Man taken to court in two-year battle over 90p parking ticket wins £289.50

Man taken to court in two-year battle over 90p parking ticket wins £289.50 The company has been ordered to pay him compensation - including the £4.50 it cost him to park at court A man being chased by debt collectors despite proof of parking has successfully defended himself in court and even won compensation. In December 2023, John Waters, 76, entered the Foreman Centre Car Park in Headcorn, Kent, to visit the shops with his wife. But Civil Enforcement fined him for allegedly keying in only half of his number plate. It started a two-and-half year battle involving multiple letters and hours spent trying to communicate with the company until John got his day in court. John told the court he had paid 90p to park for an hour and keyed in his registration. When the ticket printed with only the last four digits of his registration, he presumed it was to prevent the ticket being transferred to another vehicle. He then returned to his car 36 minutes later and headed home. But a fortnight later the Sittingbourne man was surprised to receive a penalty notice from Civil Enforcement, claiming he had not paid and he was being issued with a £100 fine, reduced to £60 if settled within 14 days. Armed with a printed copy of his ticket and bank statement, he replied to the letter with his evidence and presumed the fine would be cancelled. A second letter arrived, and John appealed to Civil Enforcement, but the firm rejected his submissions. Instead, the company said it was prepared to accept the sum of £20 on the basis he had failed to provide his full vehicle registration. Undeterred, the retired chartered surveyor refused to pay, arguing the last four digits of his registration were clearly shown on the parking ticket. He said: “Paying the £20 is still a 2,000% increase when I’d already paid for parking. I was annoyed that they were seeking, effectively, to extort money from me, when it was unfounded. A lot of people would pay £20, but I basically felt it was a matter of principle. I wasn’t prepared to pay it.” After the company refused his appeal, the penalty notice climbed to £170 and was passed over to debt collection agencies. Each time he received any correspondence, John always responded, setting out his defence, and even advising the firm he was prepared to present his evidence in county court, and submit a counterclaim to recover his costs. Two further years passed, with demand letters coming from Direct Collection Bailiffs seeking a payment of £170, which he described as “intimidating”. By the time of the hearing, Civil Enforcement was pursuing John for £277. He also put forward a counterclaim for the intimidation and anxiety caused to him over the two and a half years he’d been fighting it. Deputy District Judge Chan dismissed Civil Enforcement’s claim against John and upheld the counterclaim. She ordered the private parking company to pay him £289.50, which included a counterclaim of £250, his court expenses, and the £4.50 spent on parking at the court. John said: “I felt relief really that it reached a conclusion. But I think frustration that they’re [Civil Enforcement] still allowed to keep doing what they’re doing. “Most people are not aware of their rights really and are intimidated by these parking companies into making payments that are unwarranted.” In his witness statement, he outlined the precedent set by the case of Parking Eye Limited v Heggie, where the judge ruled that because the motorist had paid for the parking time in full, Parking Eye suffered no financial loss. As a result, the charge was deemed an unenforceable penalty rather than a valid pre-estimate of loss. Now the dad’s message to other motorists in a similar position is to keep as much information as possible, including evidence of parking tickets and correspondence, so you can defend yourself if you are subjected to a claim. John said: “Thankfully the judge found in my favour. This effectively means anyone using the car park who pays for a ticket and shows it refers to their car, even if the vehicle registration is not complete, they cannot be liable for any additional penalty charge.” From the date of the hearing, Civil Enforcement was given 14 days to pay, but by the due date, no funds had arrived in his bank account. John emailed immediately and said he would report the firm to the regulator, British Parking Association, if they did not pay. The boot finally closed on the parking ordeal when the grandfather received payment, which had Creative Car Park as the reference. He has not been back to the Foreman Centre Car Park. There have been calls to improve the parking machines, after many were stung by fines despite having proof of payment. Motorists said that the number of fines had been deterring people from visiting the town, and businesses subsequently shared concerns over the reduced footfall. Speaking on behalf of the landowner of the Foreman Centre Car Park, property manager Henry Lloyd-Roberts, said he would be contacting Creative Car Park to ask it to formally apologise to Mr Waters. He said: “I am not familiar with [his] case but am glad he got the correct result and regret that this has caused him stress and anxiety. He has my sincere apologies that this happened at The Foreman Centre. I assure you the landowner is not “happy to let it continue” and whenever a legitimate case is brought to my attention I give it my fullest attention and seek to get suitable redress for the customer.” Mr Lloyd-Roberts added: “There are a couple of key performance indicators that could certainly be improved, and we are giving them [Creative Car Park] three months from today to do so; otherwise we will have no alternative but to seek an alternative car park management provider.” Civil Enforcement and Creative Car Park have been approached for comment. [Image text:] PARKING TICKET DAY EXPIRYTIME 07/12/017 17