Tearful mum fined £170 for six-minute stay at Kings Heath car park
A tearful mum-of-five was fined £170 for spending just six minutes in a car park she didn't even end up using. Angela Jones briefly pulled into a Kings Heath high street car park while she worked out how to pay last October.
The 60-year-old, from Alvechurch, claimed the payment machine was broken and she decided against using a mobile parking app after being made aware of scams involving fake QR codes stuck over real ones.
With little choice but to find another car park, Angela left the site after six minutes - just 60 seconds longer than the five-minute grace period permitted. The little-known rule gives motorists just 300 seconds to park their car after entering a private car park.
READ MORE: Top Birmingham DJ announces she's battling cancer 'for the fourth time' aged 38
If they fail to do so within the allotted time, they could be penalised. Angela was sent a fine from Parking Charge Collections Ltd, which manages the site, through the post.
She lodged an appeal but, after it was rejected, watched her fine spiral into £170 as the months ticked on. The veterinary receptionist told BirminghamLive: "It brought me so much stress - I couldn't afford it.
"The parking company rejected my appeal because I was outside the five-minute period. There's just not enough time. It's not right that you only have that long to park up, download an app and get back in your car.
"What if you can't get a signal or something? Some car parks are bigger than others too. I bet it's elderly people, who probably aren't as mobile, who will be affected by this the most."
Angela, fearing bailiffs would turn up at her front door, paid the fine earlier this month. But, after her MP, Bromsgrove's Bradley Thomas, intervened the fine was dropped and Angela was told she would receive a full refund.
Private parking companies this month pledged to update their code of conduct after a similar case in which legal action was launched against a driver for taking more than five minutes to pay for using a car park. Two industry bodies representing the sector announced they had established a panel to revise the code to ensure it “protects genuine motorists who have difficulty making prompt payment on entry”.
Last November, the BBC reported that Rosey Hudson was being taken to court by a private parking company for £1,906 after she repeatedly took more than five minutes to pay after entering a car park in Derby because of poor mobile phone signal. Private parking businesses have been accused of using misleading and confusing signs, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees.
Angela, who remains £170 out-of-pocket until the money lands back in her bank account, said: "I went to pieces and paid up because I didn't want debt collectors at my door.
"I appealed to Parking Charge Collections but it was rejected as I had stayed in the car park for six minutes. I then took my appeal to the Independent Appeals Service for a second time.
"When I received a final demand for payment of £170, I logged back in to my account on the IAS and found my appeal had been closed as they stated I had not verified my email address. I contacted the agency that was chasing the payment of £170 and they told me that, because my appeal had been rejected due to me not confirming my email address, I had to pay the fine.
"I explained I was not avoiding paying for parking, that I left as soon as I realised I couldn't pay, and I could not afford to pay such an extortionate fine."
Angela then received a letter from a solicitors on behalf of the parking firm which she found "threatening". She said: "As a lone female, who has never been in trouble in my life, it was very intimidating. It affected my mental health greatly.
"I'll be happy when the money back is back in my account. I just think it's wrong and the rules need looking at."
The trade association for parking firms, the International Parking Community, confirmed a full refund had been issued. A spokesperson said: "We're pleased this case has resolved itself with the cancellation of the parking charge and a full refund.
"This outcome underscores the importance of providing thorough information to the operator when lodging an appeal. Had full information and evidence been provided at the outset we are confident this matter could have been resolved more swiftly.
"We strongly encourage anyone dissatisfied with an operator’s appeal decision to escalate their case to the independent adjudicator.”