Jim decided to stand his ground against the car company (Picture: Newsquest/SWNS)
A pensioner has won a payout after he took a car parking company to court over 10p.
Jim Hibbert, 85, paid for his 50p parking in Middleton, Greater Manchester, using three 20p coins.
He didn’t have 50p in change so wasn’t bothered about the remaining 10p until a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) said he owed £100 or £60 if it was paid in two weeks.
He proved he paid more than the required amount but Smart Parking then gave him a reduced fine of £20 for providing the ‘incorrect vehicle registration’.
Jim then wrote back in January last year and said he had entered his registration number correctly.
But another letter from a debt recovery agency demanded £170 and this is when things started getting serious.
Jim made a claim at Manchester County Court and studied for months to represent himself.
He argued Smart Parking had become the ‘beneficiary of unjust enrichment’ and breached its contract by failing to adhere to its own signs.
He wasn’t having any of it (Picture: Newsquest/SWNS)
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, was ‘spurious, opportunistic and an abuse of process’.
However, before the case was due to be heard again in August, Jim received 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 said: ‘I was polite in my letters but I thought they could get stuffed.
‘I decided to give them a taste of their own medicine.
‘The more they tried to bully and intimidate me, the more determined I became.
‘It’s not a fine, it’s extortion.’
The centre’s signage became a central part of the dispute as Smart Parking’s solicitor said the sign indicated a need to pay and to provide a vehicle’s registration.
However, Jim provided photographs that proved otherwise, as the sign only indicated a need to pay the correct tariff before leaving the car park.
There was also no mention of providing a vehicle registration number.
Jim also argued the payment machine’s keypad and display were ‘unusually small’ and that the machine did not inform motorists how long they had been parked.
He continued: ‘They might be clever, but they’re not very intelligent.
‘If I hadn’t had those photographs, the judge would’ve believed him.’
He described the whole experience as an ‘eye-opener’ but said he was ‘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.
‘The solicitor made a complete invention about what the signage was like in the car park.
‘I thought we’d be dealing with facts, not a pack of lies, and the judge even admitted he was hasty to believe him before I showed the photographs.’
Jim says his wife, Nita, who died last year before his victorious result, was annoyed by the company when he received the fine.
He hopes she would be proud of him but he’s ‘relieved’ he didn’t have to go back to court.
The pensioner continued: ‘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 Smart Parking Limited spokesperson said: ‘Smart Parking was brought into manage the car park at Middleton Shopping Centre in order to address parking abuse and to ensure consumers can always find somewhere to park.
‘To do this we operate a state-of-the-art ANPR parking management system that monitors cars entering and exiting.
‘There are numerous signs across the site that clearly set out the terms and conditions of use, one of which is that you must correctly enter your registration number into the machine when purchasing parking.
‘In the case of Mr Hibbert, he did not do this and was correctly issued a charge.
‘It is important to say that Smart Parking refutes the comments made by Mr Hibbert and at no stage was he the subject of any ‘intimidation’.
‘The proceedings were initiated and pursued by him.
‘Smart Parking advanced no claims against him.
‘Whilst Smart Parking was advised by its legal advisors that the claim was without any legal merit, it was decided the costs associated with fighting the claim would be highly likely to be irrecoverable so we decided not take this matter further.’
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
For more stories like this, check our news page.