Parking fine victory for mum and daughter
AMUM and her trainee lawyer daughter have taken on and beaten parking firm Excel in court - after spotting a ‘technicality’.
Carol Backhouse, 48, received a £60 fine through the post after a family member had used her car to visit the Peel Centre, in central Stockport.
But she refused to pay Excel, who manage parking at the centre, and enlisted the help of daughter Claire, 29, who is a trainee legal executive.
At Manchester Civil Court Claire successfully argued that the company’s penalty charge notice (PCN) was invalid as it did not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Carol, herself a legal officer for a housing association, said: “It is quite a ground-breaking case, the judge said she had not heard that argument before. I’m just glad and relieved it is over. I don’t go to the Peel Centre because I know how bad they are so I tried to ignore their letters and phone calls. Some people would find these frightening.
“It was good to have someone who knows the law and I’m glad the underdog won. On this occasion they picked on the wrong person.”
In court Claire told the judge her mum was not driving the car.
And if Excel could not prove otherwise then they were chasing her on the basis she was the registered keeper of the vehicle, a Peugeot 206.
This being the case Claire argued the PCN then fell under the Protection of Freedoms Act but did not comply with the correct wording.
She said it failed to correctly describe the parking charge and the reasons the registered keeper was liable for it.
Claire said: “It is a technicality but specific wording must be used.”
At the Peel Centre cameras take pictures of vehicles going in and out and match number plates with those inputted at payment machines to see if people have bought a ticket.
A spokesman for Andy Lambert Excel, who themselves have been criticised for using technicalities for catching out drivers, said: “From the outset we did not seek to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 but on the reasonable assumption that Mrs Backhouse was the driver responsible for the PCN.
“It is disappointing that Mrs Backhouse did not engage with us earlier as this could have avoided the matter proceeding to court.”