I was unfairly fined by ‘bully boy’ parking firm… they took me to court but I had the last laugh
A “BULLY boy” parking firm got more than they bargained for when a judge ordered they pay compensation to a driver given an unfair fine.
Martin Anderson was slapped with a £100 penalty while picking up rubbish in a pub car park.
Martin, 65, volunteers as a litter picker in his home town of Corby, Northamptonshire.
He and his group, dubbed the Corby Wombles after the beloved TV characters, use the Cardigan Arms in the town as a meeting place before setting out on their charitable work.
However, he claims that he was handed the fine while he stopped in for a pint despite the pub’s landlord agreeing to allow them organisation to use the car park.
He appealed the fine on this basis, but was rejected as he had not registered his number plate inside the pub.
But Martin insists that the signage in the car park did not make that requirement clear and decided to fight the case.
I was just enraged by it
Martin Anderson
Since the fine was issued in March 2022, he claims to have been subjected to two years of “bullying”, including threats of debt collectors and legal action.
He said: “I had two or three letters from different debt collection companies.
“They just try to bully and manipulate you.
“I don’t like being bullied and I didn’t want to stand for it.
“I was just enraged by it, I was just going for bin bags and I was invited there by the landlord.”
Determined to fight the charge, which rose over time to £277.65, Martin represented himself in the “David vs Goliath” court battle.
After two years of “bully boy” tactics from Civil Enforcement, the case was thrown out by Northampton County Court in May.
District Judge Nicholas Glassbrook cited inaccuracies in the firm’s witness statement concerning the accuracy of the signage.
They pursued me for two years, bullied me, and stressed me out
Martin Anderson
Martin was let off the fine and even awarded £100 in expenses.
However, despite his joy he had little intention of forgiving the company.
He added: “I’m glad that I won but I’d asked for more money to cover the incredible amount of time I’d put into this.
“They pursued me for two years, bullied me, and stressed me out.
“They wasted the court’s time and my time. What’s £100 for two years of grief.
“It’s laughable.”
A spokesperson for Civil Enforcement Ltd said: “Mr Anderson was sent a Parking Charge Notice (not a fine) for breach of the terms and conditions of parking at the Cardigan Arms on 15th March 2022, as he failed to register for a permit as required by the terms of parking at this site.
“He appealed the case to Civil Enforcement, and then again to POPLA, where the PCN was upheld as being validly issued on the basis of a failure to obtain a permit in accordance with the required terms of parking.
“Mr Anderson did not make payment of the PCN thereafter, and a claim was issued to recover the amount due plus statutory interest and the permitted court costs/fees.
“It is correct that the judge dismissed our claim on the basis that he was not satisfied about the adequacy of the signage at the site, primarily on a technicality because the witness statement did not specifically address what signage was in place at the time of the alleged contravention.”
However, they pointed to the fact that the judge said that their loss did not necessarily mean that the enforcement was “unreasonable” and denied Martin’s claim of harassment.
They added: The judge did not award any damages to the Defendant, despite his claim against us for aggravated and exemplary damages and damages for harassment.”
