A driver who received a £100 penalty charge notice from Parkingeye after using a Birmingham car park in June has paid a reduced charge following an investigation into the dispute. The driver had paid £2 for two hours but was fined for allegedly failing to pay, despite providing a parking ticket as proof.
The incident began when the driver, arriving late for a meeting, used a car park equipped with cameras and a ticket machine. After paying and parking for 34 minutes, the driver received a penalty notice from Parkingeye, a company that manages over 3,000 car parks, claiming no payment had been made. The driver contested the fine by submitting a copy of the parking ticket via recorded delivery, asserting that the penalty was unfair and describing the company’s repeated notices as harassment.
However, upon reviewing the evidence, representatives from Parkingeye and a third-party complaints resolver discovered discrepancies in the licence plate number entered at the time of payment. The registration number on the ticket submitted by the driver to contest the fine had been altered to match their vehicle’s true registration, whereas the number originally keyed in at the car park machine contained two errors. This discrepancy led to the issuance of the penalty notice.
When confronted with the evidence, the driver attributed the errors to a fault with the payment machine but did not offer an explanation for submitting edited documentation. Due to this, the case took a complex turn, with the company asserting that the fine was justified given the inconsistencies.
Despite the altered evidence, Parkingeye applied its industry code of practice, which allows some leniency for genuine mistakes in entering registration details. Minor errors—typically a single incorrect letter or digit—may result in cancellation of fines. However, with two mistakes recorded, the error was deemed major. Still, since the driver provided proof of payment, Parkingeye reduced the original £100 penalty to a £20 administrative charge, which has since been paid.
A spokesperson for Parkingeye emphasized that the site features clear signage detailing parking terms and payment methods. Scott Dixon of the Complaints Resolver website, while critical of parking enforcement practices broadly, described Parkingeye’s handling of this case as “more than fair.”
The driver maintains they were wronged, but the resolution illustrates the challenges in disputes involving registration errors and the importance of accurate information when contesting parking penalties.