Isn’t there a standard for this type of thing?


Isn’t there a standard for this type of thing?

In the UK, someone actually read the fine print on a parking ticket and challenged it. A tribunal of some kind agreed and voided the ticket, and at the same time voided 1600 other tickets that hadn’t yet been paid. They figured that the ones that had been paid had by paying admitted liability so they were not going to return the money. I have no clue about the legal side of this, but to me using my “common sense” rule, this is bonkers.

The tickets were written in good faith. They were received in good faith. They were paid in good faith. So therefore the ones that had not been paid (Because the people who didn’t pay them were scofflaws) should also be collected. Of course if there is an unrelated problem with the citation (illegible, person didn’t do it, etc) then of course they shouldn’t have to pay.

It would seem to me that if there was some legal mumbo jumbo that no one except a lawyer understood anyway, and it doesn’t really make any difference as to whether a person was guilty or not, then the citations should stand. If there was a problem with signage (perhaps a conflict where one sign says park and one says don’t park, for instance, or a tree covering the sign), I can see voiding all the tickets and correcting the problem. However if something is in the fine print and the rest of the process is kosher, then why can’t we let common sense prevail? Just Saying


Picture of John Van Horn

John Van Horn

One Response

  1. It’s not just “some person” challenged “a ticket”: it’s been quite popular to work on getting tickets (PCNs) cancelled because of technicalities in the small print.
    An example of the type of technicality people have won appeals on is to do with the “Notice to Owner” (NtO) letter being issued. If the PCN’s not paid after 28 days, the council sends an NtO, reminding them of the payment/appeals options and what will happen if they continue to ignore the PCN. If it says on the back of the PCN that “after 28 days, a Notice to Owner may be sent”, rather than “after 28 days, the council may send a Notice to owner”, then that, apparently, is misleading, because them motorist won’t know who sends the NtO, and might be worried that it’s the Police.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Only show results from:

Recent Posts

A Note from a Friend

I received this from John Clancy. Now retired, John worked in the technology side of the industry for decades. I don’t think this needs any

Read More »

Look out the Window

If there is any advice I can give it’s concerning the passing scene. “Look out the window.” Rather than listen to CNN or the New

Read More »


Send message to

    We use cookies to monitor our website and support our customers. View our Privacy Policy