News, East Midlands
Hannah Robinson‘Relentless’ demands
Miss Robinson, who was 18 when she first started receiving demands for money from Excel Parking, hopes her case will encourage others to stand up for themselves.
“I’m so happy I stuck at this and stopped dealing with it alone,” said Miss Robinson, who initially paid some of the charges but turned to her nan for support after being asked to pay £11,390.
Law firm Keidan Harrison later offered to help Miss Robinson free of charge.
“The support around me has been amazing and I’m so grateful for everyone’s patience and advice, and can’t thank the lawyers enough,” Miss Robinson said.
“I hope this helps others to not let Excel win and don’t give in to them.”
Parking charges campaigner Lynda Eagan, who also helped Miss Robinson, said Excel’s demands for money had been “relentless”.
“They thought they could bully a teenager and continued to pursue her into her early 20s, even though she had already paid them thousands in parking fees and and then unjustifiable charges until she had no money left,” said Ms Eagan.
Why was Miss Robinson taken to court?
Miss Robinson started parking at the Feethams Leisure car park in Darlington in June 2021, as she worked in the restaurant above.
It was one of many Excel car parks to stipulate that drivers must pay for their parking within five minutes of entering, as part of its terms and conditions.
Miss Robinson paid each time but said it sometimes took longer than five minutes due to poor phone signal and problems with the payment app.
She initially paid the parking charge notices (PCNs) – which were reduced from £100 to £60 if paid within 14 days – and continued using the car park because she felt it was the safest one as a young woman on her own at night.
She decided to start appealing against the PCNs towards the end of 2022, but Excel still insisted she should pay.
She eventually received a letter, in February 2024, asking her to pay 67 unpaid charges.
Each one was £100, plus a £70 debt collection fee, so the total was £11,390.
When Miss Robinson did not pay, she received a court claim asking her to pay two of the £100 PCNs, plus a £70 debt collection for each, and various other costs.
Excel Parking later applied to amend this claim so it could pursue 11 different PCNs.
Why did Excel Parking have to pay instead?
In March, a hearing was held at Middlesbrough County Court, where Miss Robinson was defended by barrister Seth Kitson.
Mr Kitson argued the £100 penalties were unenforceable as Excel had “no legitimate interest in forcing its users to pay within five minutes”.
He also said the five-minute payment rule was “inherently preposterous” – and an unfair contract term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 – due to the lack of phone signal in the car park and the time taken to pay by phone.
District judge Janine Richards dismissed Excel Parking’s original claim for two PCNs, and also its application to amend the claim so it could pursue 11 PCNs.
She found Excel’s “conduct in relation to this litigation was both unreasonable and out of the norm”, and therefore ordered the firm to pay the winning party’s legal costs of £10,240.10.
Miss Robinson had free legal representation, so the judge made a pro bono costs order, meaning Excel Parking had to pay the money to a charity called the Access to Justice Foundation.
Why didn’t Excel pay up?
Excel applied for permission to appeal against the costs, and a further court hearing was then held, but permission was refused by judge David Robinson.
The asked Excel Parking why it appealed.
In a statement, it said: “The individual concerned has repeatedly breached the clearly displayed and entirely fair contractual terms and conditions on more than 100 separate occasions.
“We stand by our position that the terms of parking are lawful, reasonable, and unambiguous. Persistent breaches of this nature cannot be justified.
“We remain committed to ensuring that those who deliberately and repeatedly disregard parking rules are held accountable.”
The Access to Justice Foundation confirmed to the that Excel has now paid.
Are other people still being affected?
The five-minute payment rule was banned by the two trade associations for private car park operators from 17 February.
This was when a new Code of Practice was introduced, following publicity about the case of Rosey Hudson in Derby and concerns raised by MPs.
However, Excel Parking is still pursuing legal action against drivers who fell foul of its five-minute payment rule prior to 17 February.
Parking campaigner Lynda Eagan, who has been helping other people fight charges through a Facebook page, said: “Even though Excel Parking Services have suffered the humiliation of this defeat, they continue to bring similar cases to court simply to coerce other innocent victims of their five-minute rule into paying, out of fear of a court hearing.”
Following publicity about various Excel Parking cases, the government has decided to introduce its own code of practice, which private car park operators will have to follow.
Ms Eagan encouraged drivers to take part in the consultation about the code of practice, before it closes on 5 September.
