Couple outraged over five-minute parking charge

A couple issued with a £100 charge after falling foul of a five-minute parking guideline have called for firms to show "compassion".

Ceris and Oliver Blomfield entered Carlisle's privately-owned Heads Lane site on a shopping trip, but then decided to park elsewhere due to poor weather.

Having looked online for alternatives, they triggered a parking charge notice due to having been there for five minutes and 40 seconds - just over the five-minute consideration period set out in the industry's code of practice.

Parkingeye, which operates the payment system at Heads Lane, said Mr and Mrs Blomfield "did not provide any mitigating factors for failing to adhere to the terms and conditions".

The couple, from Penrith, Cumbria, said they changed their minds about where to park due to "torrential rain" and having their two small children with them so left the site without getting out of their car, in February 2022.

Their appeal against the charge was rejected by an industry watchdog and they say they are now receiving letters from a debt recovery agency suggesting legal action may be taken against them if they do not pay a charge which has now risen to £170.

Mr Blomfield told BBC Radio Cumbria: "There's no compassion. [We're told] it's a rule and its black and white.

"Anyone with a heart would go, 'it makes total sense [to waive the charge]'.

"You can't speak to the company that owns the car park. We just thought someone would read our response and realise the charge is not fair.

"Technically, yes, we were 40 seconds over, but we just figured it would be put aside.

"That wasn't the case and we feel it's really wrong. I'm sure there are other people out there in similar situations."

Parkingeye said the Heads Lane site was monitored by ANPR camera systems and had seven "highly visible signs that give motorists clear guidance on how to use the car park responsibly".

For motorists considering whether to park, it said "a five-minute consideration period is applied, as per the British Parking Association (BPA) and International Parking Community joint code of practice".

A spokesperson said: "The motorist correctly received a parking charge for parking for longer than the consideration period and not making a payment.

"Parkingeye operates a BPA-audited appeals process, which motorists can use to appeal their parking charge. If anyone has mitigating circumstances, we would encourage them to highlight this by appealing.

"The motorist did not provide any mitigating circumstances for failing to adhere to the terms and conditions of the car park and their appeal was rejected. The charge was also upheld by Popla, the independent appeals service.

"The case has now been escalated to debt recovery."

Popla said that although the Blomfields had not parked in a bay, they "stopped for a period of time to find elsewhere to park and in doing so utilised the site".

It added: "As such a parking event has occurred and the appellant entered the contract stated on the signage."

Some changes to private parking rules were introduced this week after the BBC reported on the case of Rosey Hudson, who was taken to court by Excel Parking over a £1,906 claim after taking longer than five minutes to pay at a car park in Derby due to poor signal on her phone.

The Private Parking Scrutiny and Advice Panel (PPSAP), which brought them in, says they will ensure "motorists who face genuine difficulties in paying in a short timeframe are treated fairly".

Follow BBC Cumbria on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram. Send your story ideas here.