A pensioner has landed a legal win after pointing out a ‘bully’ parking company, who tried to hit him with a £170 fine, in fact owed him 10p.
Jim Hibbert, 85, had been for a spot of shopping at Middleton Shopping Centre in Greater Manchester when he used three 20p coins to pay for his 50p parking.
As he didn’t have the exact change to hand, the elderly man wasn’t pressed about losing out on 10p until a £100 Parking Charge Notice (PCN) – which would be reduced to £60 if paid within two weeks – landed on his doorstep.
Adamant he had overpaid Smart Parking, Mr Hibbert proved he had coughed up the cash for a parking ticket.
However, the parking firm then hit him with a reduced fine of £20 for providing the ‘incorrect vehicle registration’, which he denies doing.
However, when another letter from a debt recovery agency demanded £170, Mr Hibbert took matters to ‘give them a taste of their own medicine’ and decided to represent himself in court.
Months of preparation preceded the 85-year-old’s claim in Manchester County Court.
He argued they had become the ‘beneficiary of unjust enrichment’ and breached their contract by failing to adhere to its own signs.
The solicitors said Jim’s claim costs, made up of the 10p change, £4.96 in printing and postage costs and the £35 claim fee, were ‘spurious, opportunistic and an abuse of process’.
But before they were due to re-appear in court this August Jim scored a win, receiving a settlement offer of £40.06 for the change, printing costs and claim free.
The letter stated the company believed Jim’s claim was ‘hopeless and entirely misguided’ but decided to pay out ‘to avoid further wasted time and costs’.
Jim claimed the parking firm attempted to ‘bully and intimidate’ him into paying the bill, branding the fine as ‘extortion’.
‘I was polite in my letters but I thought they could get stuffed. I decided to give them a taste of their own medicine,’ he said.
‘The more they tried to bully and intimidate me, the more determined I became. It’s not a fine, it’s extortion.’
Jim described the whole experience as an ‘eye-opener’ but was left feeling ‘disappointed’ by the court process.
The pensioner said: ‘At the hearing, it was like the solicitor and the judge were friends.
‘I could hear them criticise me, disputing my printing costs and querying why I didn’t pay with a card or use RingGo.
Jim says his wife, Nita, who sadly died last year before his victorious result, was annoyed by the company when he received the fine.
MailOnline has approached Smart Parking for comment.
These people make millions from scams like these, but people pay up due to the threats and intimidation they receive, and the debt collection firms are even worse, and more often than not their ‘Code of Conduct’ is not in keeping with their fines and is just opportunistic.
It’s great to see this this injustice was resolved, although it should not have happened in the first place. Parking companies need better regulations because too many cases are occurring because of minor issues.
Only the police and councils can issue a ‘fine’ or use the word ‘penalty’. Private parking companies cannot do this. They can only issue an invoice, which they dress up to look like a ‘Penalty Charge Notice’. They are just cowboys who try to scare the public, and they’re out-and-out scammers.
Out of all of this, he described the judge and counsel slagging him off and conversing like friends, which disturbed me, and because of this, there is little hope of impartial justice, and I would imagine it goes on all the time – they all eat from the same trough!
THE MONTHLY MOSQUITO 