A senior traffic warden whose job included catching people who misused disabled parking badges has been dismissed after he was found using his deceased mother’s blue badge to avoid paying for parking while he went shopping — and has now lost his unfair dismissal claim at tribunal.
Dinesh Patel, who had worked for the London Borough of Harrow for more than 20 years, was caught with his late mother’s blue badge on display in his car on 20 September 2021, some four months after she had died. He was issued a Penalty Charge Notice and in May 2022 pleaded guilty at magistrates’ court to the wrongful use of a disabled person’s badge, receiving a fine.
The irony of his position was not lost on the tribunal. As a Senior Civil Enforcement Officer, a role he had held since 2019, Patel’s specific responsibilities included “monitoring, reporting and enforcing the misuse of disabled blue badges” and “giving evidence to court about criminal and civil breaches.” He had been in the parking enforcement profession since December 2001.
At his disciplinary hearing, Patel claimed his aunt had been in the car at the time and that she had displayed the badge after he left to do his shopping. He also said he had not paid for parking because he was unsure whether payment was required during the Covid period. He described the incident as a “silly mistake” and said he had not anticipated the matter going further. His manager Gary Cooley referred the case for disciplinary action after becoming aware of the conviction.
The council dismissed Patel for gross misconduct. The dismissal letter stated: “Given your role as a Senior Civil Enforcement Officer and your tenure at Harrow Council of over 20 years, you should be leading by example and ensure that any matters relating to fraud would be disclosed to Management at the earliest opportunity.”
Patel challenged the dismissal as unfair, but Watford Employment Tribunal rejected his claim. Employment Judge Nathaniel Caiden said that while he sympathised with Patel over the loss of his mother, four months was sufficient time in which to have returned the badge. “He should therefore have definitely known better,” the judge said. “There was a particularly strong relationship between the criminal conviction and his job. He should have known of the position and was in fact responsible for enforcing it.” The judge also noted that as the vehicle was registered in Patel’s name, he bore responsibility for the badge being displayed in it regardless of his account of events.
