Elderly man wins settlement after 10p parking dispute

An elderly man has secured compensation after challenging a car parking company in court over 10p.

Jim Hibbert, 85, paid 60p for a 50p parking fee in Middleton, Greater Manchester, using three 20p coins. Initially unconcerned about the extra 10p, he received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) demanding £100, reduced to £60 if settled within two weeks, which began the parking dispute.

Despite proving he overpaid, Smart Parking issued a £20 fine for an incorrect vehicle registration. Jim, asserting he entered the registration accurately, disputed this in January last year. Subsequently, a debt recovery agency demanded £170, escalating the situation.

Jim, representing himself after months of preparation, filed a claim at Manchester County Court. He argued that Smart Parking engaged in ‘unjust enrichment’ and violated their contract by not adhering to their signage.

Smart Parking’s solicitors dismissed Jim’s claim, which included the 10p overpayment, £4.96 for printing and postage, and a £35 claim fee, as ‘spurious and opportunistic’. However, before the August hearing, Jim received a settlement offer of £40.06 to cover his expenses.

The company’s letter labelled Jim’s claim ‘hopeless and misguided’ but opted to settle to avoid further costs. Jim remarked, “I was polite in my letters but I thought they could get stuffed. The more they tried to bully and intimidate me, the more determined I became. It’s not a fine, it’s extortion.”

The parking dispute centred on the car park’s signage, with Smart Parking’s solicitor insisting it required payment and vehicle registration input. Jim’s photographs contradicted this, showing that the signs merely instructed payment of the correct tariff without mentioning registration.

Jim also criticised the payment machine for its small keypad and display, which did not inform users of their parking duration. Reflecting on the experience, he said, “They might be clever, but they’re not very intelligent. If I hadn’t had those photographs, the judge would’ve believed him.”

Although he found the court process disappointing, Jim felt vindicated. He noted, “At the hearing, it was like the solicitor and the judge were friends. I could hear them criticise me, disputing my printing costs and questioning why I didn’t pay with a card or use RingGo. The solicitor fabricated what the signage was like in the car park.”

Jim’s late wife, Nita, was frustrated by the parking dispute, and he hoped she would be proud of his perseverance. He added, “She always said, ‘you love having a go,’ but I’m glad it’s cost them a lot of money. I’m relieved I didn’t have to go to court again – they don’t credit your intelligence. They treat you like a silly old man.”

A spokesperson for Smart Parking Limited stated, “Smart Parking was brought in to manage the car park at Middleton Shopping Centre to address parking abuse and ensure availability. Our ANPR system monitors vehicle entry and exit, with signs clearly stating the terms and conditions, including the need to enter your registration number correctly when purchasing parking. Mr Hibbert failed to do this and was correctly issued a charge. Smart Parking refutes his claims and asserts he was not subjected to any intimidation. The proceedings were initiated and pursued by him, with no claims advanced by Smart Parking. While advised that his claim lacked legal merit, the costs of fighting it were deemed irrecoverable, so we chose not to proceed further.”