EXCLUSIVE 'Greedy' firm tried to fine me £200 for not paying for parking within FIVE minutes… I fought them for two years and finally won - here's how
A parking firm that tried to get £200 out of a motorist after she took more than five minutes to pay for her spot has been left empty handed - after years of fighting.
Angela Haley, 64, had decided against stopping in her usual Derby car park and instead chose to station her car elsewhere after entering from a different route.
Initially she had issues paying due to the machine being out of service on May 4, 2023, but she eventually managed to pay the £3.20 due over the phone before heading into the city for a couple hours of shopping.
Having followed Excel Parking's guidelines she believed all was well, until a PCN (Parking Charge Notice) came through her letter box five months later accusing her of parking without payment.
Steadfast Ms Haley appealed the fine, providing proof including confirmation texts, phone calls to the company, as well as a bank account statement showing she made the payment that day. However, the parking firm denied her request.
She then continued to fight against the ticket via the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), described as 'an alternative dispute resolution service' for tickets handed out by private firms, adamant she had paid the ticket.
Ms Haley continued to show her payments receipts to both IAS and Elms Legal, who previously represented the parking firm, but then the reason for the fine emerged - she had not paid within a five minute window.
She told MailOnline: 'I was in a bit of disbelief, I thought well, I know I would never not pay for parking. It's just not something I'd do.
'I kept getting letters from them, and I said look here's my bank statement.
'I didn't have a physical ticket because the normal routes of payment, which would have been just to tap my debit card, wasn't an option on the day.'
'I kept getting legal letters, and then when I found the receipt on my phone, and emailed them a copy, they said, "Oh, no, that they still want to pursue".
'But now then it was because they claimed I didn't pay within their time period, and I just said, I'm not paying. I've paid once I've. I'm not paying again.'
She added: 'It stressed me out to the point where every time any sort of official envelope addressed to me came through the door.
'But I was also going to fight tooth and nail - I was determined I wasn't paying it. There was no way I was backing down from this.'
The legal firm then offered her a reduced fine to around £200, whilst also giving her the option to pay in monthly instalments of £17.
'I didn't even realise it was that much anyway, so they could offer me whatever they liked. I wasn't not paying it,' she added.
'I just kept writing every time I got a threatening letter I just wrote back and said, "Don't write to me anymore. Just take me to court".'
Eventually a small claims court date was set in Sheffield, around 75 miles away from Ms Haley's home. This combined with clashing events meant she could not attend in person.
However she did send her court bundle, which included an overwhelming amount of documents showing her innocence, and eventually emerged victorious.
And after a year of battling Excel Parking sent a letter to confrim they were discontinuing the claim.
'You only have to look at Trustpilot and Google Reviews to realise how many people this company is pursuing for fines,' Ms Haley said.
'I'm lucky because I'm retired. So I've got loads of time in my hands.
'But I think if I'd have been still working and I used to have a stressful job, I'd have just paid it because I'd have been so stressed out.
'I think that's what a lot of people do They terrorise people into thinking they have to pay this money.
She added: I could have afforded to pay it, it was never about the money it was about the principle.
'It was the fact that I was able to prove that their paperwork was not relevant to the date I parked that was what really keeping me going.'
Recalling the moment she received the letter from the firm, notifying her they were dropping the issue, she said: 'Obviously I was relieved. But there's no we do apologise for any upset or inconvenience.'
'I do feel terrible for those people who may be in be in a different financial position, or more frightened, people could have a nervous breakdown,' she added.
A representative from Excel Parking Services said: 'ELMS Legal Ltd were instructed following the rejection of the Defendant's appeal by the Independent Appeals Service and in accordance with the terms and conditions in effect at the site at the time of the contravention.
'Any further details regarding the instruction of the claim and/or its discontinuance are subject to legal privilege.]
A spokesperson from Elms Legal said: 'ELMS Legal Ltd were instructed by the Claimant following the rejection of the Defendant's appeal by the Independent Appeals Service and in accordance with the terms and conditions in effect at the site at the time of the contravention.
'Any further details regarding the instruction of the claim and/or its discontinuance are subject to legal privilege.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
24-05-2025
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Pensioner furious after being slapped with 'ridiculous' £170 parking fine... but claims there is a big catch
A pensioner is furious after being hit with a 'ridiculous' £170 fine for overstaying in a car park - even though he wasn't parking. Garth Burden, 80, pulled into an Esso Garage in Rickmansworth to get his car washed and waited patiently in a queue. Little did he know that there was a 15-minute limit in place, enforced by Euro Car Parks, whether parked in a space, washing your car or changing your oil. Mr Burden told MailOnline: 'I was in a queue, and there was a car in front of me and eventually once they drove off, I was able to use the car wash. 'The actual car wash itself took about 10-15 minutes, and I just accepted that would be fine.' However, Mr Burden was later slapped with Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from Euro Car Parks on their doorstep to the tune of £170. He said: 'They said I had stayed for more than 15 minutes but I replied saying "That's ridiculous, I'm going to obviously fight this.' Having been hit with the fine in the run-up to Christmas, while staying with their son in between moving homes, his wife, who owned the car 'was really, really upset' about the fine. But when he asked about the appeal process, Euro Car Parks informed him he had missed the opportunity as he was late collecting the letter containing the PCN from his former home. 'It's so stupid to pay and get done for 15 minutes in a car wash. It's just common sense says you've got to have a bit more time than 15 minutes,' he added. Despite attempting to argue for an opportunity to appeal, Mr Burden was hit with another blow - a letter from Debt Recovery Plus on behalf of Euro Car Parks demanding the sum for the alleged contravention. 'I kept saying to everyone, "I wasn't parking my car in the garage. I was going through a car wash". 'I wrote to them and said, as far as I'm concerned I'm not guilty of an offence cause I wasn't parking my car. I was in a car wash. 'If you want to pursue this with the court, tell me where you're will seek legal action, and I will come along and defend myself. 'They claim I have broken a rule about car parking, so anyone that's spending more than 15 minutes in the queue behind me for the car wash no doubt got a ticket. 'So I just thought this is just crazy.' Over the last year-and-a-half, Mr Burden has received around 20 letters from various debt recovery companies about the issue, including Debt Recovery Plus, GCTT Enforcement Agents, QDR Solicitors, ZZPS and DCBL. 'It is an ordeal because of the time involved and whenever I tell anyone I've had another letter about my car wash debacle.' Referencing Euro Car Parks, he added: 'They are trying to screw as much money out of poor motorists as possible. 'It's absolutely ludicrous,' he said: 'And they come up with all sorts of amazing warnings. You have only got to read the reviews on the notices. 'But if you've got an old lady at home or somebody who doesn't know the process of courts, the threat of enforcement agents coming to your home without any sort of court action can be frightening. 'I find it absolutely galling. It's absolutely daft,' as he dubbed the service: 'The most expensive car wash in town.' Mr Burden also claimed there was no signage on the kiosk where he paid for the car wash to suggest there was a 15-minute limit to queue and was your car, adding the only notice about a limit was high-up on a sign that's 'hardly read[able]'. However the 80-year-old is ready and determined to see the situation all the way up to small claims court, adding: 'I would love them to do it. 'I can guarantee the day before or the couple of days before, they will say "We're not going do anything further" or they will say "this is your last chance" or something like that. 'Car parking is a very, very, lucrative business for some of these companies and they really are, you know, raking in the money.' And Mr Burden isn't the only person to fall victim at the garage forecourt with single mother, Natalie Carby, hit with a £100 fine just an hour after she picked up her new car up from the garage. The mother-of-two queued for around 25 minutes for her turn before she headed home on the 15 February, 2023. She didn't give much thought about the experience until a Euro Car Parks fine landed on her doormat 12 days later. Signs at the garage do indicate that the maximum stay for the car park is 15 minutes, but the 41-year-old believes this should not apply to the car wash. With the fine, the £9 wash could now set her back £100. Ms Carby said: 'I'm just absolutely appalled. 'I think it's absolutely outrageous that they can do this. Fair enough there may be signs around for a car park, but the car wash queue is not a car park.' Ms Carby had only bought her new car an hour before she went to get it washed at at the same Esso Garage in Rickmansworth. She had planned to go to the BP garage along the road but found it was closed, forcing herself and other drivers to go to Esso. She said: 'The only reason I went there was because the car wash at the BP garage down the road was closed, which is why there were so many cars queuing in the Esso car wash that day.' She added: 'It has taken a lot of time and effort and help from family members to get this car and then within an hour I'm whacked with a £100 fine. 'I had my previous car for over ten years and I never got a parking fine. An hour of this car and I'm getting a fine for having a car wash - I'm just appalled.' MailOnline has approached Euro Car Parks, DBCL, Debt Recovery Plus, GCTT Enforcement Agents, QDR Solicitors, and ZZPS for comment.
Scottish Sun
20-05-2025
- Scottish Sun
Couple ordered to tear down dream £500k home after ‘flagrant breach' of rules
Greater Cambridgeshire Council has ruled the property must be demolished by May 6, 2026 HOUSE ABOUT THAT Couple ordered to tear down dream £500k home after 'flagrant breach' of rules Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) A COUPLE have been ordered to demolish their dream home worth more than £500,000 after they were found to have made a 'flagrant breach' of the rules. Planning permission was originally granted to build a stallion semen laboratory but a house was built instead. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 7 The property has been valued at more than £500,000 but now has to be demolished Credit: Bav Media 7 The plans originally submitted, which got approval, were to construct a stallion semen laboratory Credit: Bav Media 7 A planning inspector has ruled that an unauthorised house was actually built Credit: Bav Media A planning inspector has ruled that the unauthorised house at Valentine Stables in Great Abington, Cambridgeshire, must be knocked down. Planning permission was granted in 2014 by Greater Cambridge Shared Planning to build a replacement stable block and a specialist 'stallion semen' horse laboratory, with a small upstairs flat linked to the lab use. The plans were approved on the basis that it would be for a countryside business use, with the residential flat only to be used in connection with the laboratory use. The two-storey building was set to have a reception, office, kitchenette, 'analysis and lecture' lab, processing laboratory and staff changing room on the ground floor. Whilst the first floor would be a staff living space with two bedrooms, each with an ensuite bathroom, and a combined living/kitchen space. But, even though the outside of the building looked like the approved plans, the inside was very different. A later investigation showed that the inside of the building looked nothing like the approved plans for the lab and business. Instead, the planning inspector said it was built and used solely as a residential house from the start, with no evidence that the laboratory use was ever implemented. The Council issued an enforcement notice in July 2023 requiring demolition of the property and the owner appealed against the notice. But the Planning Inspector has now agreed with the Council that the building was constructed as a house from the start. We're building our house out of polystyrene - we can slot it together like Lego & it'll cut our heating bill down by 70% He said there was no lab or business running at the site, nor any evidence to show there ever was and that he house was a full home, not just a place for a worker to stay. He also pointed out that the owner had sold their original house on the site and moved into this new home. Inspector Chris Preston wrote: 'Photographs provided by the appellant in February 2022 in response to the Council's Planning Contravention Notice (PCN) show a complete absence of any laboratory space or research facility and that remained the case at the time of my accompanied site visit. 'The ground floor has a decidedly residential appearance, with a domestic kitchen, equipped with kitchen units, cooker, island breakfast bar, with domestic furnishings and appliances. 'A dining area is present next to the kitchen in the space which was shown to house a kitchenette/container storage and distribution on the approved plans. 'Next to that, where the plans depicted an office, is a domestic living room. 'What appears to be an office is present to the front in what was shown on the plans as a reception area. 'Throughout, the ground floor is decorated and equipped in a manner that belies a residential use. 'There is no obvious reception area that would indicate use by customers of a business. 'No laboratory has been installed, no research or stored equipment associated with the business is apparent, either on the photographs from 2022 or at the time of my visit. 7 An inspection discovered that no laboratory had actually been built Credit: Bav Media 7 The inside of the building looked nothing like the approved plans for the lab and business Credit: Bav Media 'Upstairs, where the staff accommodation was intended to be, there are two bedrooms, in the locations shown on the approved plans and a living area/ lounge, equipped with a sofa and television. 'However, no kitchen appears to have been constructed on the upper floor. In other words, the living space is clearly spread over the two floors, as would be the case in a typical house.' He said the council had been told the flat would be used by an additional worker, but in fact the appellant and his wife had since sold their existing house and moved into the new property. He added: 'The over-riding impression is that what has been constructed is a dwellinghouse, occupied by the appellant and his wife, as opposed to a stallion semen collection centre/laboratory on the ground floor with residential accommodation above which is what the approved plans depicted.' He said there was also very little evidence that the stallion semen and collection business had 'ever got off the ground to any notable degree.' He added: 'The lack of any clear record of the semen collection and analysis business, when added to the evidence that the laboratory and associated storage and analysis areas were never constructed raises serious doubts as to whether the 2014 permission was implemented. 'If the pandemic did cause issues with the business, the logical thing to do, if implementing the approved planning permission, would have been to construct the building as permitted, with accommodation at first floor level and space for the laboratories etc at ground floor level, even if that led to a delay in installation of those facilities. 'What actually appears to have happened is that the appellant constructed a dwelling from the off. 'The Inspector agreed that knocking the house down was a proportionate and necessary measure as the local planning policies had been clearly broken, and keeping the building but just stopping people from living there alone would not be enough. Cllr Dr. Tumi Hawkins, Lead Cabinet Member for Planning at South Cambridgeshire District Council, said: "We welcome the Inspector's clear decision, which supports our commitment to upholding planning policies in our Local Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan designed to protect our countryside. 'This case shows the importance of adhering to the specific uses and conditions that justify development in rural areas. 'Planning rules are there for a reason – including protecting our countryside, and this decision demonstrates that we will act when those rules are broken." The house must be knocked down and all waste material removed by May 6, 2026. 7 A Planning Inspector has agreed with the Council that the building was constructed as a house from the start Credit: Bav Media
Leader Live
10-05-2025
- Leader Live
Hundreds of parking fines outstanding, say Wrexham Council
Last month, the Leader submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) Act request to the council. In that, we asked; "What is the total amount of unpaid parking fines owed to Wrexham Council, and how many individuals currently have outstanding parking fines?" Wrexham Council responded by revealing that a total of 888 unpaid parking fines are still outstanding. They added that figure amounts to a total worth of £84,294.55. MORE NEWS The response from Wrexham Council added: "Due to how the system works - we are not able to answer the second part re. individuals as the report does not give names. "And, if going on VRM (Vehicle Registration Mark) that would not be accurate as the same person may not have had the same VRM over 2 PCN's (Penalty Charge Notice). "Also, if the vehicle details have not been updated with the DVLA then we would have incorrect individual details." If you park in the wrong place or don't pay for the correct amount of time, you're liable to receive a parking fine. You are not allowed to park: Wrexham Council's website adds: "Our enforcement officers patrol streets within the county borough and council-owned city centre car parks. "Enforcement officers will issue a PCN if you break any parking regulations in force at the time (for both on and off street contraventions). "If you receive a PCN you have a month to pay the charge stated on the PCN (or to make an informal challenge instead). "If you pay within 14 days the charge will be reduced by 50%."
