Drivers angry at fines for using short stay car park

DRIVERS who received fines after using a short stay car park are warning others to avoid it.

Multiple drivers who parked their cars twice in one day at the short-stay car park behind Twford House in London Road, Twyford, were issued with parking charge notices saying that they had used the car park for one long stay.

The drivers say that the photographs used in the notices only show their cars entering on their first visit and leaving on their second visit.

The car park has been owned by Wokingham Borough Council since 2020 and is operated by Vehicle Control Services, which is based in Sheffield.

Sally Hudson, 53 received a notice from the company saying that she had parked her car between 6.24pm on September 10 last year and 10.55am the next day.

The psychotherapist, who practises equine therapy with her two horses, Stylish and Picker, says it would have been impossible for her to have left her Suzuki Swift in the car park overnight.

Ms Hudson said: “At the time, I was living in Sonning and I had my horses at Waltham St Lawrence. I’m in my car all the time as I go to my horses twice a day. I often stop in Twyford en route. I would never leave my car overnight as I need it for my horses and dog. It said I had been there 16 hours which I never would have done as I need the car.”

Ms Hudson says that she would have made two stops in the car park during the period the company claimed she had been there.

She said: “I’m sure I would have stopped for a coffee on the way to the horses, that was the norm for me. If I’d been there the night before it would have been to go to Waitrose as I shop daily to get a bargain.”

Ms Hudson had exactly the same experience with the company previously and successfully appealed against her £100 fine.

She said: “This time they said I needed to provide photographic evidence of my car parked elsewhere but who takes a photo of their car overnight? I know I didn’t do it but my word isn’t enough. I’m so cross.”

Ms Hudson contested the claim, first approaching the company, then the police, and went to independent appeal but lost. She said: “I called the police and said. ‘This is
tantamount to extortion as I didn’t do it. I’m self-employed and am run ragged by daily life’. They said there was nothing they could do.

“Unless I want to go to court, and I don’t have the money or the time, I have to pay £100 for something I didn’t do. It’s just wrong.

“You get all these threatening letters, saying you have to pay now, debt recovery will come in, and there’s this pressure. But all the while I’m thinking, ‘I didn’t do it’. It’s a lot of money but it’s also the principle of it that I feel strongly about.”

Her appeal was dismissed by the Independent Appeals Service.

Ms Hudson said she would not use the car park again.

She said: “I feel it’s sad that somebody’s word is not accepted any more and there has to be photographic evidence. They have you over a barrel. I paid the £100 and thought, ‘I don’t want anyone else to go through this’. I’m not a victim, I’m an empowered woman. How can I help other people? I want to alert people so it doesn’t happen again. It’s not fair.”

A number of people from Charvil have had a similar experience.

David and Julia Guildford received a notice saying that their Nissan Qashqai had been left in the car park for seven hours.

Mrs Guildford said: “David got done this time last year. We know for a fact he went there twice that day. They say he went in at 12.12pm and came out at 7.30pm but that simply wasn’t true. He knows it’s only a short stay car park.

“He got a letter through a few days later. He appealed saying he had visited twice. This took a few weeks as we had trouble getting hold of the company and they weren’t interested on the phone. They said to email or fill out some online form. We waited and got a letter saying there would be no further proceedings. They let it go and he didn’t get fined. We haven’t used it since.

“I think it’s happening too often to be mistakes. Either that or there’s something severely wrong with their cameras.”

A council spokeswoman said: “The day-to-day operation of the site is looked after by managing agents for the benefit of the businesses.

“We are sorry to hear some residents have had issues and have asked the agents to investigate this as a matter of urgency.

“We have also asked them to ensure clear signage is in place and any restrictions are being enforced correctly.”

In a statement, Vehicle Control Services said: “The short stay free car park is intended for brief visits to the nearby shops and takeaways as well as members of the on-site gym.

“It is monitored by automated number plate recognition cameras which record the entry and exit times of vehicles.

“The car park is open to abuse as it is also located close to many amenities such as barbers, pubs and restaurants and is only a short walk away from the station. Furthermore, London Road itself is double-yellow lined. The maximum stay period of 30 minutes is clearly advertised on the signage in situ.

“We encourage any motorist who believes a parking charge to be issued incorrectly or who has mitigating circumstance to appeal, as guided on our notices.

“In Ms Hudson’s case, an appeal was made but, despite being requested, she failed to provide any evidence to support her appeal. This was the case in both her appeal to us and to the Independent Appeals Service, which could only dismiss her appeal in lieu of evidence.

“Our appeals process does highlight the relevant supporting evidence should be provided at the outset.

“As an exceptional gesture of goodwill to Ms Hudson, we would invite her to supply evidence to support her appeal within the next two weeks and we will review further. Details can be sent via our online portal mypcn.co.uk

“These cases highlight the importance of not ignoring parking charge notices and where the recipient considers that it is has been issued incorrectly or who has mitigating circumstances, to  fully engage in the appeals process.”

In Mr Guildford’s case, the account has been purged in line with our data retention policy.

“However, an appeal was made and the charge was cancelled.”