Parking Ticket Advice


Beer God
Ive just recently moved into some flats in the centre of town, each flat comes with an allocated parking space and there are signs all around the carpark from a company called Central Ticketing based in Birmingham informing the hoi paloi that a parking permit is needed. (the carpark and access roads are private property).

I moved in last week and have been on my landlords case to get a permit sorted, woke up yesterday afternoon to find a ticket on my windscreen for £100 or a reduced fine of £65 if I cough up quick sharp. I rang the number on the ticket and there was advice on appealing so Ive sent them a firm but polite letter with all the details of the fine and my car and a photo copy of my tenancy agreement and an agreement letter from the lettings agency that states the numbered space that is allocated to my flat that my car was parked in when the fine was issued. Im hoping they will see sense and not chase me for this money. (which I have no intention of paying)

My question is if they do come chasing me for money where do I stand, Im thinking this is a civil matter as it was on private property and they would have to go to the extreme case of taking me to court or something BUT any advice on the subject would be appreciated! :)

Thanks in advance...


ASN Veteran
This has got 'debt collectors' and 'bailiff' written all over it.

I can't f***ing stand these private ticketing companies!! And your Central Ticketing sound like a right bunch of tossers.
Google "Central Ticketing scam" or just "Central Ticketing" and you'll see loads of other people who have had to deal with this lot.

To be honest, I don't really fancy your chances of getting them to cancel it so you might find yourself in a bit of a correspondance fight.
They'll probably just claim that although you have the right to park where you parked you did not display a permit and therefore still have to pay up.

A woman I worked with got done by one of these companies also. She paid an extra £8000 to have an allocated parking space at her flat. One night she parked there but instead of hanging the permit from her rear view mirror (as stated on her permit) she left it on her dash, but still clearly visible.
The next day she had a ticket. She appealed but they wouldn't have a bar of it. She ended up paying up rather than going through all of the bits that follow.

They might threaten to take you to court, you might have to call their bluff.

Good luck anyway. Be interested to hear how this pans out.


Beer God
Yeah Ive been reading bout it all afternoon, doing my V5 later to my new address will be interesting to see what happens...


Registered User


Registered User
Pepipoo has lots of advice too.

As you're entitled to park there it sounds like they can't sue you in court for anything at all. Private Companies can't charge Penalties by law, only sue for reasonable costs.


Beer God
Any news on this?

Ah yes, they wrote a letter last week saying they would waive the fee this one time. A couple of days later the letting agent dropped a parking permit off.

Unfortunatly on monday this week I came home tired and forgot to put my parking permit on the dashboard, woke up tuesday and there was a nice new fresh ******.

Im just going to ignore it and see what happens.....


W.Bro.Paul 2.0d Q5 Quattro
there is a simple solution to this one mate,

PCN = Penalty Charge Notice = in the blacks law dictionary = Offer to Contract

Read that again and read it for what it is, It is an offer to contract to owe them the fine money, for which you have the option to decline there offer, Just as much as to turn me down for the keys to your car.

Well how do i do this you may ask yourself, Remember this is a privately owned company, it has no power over you, no more power or authority to extract money from you than i have sat here at my computer and print you off some ticket and slap it on your car windscreen, this is a true fact,



Dear Sir/Madam
I am writing with regard concerning a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) dated **/**/**. The penalty notice is: **********. I am now formally contesting the validity of this ticket as although it follows Department of Transport guidelines (Local Authority Circular 1/95), it does not conform the Road Traffic Act 1991 (RTA 1991). My ticket states: ‘You are therefore required to pay a penalty of £60 within 28 days’. When does to 28 days start from? Today, Tomorrow, Next Week, Next Month, When?
Whereas under RTA 1991, Section 66(3) (c) it must state: ‘That the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice’. It could be argued that the 28 days starts from the issue date, but to comply with the law. IT MUST FOLLOW THE LETTER OF THE LAW, and this PCN DOESN’T.
Therefore it is my belief that this PCN is invalid & void, furthermore I believe that (INSERT YOUR COUNCIL NAME HERE) Borough Council , along with every other Local Authority that operate Decimalised Parking Enforcement, received the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) Circular (04/05) following the case: Roger MacArthur V Bury Metropolitan Borough Council regarding PCN BC30016187. The hearing took place on the 16/02/05. This circular advised them that the wording on their PCN’s was incorrect, and it is my belief that (INSERT YOUR COUNCIL NAME HERE) has not followed their advice.
Does this circular suggest that NPAS is offering advice to Local Authority Councils?
As from their website directly underneath the video clip it reads:
‘As an independent tribunal, the NPAS cannot offer advice to appellants or councils on the merits of individual cases’

