A 76-year-old man has won £289.50 in compensation after successfully defending himself in court against a private parking company over a 90p ticket. John Waters was taken to court by Civil Enforcement Ltd despite having proof of payment, and the company was ordered to pay him compensation, including the £4.50 it cost him to park at court.
Dispute began in December 2023
In December 2023, John Waters, from Sittingbourne, entered the Foreman Centre Car Park in Headcorn, Kent, to visit the shops with his wife. Civil Enforcement fined him for allegedly keying in only half of his number plate. The ticket printed with only the last four digits of his registration, which he presumed was to prevent the ticket being transferred to another vehicle.
He returned to his car 36 minutes later and headed home. A fortnight later, he received a penalty notice claiming he had not paid, 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 with his evidence, but the firm rejected his appeal and offered to accept £20 on the basis he had failed to provide his full vehicle registration.
Refusal to pay on principle
John refused to pay, saying: “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.”
The penalty notice climbed to £170 and was passed to debt collection agencies. Demand letters came from Direct Collection Bailiffs, 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 over the two and a half years.
Court victory and compensation
Deputy District Judge Chan dismissed Civil Enforcement’s claim and upheld the counterclaim, ordering the company to pay £289.50, including £250 counterclaim, court expenses, and £4.50 parking at 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 Parking Eye Limited v Heggie, where the judge ruled that because the motorist had paid in full, Parking Eye suffered no financial loss, making the charge an unenforceable penalty.
Message to other motorists
John advised motorists to keep as much information as possible, including evidence of parking tickets and correspondence, to defend themselves if subjected to a claim. He 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.”
After the hearing, Civil Enforcement was given 14 days to pay, but no funds arrived. John emailed immediately and said he would report the firm to the British Parking Association if they did not pay. He eventually received payment, with Creative Car Park as the reference.
Calls for improvement
Motorists said the number of fines had been deterring people from visiting the town, and businesses shared concerns over reduced footfall. Henry Lloyd-Roberts, property manager for the landowner of the Foreman Centre Car Park, said he would contact 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.
