Blue Badge Fraud Act Prosecution: Section 117 vs Fraud Act 2006 Defence

If you have been notified of a Blue Badge investigation by a local authority, the specific statute under which you are charged will shape the consequences for the rest of your professional life. Councils face a tactical choice in every case: prosecute for wrongful use under Section 117 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, or escalate to Sections 1 or 2 of the Fraud Act 2006. The primary difference between these two charges is the element of dishonesty — and that single word carries consequences that extend far beyond the courtroom.

1. Section 117 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984: The Lower Charge

Section 117 is the primary statute for wrongful use of a disabled person’s badge. An offence is committed where a person who is not the badge holder — and is not using the vehicle to transport the badge holder — uses a disabled person’s badge to park in a designated bay or obtain a parking concession.

Key Characteristics of a Section 117 Charge

• Summary Only: This offence can only be heard in the Magistrates’ Court. It cannot be sent to the Crown Court.
• The Penalty: A Level 3 fine, currently capped at £1,000, plus the council’s investigative costs and a victim surcharge.
• No Dishonesty Element: Unlike the Fraud Act, Section 117 does not require the council to prove you acted dishonestly — only that you displayed the badge without the holder being present. This also means the offence does not carry a dishonesty tag on your record.
• DBS Impact: A Section 117 conviction generally does not appear on a Basic or Standard DBS check. It may be disclosed on an Enhanced DBS check at the discretion of the relevant Chief Constable, where they consider it relevant to the role being applied for — this is more common for roles involving vulnerable adults or children.
• Professional Regulators: A Section 117 conviction is less likely to trigger an automatic fitness-to-practise investigation than a Fraud Act conviction, though regulated professionals should take advice on their specific disclosure obligations.

2. The Fraud Act 2006: The Serious Charge

The Fraud Act 2006 is deployed by councils in cases involving deceased relatives’ badges, altered expiry dates, counterfeit permits, or where the investigation suggests a pattern of deliberate misuse rather than a one-off mistake.

The Legal Definition: Section 2 — Fraud by False Representation

A person commits this offence if they:

1. Dishonestly make a false representation, and
2. Intend, by making that representation, to make a gain for themselves or another, or to cause a loss to another.

In the Blue Badge context, displaying a badge that you are not entitled to use is characterised as a false representation that you are parking lawfully under the scheme — gaining the benefit of the disabled bay or parking concession.

Why This Charge Is So Damaging

• “Either Way” Offence: Unlike Section 117, a Fraud Act charge can be heard in either the Magistrates’ Court or the Crown Court. The possibility of Crown Court proceedings significantly increases the stakes.
• Mandatory PNC Entry: A Fraud Act conviction is an automatic entry on the Police National Computer (PNC) as a recordable offence.
• The Dishonesty Tag: Because the charge requires proof of dishonesty and intent to gain, it is categorised alongside fraud, theft, and forgery on your criminal record. This is the element that triggers professional regulatory consequences.
• The Penalty: Unlimited fine and, in serious cases, a custodial sentence of up to 10 years.
• DBS Impact: A Fraud Act conviction will appear on all levels of DBS check — Basic, Standard, and Enhanced. It becomes spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 after a period determined by the sentence imposed, but the Chief Constable retains discretion to disclose spent convictions on Enhanced checks where they consider it relevant. For professionals in regulated roles, this means the practical impact can extend well beyond the formal rehabilitation period.

3. Side-by-Side Comparison

4. Why Councils Reach for the Fraud Act

If Section 117 exists specifically for Blue Badge misuse, why are defendants increasingly facing Fraud Act charges? The answer is a combination of deterrence, cost recovery, and evidential opportunity.

A Fraud Act prosecution allows the council to recover substantially higher investigative costs from a convicted defendant than a Section 117 prosecution. It also carries a stronger deterrent effect — a conviction that follows a defendant into every professional application and regulatory disclosure they make for years afterwards sends a far louder message than a traffic fine.

The PACE interview is where the council gathers the evidence it needs to support the more serious charge. The two elements of a Fraud Act offence — dishonesty and intent to make a gain — are difficult to prove from the roadside encounter alone. But if a defendant attends the interview unrepresented and says something to the effect of “I knew I shouldn’t have done it” or “I did it to avoid paying for parking,” the council has both pillars it needs. This is why legal advice before any interview under caution is not optional — it is essential.

5. Our Defence Strategy: Downgrading and Decriminalising

Our approach to Fraud Act Blue Badge cases is built on three pillars: challenging the legal basis for the more serious charge, attacking the dishonesty element, and negotiating the most favourable outcome available given the specific facts.

Challenging the False Representation

In many cases, we argue that the display of a genuine, valid badge — where the holder is simply absent — does not constitute a “representation of fact” as defined by the Fraud Act. The badge itself is not a false document. The representation being made is that parking is lawfully permitted under the scheme. Where the misuse arises from a misunderstanding of the “holder present” requirement rather than a deliberate deception, we argue that the correct charge is Section 117 — not fraud.

Disproving Dishonesty

Under the legal test for dishonesty established in Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67, the court must assess the defendant’s actual state of mind and then consider whether their conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary reasonable people. If we can establish that you acted under genuine misunderstanding — for example, a mistaken belief about the picking-up and dropping-off rules, or a failure to appreciate that the badge requirement applies at the point of parking rather than the destination — the dishonesty element of the Fraud Act charge is significantly weakened.

Negotiating the Basis of Plea

Where the council will not withdraw the case entirely, we negotiate a basis of plea. We offer to enter a guilty plea to the lesser Section 117 offence in exchange for the council formally withdrawing the Fraud Act charges. This removes the dishonesty tag from the outcome, substantially reducing the impact on professional registrations, DBS checks, and future visa applications. Securing this downgrade is one of the most valuable outcomes a solicitor can achieve in a Blue Badge case — and it is rarely available to defendants who approach the council unrepresented.

6. The Out-of-Court Settlement: The Best Technical Result

For professionals and individuals with a clean record, the optimal outcome is neither Section 117 nor the Fraud Act — it is an administrative settlement that produces no conviction at all.

We use the Code for Crown Prosecutors to argue that prosecuting a person of good character for a one-off error is not in the public interest, and that a private settlement represents a more proportionate and efficient outcome. We propose that the council accepts:

• The full outstanding parking charges — the financial gain from the misuse
• The council’s reasonable investigative costs
• A formal letter of apology acknowledging the misuse

Where council budgets are under pressure, a guaranteed payment of costs — typically in the range of £500 to £3,000 depending on the council and the complexity of the case — is often more attractive than the time and resource cost of a contested hearing, particularly where the outcome is uncertain. The key is that this proposal is presented formally and professionally by a solicitor, not made informally by the defendant.

7. Frequently Asked Questions

“My summons mentions both charges. Is that normal?”

Yes — councils frequently issue both a Fraud Act charge and a Section 117 charge simultaneously. This is sometimes called “double charging.” The Fraud Act charge creates pressure to enter a guilty plea quickly, while Section 117 is retained as a fallback. We treat this as a starting point for negotiation: we push immediately for the Fraud Act charge to be dropped, leaving only the lesser Section 117 matter in play — or ideally resolving the case before any plea is entered.

“Can a Fraud Act conviction be spent?”

Yes — under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, a Fraud Act conviction for which a fine was imposed becomes spent after a set period determined by the sentence. However, for Enhanced DBS purposes, the Chief Constable retains discretion to disclose spent convictions where they consider the information relevant to the role. For professionals working in regulated sectors, this means the practical impact of a Fraud Act conviction can significantly outlast the formal rehabilitation period — which is why avoiding the conviction entirely is so important.

“What if the badge had an expired date?”

Using an expired badge is frequently charged under the Fraud Act because the display of the badge can be characterised as a representation that it is currently valid — which is objectively false. These cases are challenging but defensible. Our focus is on the absence of intent: if you did not check the expiry date because you had used the badge regularly without issue, and there was no deliberate attempt to conceal the expiry, we argue the dishonesty element of the Fraud Act is not made out. A Section 117 downgrade or an out-of-court settlement is often achievable.

“What if I already admitted it was wrong at the roadside?”

A roadside admission is damaging but not necessarily fatal. It is one piece of evidence among several, and the weight placed on an informal, unguarded comment made under stress is something we can challenge. What matters more at this stage is what you say — or do not say — at the formal PACE interview. Contact us before attending any interview under caution, regardless of what was said at the roadside.

Written and approved by Shella Makwana, Criminal Defence Solicitor | 25+ years experience | Makwana Solicitors