I feel I must inform you that under article 6 of the 1998 Human Rights Act, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, and I feel that any appeal to NPAS would not be independent and impartial.
I am furthermore formally contesting the validity as I also believe that no individual company has the right to demand money from me for an alleged offence which has not been proven in a Court of Law. As stated in section 12 of the Bill of Rights Act 1689 enacted and formally entered into Statute following the Declaration of Rights 1689:
‘That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void’
As stated by (INSERT NAME OF PCN COMPANY HERE) they do not issue fines but PCN,s. However according to (INSERT YOUR COUNCIL NAME HERE) official website, they do issue fines and is quite clearly listed in the A-Z of Council Services. Therefore, it would appear that (INSERT YOUR COUNCIL NAME HERE) and its agents (INSERT NAME OF PCN COMPANY HERE) have no lawful authority to demand money for an alleged infringement that has not been dealt with by a Court of Law.
Of the Bill of Rights, I feel I must point out that the text of the Bill of Rights states clearly enough that no fines or forfeitures may be imposed before the process of judgment and conviction, and this text clearly indicates that a Court of Law is required to resolve disputes of any kind, either Civil or Criminal.
Because judgments are involved in the preamble to the Bill of Rights, as well as convictions. It is quite clear that only HM Courts have the legal authority to impose lawful judgments &/or convictions. Furthermore with the precise words of the Bill of Rights very much in mind, I must record with you that the provisions of the Bill of Rights cannot be satisfied by any process of appeal to anywhere other than HM Courts of Law!.
In a word The Declaration of Rights provides that if BBC wishes to proceed against me, they will have to refer this matter to HM Court Service, where the issues must be resolved in a lawful manner. Otherwise, the forfeit demanded of me is illegal and void.
In addition to the provisions of the Declaration and Bill of Rights, and in support of my own assertion that this process is not constituted in accordance with our laws, I must ask you to recognise the Great Charter of Our Liberties that is now incorporated into Statute Law under the name of the Magna Carta. I draw your particular attention to the provisions made at Articles 39 & 40 of the Statute, which states as follows:-
39. No free man shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or deprived of his property, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor shall we go against him or send against him, unless by legal judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land.
40. To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.
I do not believe that (INSERT YOUR COUNCIL NAME HERE) are my peers, and they are certainly not the law of the land. I believe that HM Court Service is the law of the land. There can be no doubt that I am a free man and that Articles 39 & 40 apply to me. It is clear & very well recorded that the entire purpose of Magna Carta was to reduce the power of the king and not to increase this power and in consequence of the very obvious, it is clear that the option of trial by the judgment of my peers or by the law of the land is an option that is secured to me in all circumstances such as this, and not an option that may be exercised by or at the behest of the Crown, or by any authority that claims to hold an authority under the Crown.
E.g. The Local Authority (INSERT YOUR COUNCIL NAME HERE) with which I find myself in dispute.
In addition to the provisions of the Declaration and Bill of Rights, and the Magna Carta. I would like to draw your attention to the Human Rights Act 1998, and in particular to Article 6 (Right To A Fair Trail), and the provisions made in paragraph 1:
1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
I am now formally appealing this PCN and will if required appeal to the NPAS. The Independent Tribunal that receives 60p from every PCN issued, and is funded by the local authority collecting the PCN. The evidence of the now-recorded and public admissions of the NPAS now serves to reveal that the process of this tribunal system is being funded in part from the resources of my opponent, and this admission leads to the inevitable conclusion that any such hearing is not established in a manner that is independent from the interests of my opponent.
I am therefore requesting that if (INSERT YOUR COUNCIL NAME HERE) wishes to proceed with this matter, they have to refer the matter to Her Majesty's Courts Service, as it is my intention to defend my case through the law courts of HM the Queen, as The Declaration of Rights 1689, the Magna Carta 1215, and the Human Rights Act 1998 provides I have an inalienable right to require that all and any legal actions undertaken against me, whether Civil or Criminal be heard and resolved by a Court of Law that operates in the name and for the purposes of the Queen.

That is why the Royal Coat of Arms is displayed in every Courtroom!
I look forward to hearing from you in this matter.

Yours Faithfully,

Also if it does not apply to your country use this

Just so we are all reading from the same page... PCN = Penalty Charge Notice = A Notice = Offer of contract?

In red, print at a SW to NE direction in RED ink the following message on the PCN and return it to the address within 72 hours. Drive it there if required. Special delivery costs £4.95 but even with the postal strikes I have been okay (even recently with my Wescot letter - another success story).

Anyway this is what you write:


I also must offer you all the following web sites to read up on so as you don't just take my word for it, investigate the truth for yourselves

Last edited: