A driver said he has been “unfairly singled out” by Harrow Council after he received a fine for parking in what he says has been a legitimate space for decades.

Jeff Jones was left confused when he was given a penalty charge notice (PCN) after he parked up in Old Redding, near The Case is Altered Pub, Harrow, in August.

He claims the area – a “lay-by come parking bay used by walkers” – has been used by cars for around 30 years, something that, if it were illegal, would surely not be the case.

Mr Jones added the council has clearly marked off areas on the road unsuitable for parking with wooden posts, but there is no such signage at this site.

When he initially contested the decision, council officers said the PCN would be upheld on the basis he was parking on a route used by pedestrians – the “pavement or off-road”.

In a letter, they said: “This rule applies 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and is enforced because vehicles can get in the way of pedestrians, especially blind people or people with prams, and can damage underground pipes.”

Mr Jones described this reasoning as “idiotic nonsense” since the council “knows only too well that people have parked here for decades”.

He also questioned the idea that it would be used by pedestrians, given that there is a more substantial, clearer concept of pavement on the other side of the road.

And he pointed out that, “both before and after the fine, [he] has never once seen any parked vehicle [there] given a ticket”.

“I revisited the site on a subsequent Sunday and there were cars parked not only in the space where I received my fine, but dozens of cars were parked all along the left hand side of the road and not one of them had a ticket,” he said.

“Harrow Council has made it almost impossible to launch a reasonable appeal by making their parking department as faceless and unaccountable as they can with the result that I feel I’ve been singled out and treated unequally under the law.”

Mr Jones said he ultimately paid the fine as he did not trust the wider appeal process, but that this was “in no way an admission of liability”.