...another fine court win for second driver
A SECOND driver has spoken out after being taken to court by a parking company despite being able to prove she had bought a ticket.
Loretta Koselka, from Moorside in Oldham, has a very similar story to tell to Blessing Burgess.
Loretta received a £60 fine after parking at The Square in Chorlton in February last year, and accidentally entered the registration number of her other car.
Loretta, 60, had kept her ticket and appealed on the grounds that she was able to prove she’d paid to park. The appeal was denied and on June 20 she appeared at Oldham County Court.
Like Blessing, she represented herself – and the District Judge found in her favour.
Loretta told the M.E.N. after the court case: “I felt very intimidated. I live on my own and I received a lot of threatening letters. They kept hassling me, and by the final letter they wanted me to pay £250.
“I am not stupid and I am not someone who would try to get out of paying for a parking ticket. I always pay to park.
“It could be that there are people out there, maybe around my age, who would just pay it because they are worried about what will happen if they don’t.”
Loretta also tried to use the mediation service to prevent the case from going to court but again, like Blessing, felt that it was one-sided.
A spokesman for Excel Parking Services Ltd said: “The purchase instructions located at the pay and display machines at the car park set out the requirement for a ‘full’ and ‘correct’ Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM) to be entered when purchasing a ticket. Furthermore, the instructions state that ‘Failure to enter the correct registration mark at the time of the ticket purchase will invalidate your ticket’.
“As Ms Koselka entered a totally different VRM she therefore breached the terms and conditions for use of the private car park. Furthermore, she took no action on the date in question to report the matter to us, for example, by phoning our helpline number.
“We are currently considering our position in relation to the judge’s decision and will refrain from any further comment at this stage while the matter is ongoing.”