A mother from Kent has been issued with a £100 parking fine for an alleged offence that occurred nearly three years ago, only to be informed that it is now too late for her to lodge an appeal against the penalty.
Parking Penalty Arrives Years After Alleged Breach
Monika Wentowska, a 43-year-old private tutor from Whitstable, received a final notice in November 2025 concerning a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) dated March 2023. The fine was levied for reportedly breaching a 'no returns within four hours' policy at the Prospect Way Retail Park in Whitstable.
The infringement notice alleges that Ms Wentowska returned to the car park twice within a single hour, contravening the stipulated rules. She states she was initially parked for 17 minutes and later for 20 minutes on the same day.
Appeal Window Deemed Closed
Upon receiving the final notice, Ms Wentowska contacted the parking management company, Parkingeye, to request further information and contest the charge. She was subsequently informed that the period allowed for appealing the ticket had already elapsed.
"I got a 'final notice' for an offence that, apparently, I committed in March 2023," Ms Wentowska explained. "I wrote to them, asking for more information, and they sent me a letter saying I can't appeal because too much time has passed already."
Frustration Over Rule and Timing
Ms Wentowska, who runs The Little Science Society tutoring company, expressed significant frustration with both the parking rule itself and the considerable delay in notification. She argues that a 'no return within four hours' policy is unreasonable for a retail park containing multiple shops, suggesting it penalises customers who may need to return briefly after forgetting an item.
"The rule is ridiculous for a place with five shops. If you forget something, you go back," she said.
She also highlighted the practical impossibility of defending herself against a charge from so long ago, noting she cannot recall the specific reasons for her visits and does not possess shopping receipts from three years prior.
Concerns Over Further Penalties and Credit Score
The situation has left Ms Wentowska feeling anxious and unfairly treated. She is concerned that she may receive additional fines for other visits to the car park over the intervening years and worries about the potential impact on her credit score should the matter escalate.
"I'm angry and anxious. I have been in and out of the area for the past three years. How many more will I get?" she questioned. "My credit score could be affected. It's absolutely unreasonable."
She maintains her stance of refusing to pay the fine on principle, disputing the validity of the rule and the lengthy notification period.
Parking Management Company's Response
A spokesperson for Parkingeye stated that the car park features prominent signage outlining the terms of use, including the maximum stay and no-return rules. They confirmed that the first correspondence regarding this charge was issued in April 2025, with a final notice following in November.
The company outlined its appeals process, which is audited by the British Parking Association (BPA), and noted that while a late appeal was granted in this instance, it was rejected due to a lack of evidence provided to show Ms Wentowska was a genuine customer at the time.
The spokesperson added that the motorist retains the right to a further appeal with POPLA, the independent parking ombudsman.
This case raises questions about the fairness of parking enforcement timelines and the challenges motorists face when contesting historical penalties, particularly when evidence from the distant past is required.
