Pensioner battles car park company in court over 10p

James 'Jim' Hibbert who lives in New Moston, near Failsworth, is an 85-year-old man who has spent the last two years hunched over library books and legal documents in a bid to master contract law and represent himself in his David v Goliath showdown against Smart Parking Limited.

The retired Royal Mail sorting office worker had parked in Middleton Shopping Centre in November 2022 and paid the 50p charge in three 20p coins.

Get the latest news delivered straight to your inbox by signing up to The Oldham Times’ morning and evening newsletters as well as our breaking news alerts 

Jim said he didn't have an exact 50p at the time and had no other means to pay as he didn't have a debit or credit card and said he hadn't "heard of RingGo" nor knew how to use it.

He joked to The Oldham Times: "Who is Ringo? I haven't heard of him."

However, Jim wasn't bothered about his 10p change until a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) came through his door a month later.

The fine stated he had paid an "insufficient amount" and had to pay £100 - or £60 if paid within 14 days.

Jim with his victorious letter (Image: NQ)

Jim proved he paid more than the required amount but Smart Parking didn't back down and sent another letter in January 2023 with a reduced fine of £20 - this time for providing the "incorrect vehicle registration". 

The then 83-year-old wrote back that the company was mistaken and that he had entered his registration number correctly.

Jim referred to an article in The Oldham Times where shoppers reported "faulty machines" at the shopping centre, and told the company it was confused by its own "ludicrous pomposity".

He said: "I was polite in my letters but I thought they could get stuffed.

"I decided to give them a taste of their own medicine."

When another letter from a debt recovery agency demanded £170, Jim made a claim at Manchester County Court.

In the months leading up to it, he spent "tens of hours" studying to build his case and represent himself, borrowing several books from Failsworth Library and printing a dossier of evidence.

Jim added: "The more they tried to bully and intimidate me, the more determined I became.

"It's not a fine, it's extortion."

Jim proved the signs made no reference to providing a registration number (Image: Jim Hibbert/NQ)

The signage at Middleton Shopping Centre became a central part of the dispute as Smart Parking's solicitor "lied" to the judge that the sign indicated a need to pay and to provide a correct vehicle registration number.

However, Jim provided photographs that proved otherwise, as the sign only indicated a need to pay the correct tariff before leaving the car park with no mention of providing a vehicle registration number.

He added: "They might be clever, but they're not very intelligent.

"If I hadn't had those photographs, the judge would've believed him."

Jim also argued the payment machine's keypad and display were "unusually small" and that the machine did not inform motorists how long they had been parked when they entered their registration.

He said he believes this is deliberate, to "increase the likelihood of a motorist making an error, in guessing the time parked and giving the company an excuse" to issue fines.

Jim ultimately argued the company had become the "beneficiary of unjust enrichment" and breached their contract by failing to adhere to its own signs - and for failing to issue his 10p change.

The solicitors said Jim's claim costs, made up of the 10p change, £4.96 in printing and postage costs and the £35 claim fee, was "spurious, opportunistic and an abuse of process".

However, before the case was due to be heard again in August this year, he received a settlement offer of £40.06.

The letter stated the company believed Jim's claim was "hopeless and entirely misguided" but decided to pay out "to avoid further wasted time and costs".

Another letter from JWM Solicitors LLP reveals Smart Parking Limited had paid around £4,000 in legal fees.

The shopping centre now has free parking (Image: Jim Hibbert/NQ)

Jim said the whole experience was an "eye-opener" but was "disappointed" by the court process.

He explained: "At the hearing, it was like the solicitor and the judge were friends.

"I could hear them criticise me, disputing my printing costs and querying why I didn't pay with a card or use RingGo.

"The solicitor made a complete invention about what the signage was like in the car park. I thought we'd be dealing with facts, not a pack of lies, and the judge even admitted he was hasty to believe him before I showed the photographs."

Jim said his wife, Nita, who sadly died last year before his victorious result, was annoyed by the company when he received the fine and he hoped she would be proud of him.

He said: "She always said, 'you love having a go', but I'm glad it's cost them a lot of money and I'm relieved I didn't have to go to court again - they don't credit your intelligence.

"They treat you like a silly old man.

"It's a racket, they're like sharks that go after you and try it on.

"I spent a good few hours of my time but it's quite satisfying that they spent so much on lawyer's fees - when all I wanted was my simple 10p change."

Smart Parking Limited has been contacted for comment.

Got a story? Email me Olivia.bridge@newsquest.co.uk