I moved into a block of flats and was given a parking token by the previous resident. The token has the date of the issue, the name of the block of flats, but no expiry date and no registration. The land around the flat is private with marked areas for parking in.

I parked in one of these areas and was given a ticket for 'parking in a restricted area'. I clearly wasn't, so I appealed but after 2 weeks was told the fine was upheld because the token was 'non-transferable'. I have 2 issues with this, firstly; is the ticket valid if it was issued for the wrong reason? it was originally issued for 'parking in a restricted area', now they're saying it was issued for using a token issued to someone else. Secondly there's no indication that the token is 'not transferable', as a resident I'm entitled to park in the area and I used the token in good faith. If it's not transferable there's no reason it couldn't be written on the back.

I'm taking this to the IAS (Independent Appeals Service), but in the meantime what's the law on this?

  • 2
    Are you sure they don't mean "parking in a restricted area (without being actually authorized to do so)"? If your car is in the restricted area and isn't actually supposed to be there, that's a reason to issue a ticket and it doesn't become a different reason when you say you reasonably believed you were supposed to be there.
    – interfect
    Sep 17, 2023 at 15:27
  • @interfect - initial ticket was issued for quote "parking in a restricted area". only after they agreed it was not a restricted area did they claim the token was invalid Sep 17, 2023 at 17:36
  • 1
    Then you might have to look into exactly what the ticket system is made of. Private companies are not by default empowered to issue "tickets" where I am from; they can only try to charge you money and claim you agreed to it. Presumably whatever piece of law has given ticketing authority to this company should set out the rules of how they are allowed to use it, if/when tickets can be amended, and the consequences for choosing not to pay.
    – interfect
    Sep 17, 2023 at 18:20
  • 2
    simply put.... read your contracts.
    – Trish
    Sep 18, 2023 at 8:46
  • @ConanTheGerbil - I think where interfect was going was the idea that the area might have been restricted to use by valid permit holders. If they're saying the permit you have isn't valid (for you), it's the same reason. Either way, it's likely to go better arguing a good faith misunderstanding over the validity of the transferred permit than arguing whether they gave the same or a different reason. Sep 18, 2023 at 9:31


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .