August 15th 2024.
Jim, an 85-year-old man, made the decision to take a stand against a car parking company. He had paid 50p for parking in Middleton, Greater Manchester, using three 20p coins. However, he didn't have the exact change and wasn't too concerned about the remaining 10p. That is, until he received a Parking Charge Notice stating that he owed either £100 or £60 if paid within two weeks. This came as a surprise to Jim, as he had actually paid more than the required amount.
But then, things took a serious turn when Smart Parking, the company in question, gave him a reduced fine of £20 for supposedly providing the "incorrect vehicle registration". Jim was not about to let this slide and wrote back in January of last year, stating that he had indeed entered his registration number correctly. However, his efforts were met with another letter from a debt recovery agency, demanding a whopping £170. It was at this point that Jim decided to take legal action and filed a claim at Manchester County Court. He even took the time to study and represent himself, determined to prove that Smart Parking had unjustly benefited and breached their contract by not following their own signs.
The solicitors representing Smart Parking tried to discredit Jim's claim, stating that it was "spurious, opportunistic, and an abuse of process". But before the case could be heard again in August, Jim received a settlement offer of £40.06, which covered the 10p change, £4.96 for printing and postage, and the £35 claim fee. The letter also stated that while the company believed Jim's claim was "hopeless and entirely misguided", they decided to pay out to avoid further wasted time and costs.
Jim's reaction to this offer was quite unexpected. He stated that he had been polite in his letters, but deep down, he wanted to tell them to "get stuffed". He saw this as an opportunity to give them a taste of their own medicine. Jim's determination only grew stronger as the company continued to bully and intimidate him. He saw their actions as extortion, not a genuine fine.
The center of the dispute was the signage at the parking lot, as Smart Parking's solicitor claimed that the sign clearly indicated the need to pay and provide a vehicle's registration number. However, Jim had photographic evidence that proved otherwise. The sign only mentioned the need to pay the correct tariff before leaving the car park, with no mention of providing a registration number. Jim also pointed out that the payment machine's keypad and display were unusually small, and it did not inform motorists of how long they had been parked. He saw this as a lack of intelligence on the company's part.
Jim described the whole experience as an eye-opener, but he was disappointed by the court process. He felt like the solicitor and the judge were friends, and he could hear them criticizing him during the hearing. They questioned his printing costs and why he didn't pay with a card or use RingGo. The solicitor even made up lies about the signage in the car park. Jim expected to deal with facts, not fabrications, and was relieved when he showed the judge the photographs, and he admitted he had been hasty to believe the solicitor's claims.
Jim's wife, Nita, who unfortunately passed away last year, was also annoyed by the company when Jim received the fine. He believes she would be proud of him, and he's relieved that he didn't have to go back to court. He said that she always used to tell him that he loved having a go, and he's glad that it cost the company a lot of money. Jim also expressed his relief at not having to go to court again, as he felt like they didn't give him enough credit and treated him like a silly old man.
A spokesperson for Smart Parking Limited stated that they were brought in to manage the car park at Middleton Shopping Centre to address parking abuse and ensure that consumers always have a place to park. They operate a state-of-the-art ANPR parking management system that monitors cars entering and exiting the parking lot. There are numerous signs across the site that clearly outline the terms and conditions of use, including the requirement to correctly enter your registration number when purchasing parking. In Jim's case, he failed to do so and was issued a charge.
The company also clarified that at no point did they use intimidation tactics against Jim. The proceedings were initiated and pursued by him. While their legal advisors advised them that Jim's claim had no legal merit, they decided not to fight it as the costs would be irrecoverable. They decided to pay the settlement to avoid any further wasted time and costs.
[This article has been trending online recently and has been generated with AI. Your feed is customized.]
