Retail therapy landed key worker with £60 ‘non-shoppers’ fine
A KEY worker was left cursing her luck after spending nearly £300 at a retail park and then falling foul of a parking limit introduced to deter ‘non-shoppers’.
Jacqueline Cumpstey, practice manager at a dental surgery on Blackburn Road, Accrington, got caught out after treating herself to a spree on a rare day off.
Receipts show she spent a total of £281.91 in TK Maxx, Pets at Home, Home Bargains, Aldi and Costa Coffee at Rawtenstall’s New Hall Hey retail park on May 10.
But the day became even more expensive when a £100 penalty charge notice (PCN) landed in the post.
The 55-year-old, from Helmshore, admits she “panicked” and paid straight away to trim the fine to £60, but has since tried to retract her payment, attaching receipts she says prove she was a genuine customer.
However, this was unsuccessful.
She said it was an honest mistake as she was unaware of the time restrictions, first introduced at the site two years ago to deter ‘fly parking’.
She said: “It was a day’s leave and I spent £300 in five hours, came home and thought nothing of it. TK Maxx is probably the main culprit - that’s probably where I spent most of my time. I was probably being naive.
“There’s no pay and display. I usually do my Saturday morning shopping there in Aldi and
I’ve never noticed the sign. I’m completely bemused as to why they would penalise customers for spending money.”
In her appeal letter Jacqueline wrote: “I paid the fine in full as I’m an exhausted key worker and panicked when I read your rather threatening letter.”
In a statement the car park management firm said: “Premier Park, as an approved operator of the BPA, are bound by a code of practice and can confirm that this PCN was issued in line with those obligations.
“At all the sites we operate the decision on the enforcement rules [as] driven by the site operator/ land owner and not us exclusively. The BPA code allows individuals to appeal any PCN issued and also has the ability to take this to an independent appeal if required. None of these options was followed in this case.”