Back in June, the BBC reported about a scam whereby fake QR Code stickers were being placed over real ones in carparks to con motorists into giving away bank details when they thought they were paying for parking.
That sounds like a cheaper way than using genuine parking payments when those payments are operated by Excel Parking.
Here is why.
Basically, they have been widely criticised for charging drivers if they took more than five minutes to pay and demanded thousands of pounds from an 18 year old after she was repeatedly caught out by this rule in Darlington.
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.
But, as she pointed out, it sometimes took longer than five minutes due to poor phone signal and problems with the payment app. Not her fault.
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.
Law firm Keidan Harrison later offered to help Miss Robinson free of charge - good on them, glad they got a good mention in the BBC News story.
In March, a hearing was held at Middlesbrough County Court, where she 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.
Sorry, I've basically just cut-and-pasted from the BBC story there for those who didn't click on the link above.
As she had had free legal representation, 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 who presumably help out others in similar situations - maybe against Excel Parking - that would be nice.
But Excel Parking decided to appeal. That was rejected by another judge.
Excel claimed,
"We stand by our position that the terms of parking are lawful, reasonable, and unambiguous. Persistent breaches of this nature cannot be justified."
That was clearly shown IN COURT not to be the case!
They have now paid. Good. Serves them right. See how they like it!
They also need to change their name - they do not excel.
