I was taken to COURT after I refused to pay unfair £300 parking fine – but it backfired & I WON

A WOMAN has been left relieved after being taken to court over a £300 parking fine, only for it to backfire spectacularly on the enforcement company.

Jaime Rock faced a two-year legal fight and claims to have been "called a liar" over a simple payment mishap.

Jaime, 49, alleges that she was wrongly fined despite receiving a text message confirming she had paid for her parking at her local hospital in 2021.

However, she was hit with a £60 penalty, with parking firm Civil Enforcement Ltd stating that the online payment hadn't processed properly.

The mental health nurse, from Lancashire, refused to pay the bill, which led to it being increased to a whopping £300.

She appealed the charge but alleges that the company "completely disregarded" her evidence, including the confirmation text.

When she refused to pay again, Civil Enforcement took her to court to try and recoup the fine.

Now, though, the county court has thrown out the case, with Jaime claiming that the hearing took just "two minutes" after the firm's lawyers failed to attend.

She told : "I lost count of the letters I got.

"They did not entertain looking at my evidence.

"They just called me a liar.

"[When I won] I felt vindicated."

Not only does Jamie not have to pay the fine, but Civil Enforcement was ordered to pay the cost of her travel to the court, totalling £26.

A spokesperson for Civil Enforcement Limited said: "The PCN was issued because valid payment for parking was not made on the date in question.

"The request for confirmation of the VRM is sent by the Phone and Pay platform as soon as the payment information has been captured.

"This SMS would have been sent to Ms Rock immediately after she confirmed payment details – this is the last stage in the booking process.

"We can confirm that this SMS was sent at 10:04 hours and Ms Rock did not respond to it. We can also confirm that the SMS she received 12 minutes after the booking was attempted was the SMS informing her that the session had not been confirmed and requested that she get in touch on the number provided on the signage at the site.

"We can also confirm that the payment machines were working on the date in question, and accepted both cash and card payments and can confirm that cash and card payments were made at this car park on the date in question."

They also claimed that Jaime did not immediately appeal the charge and did not respond to reminders to pay.

They went on: "A representative was not booked to attend the rehearing of the claim on the date it was relisted.

"Because of this, the Judge dismissed the claim without hearing any evidence, and did not make any findings of fact in relation to the claim.

"Given that the claim was dismissed because of the fact that we did not instruct a representative to attend court on our behalf, there has not been any judicial finding of fact in relation to the claim and we maintain that the PCN was issued correctly in this instance."