David Miller, a 49-year-old homeowner, has found himself at odds with local authorities after receiving a £35 fine for parking outside his own residence. Determined to challenge this penalty, he plans to contest the matter with the council.

The incident unfolded when Mr. Miller, a business consultant living in Chester, Cheshire, discovered a parking ticket on his Jaguar F-Type, parked on a six-meter stretch of tarmac outside his gate. The area, which he has used without trouble for the past decade, unexpectedly became the focus of enforcement action.

The timing of the ticket could not have been worse. Mr. Miller’s three-bedroom home was undergoing roof renovations, leaving his driveway obstructed by building materials and forcing him to park outside the gate. This necessity led him to leave his car there on the evening of Sunday, January 11.

To his dismay, by the next morning, he found the unwelcome ticket tucked beneath his windscreen wiper, sparking his resolve to take the matter further. Mr. Miller argues that his long history of parking on the council-owned tarmac without prior incidents should be considered in his defense.

However the next morning he woke to find a parking ticket placed underneath his windscreen wiper.

Mr Miller said he had previously parked his car on the council-owned stretch of tarmac at various points over the past ten years with no issues.

He also claims his vehicle was well away from the road and not near the yellow lines which run past his house.

Now after an appeal against the fine was rejected by the council, Mr Miller said he will take them on over the ‘ridiculous’ decision. 

David Miller stood outside his home beside where his car was parked when he received the ticket

He was furious to discover a parking ticket the next morning after leaving his car on the tarmac

His three-bedroom Chester home was undergoing roof renovations at the time and Mr Miller could not leave his car on the driveway 

Mr Miller said a solicitor contacted him and urged him to fight against the fine.

They told him there are a ‘multitude’ of reasons why he isn’t liable, including signage and the drop kerb between the yellow lines and the road.

He said: ‘I was shocked when I saw the ticket on the windshield.

‘The car was well behind the yellow lines, it wasn’t impeding any pedestrians as the path is on the other side of the road.

‘I had always assumed I could park there – I had done for ten years with no issues.

‘I see it as a money-making exercise from the council – an excuse for them to pick on neighbourhoods for no reason.

‘I have had neighbours get tickets for parking on similar tarmac outside their houses and they have been rescinded.

‘Why is mine being treated differently.

‘It is ridiculous that it is against the law to park my car outside my own home.’

Mr Miller believed the space between the drop kerb and the double yellow lines meant he was able to park 

The business consultant left his Jaguar F-Type in front of the gate to his own driveway

According to the council, the tarmac where his car was parked is part of the road and also has double yellow lines which restrict parking.

Yet Mr Miller disputes their reasoning, saying that the tarmac acts as part of his driveway connecting his house to the road.

He said: ‘It isn’t like it leads to a footpath, or anyone else’s houses, mine is the only one it takes you to.

‘It forms a small road from the highway to my house.

‘The car being there isn’t blocking anything or causing any inconvenience to anyone.’

Mr Miller has said that he had previously received a parking ticket last September when parking on the grass next to his house, while a decorator’s van was parked on the drive.

But he said he was surprised to have been given another ticket for parking on the stretch of tarmac.

He added: ‘I’d moved my car onto the grass last year while work was being done in the house and received a ticket then.

‘I agree, I shouldn’t have parked there, but in comparison this is nothing like it.’

Mr Miller said the his car was only blocking his own home and was not an inconvenience to anyone else

He claimed he had parked on the tarmac at various points in the past ten years with no issues

Mr Miller also felt aggrieved as he often maintains the large stretch of grass around the front and side of the property out of his own pocket, which he says is ‘saving the council money’.

After sharing the incident on social media, a local solicitor reached out to him and said he would help him challenge the council’s decision again.

He said: ‘He told me there are a multitude of reasons, including signage, but the main one being the fact there is a drop kerb there.

‘Because of the kerb, it creates a break, meaning the yellow lines belong to the highway and not the piece of tarmac.

‘He said if I wasn’t allowed to park there, then the yellow lines would be painted to go up to my gate.

‘If you look at it from a legal perspective, I suppose the council are within their rights to do it, in the letter of the law, but from a common-sense perspective, it’s part of my drive.

‘It’s not restricting any traffic coming into the road.

‘If traffic wardens are going to be coming around on a regular basis, we have two cars and I can park inside the gates – but sometimes for space when we have friends and family round I’ll park on the tarmac or they’ll park their car there, does that mean they’re at risk of getting a fine?

‘Or will they need to park elsewhere which is an inconvenience for them.’

Mr Miller has vowed to challenge the fine after an appeal against the council’s decision was rejected

A spokesperson for Cheshire West and Chester Council said: ‘Following complaints about parking in this area, the Council’s Civil Enforcement Officers increased their visits to ensure compliance with the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO).

‘This location is adopted by the local authority and is fully enforceable.’

The council say the double yellow lines in fact ‘extend from the centre of the carriageway to the land boundary, which in this case is the residents’ fence’.

They added: ‘Vehicles parked on this land or the adjacent grassed area are considered to be in contravention of the restrictions.’