How JustAnswer Works:

  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.

Ask Ash Your Own Question

Ash, Solicitor
Category: Law
Satisfied Customers: 10914
Experience:  Solicitor with 5+ years experience
Type Your Law Question Here...
Ash is online now

Court Order to Remove Disabled Bay – Residents' Parking

Customer Question

Court Order to Remove Disabled Bay – in a Residents’ Parking Scheme

Please do Not answer in Chat mode (compatibility problems)

Regarding Harassment / Anti-Social Behaviour. When getting a Protective Order (injunction) to stop neighbours from harassing us, can we also ask that the Court issue an Order requiring a Disabled Bay be removed?

A disabled person lived in a house close to us. She had an “Advisory” bay painted by the Council on the road so people could pick her up and drop her off. There was no public consultation about this, no gazette etc advertising. The bay did not have the force of law. An “advisory disabled bay” simply asks people to be reasonable and kindly not park in this spot. It cannot be enforced in law. No one can get a ticket for it.

Whether “advisory” or “statutory”, the disabled bay is there for anyone with a Blue Badge to use – despite the proximity to any house (where the disabled occupant that asked for it originally used to live), it is not for the sole use of the adjacent occupant, but for anyone, living anywhere, who has a blue badge, to use.

Since then, the lady has unfortunately passed away. There is no one at that house or close neighbours who has any disability or even a car that they might want to park there.

Some months ago, the Council installed a Residents’ Parking Scheme. There was public consultation, gazette advertising etc. A Traffic Regulations Order (TRO) was issued. This scheme has statutory powers and can be enforced. The Council are still checking to see if the offending Disabled Bay was included in the scheme (ie: whether it has become a “Statutory Disabled Parking Bay” or remains an “Advisory Disabled Parking Bay”). We await the outcome.

Nobody objected to the disabled parking bay continuing, at the time of the consultation for the Residents’ parking scheme, because the occupants of the house were not abusing it at the time, so no one cared.

Disabled People (with Blue Badges) can now parking anywhere in the scheme, without the need for a residents’ parking permit, for free, for as long as they like. To this extent, the fact that any of the disabled bays still exists, is a little pointless, especially where they are outside house no longer occupied by disabled people with cars – they effectively exclude anyone from ever parking in the disabled bay (a disabled person is unlikely to want to park their car outside a strangers house, when they can just as well park it, without restrictions, nearer to where they are going. No occupants at this address or neighbouring addresses have disabilities or even cars. So the space is empty all the time)

However, there has been a long standing problem with a couple who moved in next door to the address of the disabled bay. Threats to Kill, Assaults, Public Disorder, Harassment, Anti-Social Behaviour. They have convictions for all of these in the past – a further case regarding harassment is being prepared.

Their newest tactic has been to use the Disabled Bay to harass neighbours. The disabled bay space is never used, so the postmen, courier services, supermarkets, Argos, etc, etc all find it a wonderful spot to stop and drop off their loads. People receiving such deliveries are powerless to prevent this. The police and Council seem happy for deliverers to stop to drop things off

However, the “nightmare neighbours” in question, come out and start shouting and threatening the deliverers, and then do the same to the people receiving the goods.

The Council’s Anti-Social Behaviour officer (due to cutbacks) say the behaviour is too serious for them to deal with, and in any case they would only help vulnerable people. They tell us to go to the police.

The Police in turn, say it is not serious enough for them to deal with. Due to cutbacks, they must “prioritise” what they can do.

So we have started private legal action against them to get a civil injunction due to the harassment. (we will also ask these (expensive) solicitors) to advise us on this matter, but would appreciate your input at this stage)

Also, the Council state that, while they are legally obliged to put in a disabled bay if one is required, they are not legally required to remove it. They usually just leave it to “wear away”.

The Council do seem sympathetic. They and the police have received many complaints about this and it is costing them many man hours etc.

We have offered to pay the Council a few hundred pounds to remove the bay if it is still just an “Advisory” bay.

We have offered to pay the Council £10,000 if it turns out to be a “Statutory” bay, instituted under the TRO for the Parking Scheme – this is how much they say it will cost to redo the whole TRO which they say is what would have to happen, just to get this one element of the Residents’ Parking Scheme amended. (Legal action might cost us more, so we are willing to consider paying this)

But, in the context of applying for a Protective Order due to the harassment as a whole, of which harassment via the Disabled Bay is just one aspect, would it be possible to ask the Court to issue an Order requiring the Council to remove this surplus disabled bay, so that the Council were not forced to redo all of the Traffic Regulations Order

I think the Council might like to be required to do this – as the alternative of completely revisiting the whole Traffic Regulations Order is not appealing to them (huge work and cost), the nightmare neighbour might well object to the removal of the bay during the consultation (more work and cost) and continued reports of harassment about this bay would lead to yet more work and costs for them

Us getting a Court Order requiring the Council to remove the unused disabled bay in the statutory residents’ parking scheme, might be a neater, quicker, surer and less fraught way to resolve this matter. Can you please tell me if this might be possible to do and how we might go about it?

Also, would we need to instate proceedings in this matter against the harassers, asking for the disabled bay to be removed – which they probably would contest?

Or could we institute the action against the Council, asking for an order to require the Council to remove a disused disabled bay – which the Council might not contest – as a Court Order requiring them to remove a Disabled Bay within a statutory Residents’ Parking Scheme, could be a way to make it possible for the Council to remove the disabled bay, without having to go through the whole TRO consultation, advertising etc process all over again

Please let me know what approaches could be taken and how (practical steps)

I will pay a bonus depending on how helpful, relevant, detailed and practical the answer is.


Submitted: 1 year ago.
Category: Law
Expert:  Jo C. replied 1 year ago.
Thank you for your question. My name is ***** ***** I will try to help with this.
So, in short, you are hoping to get the council to remove the disabled bays?
Customer: replied 1 year ago.

Yes, please answer the points to the question

Expert:  Jo C. replied 1 year ago.
Sorry if I am missing the point but what is the basis for your application?
This seems to have been granted without objection and is still in use?
Customer: replied 1 year ago.

Please read the question. All the information is already there. Answer all the points. Thanks

Expert:  Jo C. replied 1 year ago.
I am sorry but there is no basis to achieve this.
A disabled bay can be the subject of objection at the time of introduction. That did not happen.
It can be removed if it falls into disuse. That has not happened.
The fact that these people behave in an anti social way is another matter altogether but it is not a ground to remove a disabled bay.
There may be other grounds but you are not quoting any above I'm afraid.
Can I clarify anything for you?
Customer: replied 1 year ago.

I would be grateful if you could read the question again.

I stated above that "the space is empty all the time" - I am not sure how this differs from "falls into disuse". If this is the same, please explain the approach to have a "disused" disabled bay removed.

Also, as explained in my question, there is no point in such disabled bays any more, as blue badge holders can park for free, for as long as they like anywhere within the scheme area.

The Council state that they wrote to all people who had a disabled bay outside their address at the time the residents' parking scheme was being proposed to ask if they still needed it. But all other residents on the street who have a disabled bay outside their house, say they received no such letter / consultation - the bays were just left as was by default.

We objected to the disabled bay, as soon as it became clear that it was being left in place as they set up the residents' parking scheme.

I had been assured by the Council's head of the project, at a public meeting about the parking scheme that it would cease to remain a disabled parking bay if it was no longer needed (as was/is the case).

The Council would like to remove it, but are struggling to find a justification (legal and financial) to do it.

Must the Council really relaunch the whole public consultation and advertising process and introduce a completely new Traffic Regulations Order (TRO) in order to remove just this one disabled parking bay, or is there a simpler way to amend the TRO or even remove the bay without changing the TRO at all?

Please elaborate on your sentence "There may be other grounds but you are not quoting any above I'm afraid."

I need you to help us identify a solution to this problem. I do not know the law on such matters and if I must keep probing all permutations of possibilities until I happen across one that can work legally, this Q&A process will get very drawn out. Please can you identify possible solutions to this problem, so I may see which we can do. We do not want another murder on our street, for these sort of reasons, before anyone does something about this.


Expert:  Jo C. replied 1 year ago.
I've really given you my answer and I can't add more.
Opting out.
Customer: replied 1 year ago.

Can you please open this question back up for others to answer. Thanks

Expert:  Nicola-mod replied 1 year ago.
It seems the professional has left this conversation. This happens occasionally, and it's usually because the professional thinks that someone else might be a better match for your question. I've been working hard to find a new professional to assist you with your question, but sometimes finding the right professional can take a little longer than expected.
I wonder whether you're OK with continuing to wait for an answer. If you are, please let me know and I will continue my search. If not, feel free to let me know and I will cancel this question for you.
Thank you!
Customer: replied 1 year ago.

I'm OK to continue waiting

Expert:  Ash replied 1 year ago.
Hello my name is ***** ***** I will help you.
Just to be clear, the Council changed it?
Ash, Solicitor
Category: Law
Satisfied Customers: 10914
Experience: Solicitor with 5+ years experience
Ash and other Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 1 year ago.

I am not sure what you mean by "changed it"?

I have been told by your moderator that my question has been reported as "underpriced". Can I be clear, I will pay a good price for a good answer. I will need your guidance as to what you consider the going rate is. The cost is less of an issue, the quality, depth, authority and practical guidance is more for me.


Customer: replied 1 year ago.

Please see private contact info

Expert:  Ash replied 1 year ago.
Ok when would be good to call?
Customer: replied 1 year ago.

Now, this evening. Any time after 11am on any day


Expert:  Ash replied 1 year ago.

What Customers are Saying:

  • Thank you so much for your help. Your answers were really useful and came back so quickly. Great! Maggie
< Previous | Next >
  • Thank you so much for your help. Your answers were really useful and came back so quickly. Great! Maggie
  • A quick response, a succinct and helpful answer in simple English. I believe I can now confront the counter party with confidence -- worth the 30 bucks! Rick
  • Wonderful service, prompt, efficient, and accurate. Couldn't have asked for more. I cannot thank you enough for your help. Mary C.
  • This expert is wonderful. They truly know what they are talking about, and they actually care about you. They really helped put my nerves at ease. Thank you so much!!!! Alex
  • Thank you for all your help. It is nice to know that this service is here for people like myself, who need answers fast and are not sure who to consult. GP
  • I couldn't be more satisfied! This is the site I will always come to when I need a second opinion. Justin
  • Just let me say that this encounter has been entirely professional and most helpful. I liked that I could ask additional questions and get answered in a very short turn around. Esther

Meet The Experts:

  • Jo C.

    Jo C.


    Satisfied Customers:

    Over 5 years in practice
< Last | Next >
  • Jo C.'s Avatar

    Jo C.


    Satisfied Customers:

    Over 5 years in practice
  • Ben Jones's Avatar

    Ben Jones

    UK Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    Qualified Solicitor - Please start your question with 'For Ben Jones'
  • Buachaill's Avatar



    Satisfied Customers:

    Barrister 17 years experience
  • Max Lowry's Avatar

    Max Lowry


    Satisfied Customers:

    LLB, 10 years post qualification experience
  • UK_Lawyer's Avatar



    Satisfied Customers:

    I am a qualified solicitor and an expert in UK law.
  • Kasare's Avatar



    Satisfied Customers:

    Solicitor, 10 yrs plus experience in civil litigation, employment and family law
  • Joshua's Avatar



    Satisfied Customers:

    LL.B (Hons), Higher Prof. Dip. Law & Practice