening again.

She did not attend the hearing to give this evidence in person.

The Decision: Appeal Allowed

The adjudicator allowed the appeal in full, cancelling the PCN.

Despite Ms Lupson's non-attendance, despite the changed story, and despite the absence of a police report, the adjudicator accepted her account. The fine was wiped.

The Legal Reasoning: Breaking It Down

This is where the case gets genuinely interesting. The adjudicator's reasoning rests on three interconnected points, each of which has wider implications for anyone appealing a parking fine.

1. Changing your story is not the same as lying

The council argued that because Ms Lupson had not mentioned the vehicle being taken without consent in her initial representations, this new account should be treated with suspicion.

The adjudicator disagreed — and the distinction drawn is important. There is a difference between changing a story (saying one thing, then contradicting it) and adding to a story (giving an incomplete account first, then filling in the gaps later).

Ms Lupson's first challenge focused on financial hardship. She did not say the vehicle had been driven by her on that day. She simply led with the argument she felt most comfortable making — or perhaps the one she thought most likely to succeed. Her later account did not contradict this; it provided additional context.

Adjudicators are experienced at spotting genuine inconsistencies versus the kind of piecemeal disclosure that happens when someone is distressed, embarrassed, or simply unsure what information is relevant. This was judged to be the latter.

2. The absence of a crime report is not fatal in domestic situations

This is arguably the most significant point in the entire decision, and one that has real-world importance beyond parking law.

In most cases, if you claim your car was stolen or taken without consent, a police report is strong supporting evidence. Its absence is conspicuous. The council was right to flag it.

But the adjudicator recognised something that anyone familiar with domestic abuse will understand immediately: victims of domestic abuse frequently do not report incidents to the police. The reasons are well-documented — fear of escalation, ongoing emotional ties, concerns about children, uncertainty about whether what happened even constitutes a crime, and the complex psychological dynamics of abusive relationships.

Expecting a victim of domestic abuse to have filed a crime report before she can successfully appeal a parking ticket sets a standard that ignores this reality. The adjudicator explicitly acknowledged this, noting that domestic situations often involve vehicle use without consent where no crime is reported "due to personal relationships and issues."

This shows a tribunal willing to apply common sense and human understanding to the evidence before it — rather than mechanically demanding documentation that may simply not exist.

3. Credibility can be assessed without a hearing

Ms Lupson did not attend her video-link hearing. The adjudicator still accepted her written evidence. This demonstrates that written appeals can succeed even in complex, contested cases — provided the account given is internally consistent and plausible in the context of the wider evidence.

The fact that she had sold the car was a small but meaningful detail. It suggested she had taken action to prevent the situation recurring — the kind of practical step that lends credibility to her account.

Lessons for Drivers: What This Case Teaches You

1. Tell your full story — even if it feels awkward

If there are circumstances that explain why your car was somewhere you did not put it, say so. Domestic situations, family disputes, and vehicle access issues are more common than councils might like to admit. You do not need to lead with your most embarrassing or painful explanation, but you should include it before you reach the tribunal stage.

2. A missing police report does not automatically kill your appeal

In cases involving domestic abuse, coercive control, or complicated personal relationships, adjudicators understand why a crime may not have been reported. If this applies to you, explain the context clearly and honestly. Tribunals are not courts of criminal law — they are assessing the balance of probabilities.

3. Adding information is not the same as contradicting yourself

If your initial representations were incomplete, you can add to them at the appeal stage. What you cannot do is flatly contradict what you said before. Adjudicators distinguish between the two — so be honest about why you did not include something earlier, and explain it clearly.

4. Practical steps you have taken matter

Ms Lupson had sold the car. That one detail — mentioned almost in passing — helped demonstrate that her account was genuine. If you have taken steps to prevent a recurrence of whatever led to the PCN, mention them. It adds credibility.

5. Written evidence can be enough

Not everyone can attend a hearing, whether by video link or in person. This case shows that a well-written, honest, and consistent account can succeed even in a contested appeal decided on papers alone. Take time to write your appeal carefully.

The Key Takeaway

Tribunals are not just box-ticking exercises — they are designed to find the truth. When a driver's account is honest, internally consistent, and supported even by small circumstantial details, a good adjudicator will accept it. The absence of a crime report, a changed emphasis between representations, and a non-attended hearing were not enough to defeat Ms Lupson's appeal — because her core account was credible and the adjudicator was willing to see it in its full human context.

If your circumstances are complicated, do not assume the system will not listen. Explain yourself fully, honestly, and as early as you can. This case proves that sometimes, the tribunal will believe you.