Cat op parking fine is refunded

Gazette: Cat op parking fine is refunded Cat op parking fine is refunded

A WOMAN who was given a parking ticket while her cat was undergoing emergency surgery has got her money back.

Helen Dunston, 61, of Gilberd Road, Colchester, rushed her cat, Crunchie, to Companion Care Vets, at Colne Retail Park, in Cowdray Avenue, after he was hit by a car.

The ginger cat had to have X-rays and an operation straight away, meaning Ms Dunston stayed in the vets for 20 minutes longer than the two-hour parking limit.

She said: “I overstayed my time because I was worried about my cat.

“I wasn’t there shopping. I was in there because my cat was having an operation.

“I wasn’t thinking about the parking fine.”

Read the full story in today's Gazette.

Comments (5)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:11pm Fri 21 Feb 14

Ritchie_Hicks says...

These "fines" for this carpark are issued by private companies and by many opinions not worth the paper they are printed on.
These "fines" for this carpark are issued by private companies and by many opinions not worth the paper they are printed on. Ritchie_Hicks

1:41pm Fri 21 Feb 14

cynicalsubber says...

True, Ritchie, but at least in this case the company has done the decent thing - and it looks as if the cat is doing fine, so good news all round!
True, Ritchie, but at least in this case the company has done the decent thing - and it looks as if the cat is doing fine, so good news all round! cynicalsubber

4:17pm Fri 21 Feb 14

James 1 says...

These private car parking companies rely on peoples ignorance. They are not worth the paper they are printed on.

It will invariably say "Parking Charge Notice" not "Penalty Charge Notice". A play on words.

Look on the Internet. There are regulations private parks must adhere to,. to be able to enforce parking "fines" .
These private car parking companies rely on peoples ignorance. They are not worth the paper they are printed on. It will invariably say "Parking Charge Notice" not "Penalty Charge Notice". A play on words. Look on the Internet. There are regulations private parks must adhere to,. to be able to enforce parking "fines" . James 1

11:08pm Fri 21 Feb 14

EengDem says...

The only thing you need to remember when dealing with these scammers is that there is nothing in Law giving them the power to enact a contract on behalf of the landowner to enable a land user to use the land.

Thanks to the good folk on moneysavingexpert.co
m ParkingEye and their ilk are getting a good financial kicking.
Every time someone appeals a PPC PCN and loses the intial appeal, the PPC has to give out a code to POPLA. This costs them £27 + VAT. The more appeals that go to POPLA, the more money it costs them.

Interestingly, the miss-information given to the Govt by the BPA in order to influence the POFA 2012 (namely S.4) has come back to bite them on the backside. The BPA blatantly lied by stating that the inclusion of what became S.4 would reduce the number of cases that would be brought to Court from around 9,000 p/a to around 200 (for the year their figures were based-on, only 235 drivers were in receipt of a Court notice). ParkingEye in the last year have issued 8,000 claims through the Courts.
This has lead HHJ Malone QC to Stay all ParkingEye cases brought in East Anglia. In March, the QC will decide whether or not these cases have any legitimate purpose and if they don't, this could spell disaster for the PPC industry. He could also put ParkingEye on the vexatious litigant list thus preventing them from ever taking anyone to Court.
Now, that would be hilarious considering Capita paid £57m for it in Oct. 2013.
It's value if the learned QC decides PPC PCNs have no legal substance would be £0.
The only thing you need to remember when dealing with these scammers is that there is nothing in Law giving them the power to enact a contract on behalf of the landowner to enable a land user to use the land. Thanks to the good folk on moneysavingexpert.co m ParkingEye and their ilk are getting a good financial kicking. Every time someone appeals a PPC PCN and loses the intial appeal, the PPC has to give out a code to POPLA. This costs them £27 + VAT. The more appeals that go to POPLA, the more money it costs them. Interestingly, the miss-information given to the Govt by the BPA in order to influence the POFA 2012 (namely S.4) has come back to bite them on the backside. The BPA blatantly lied by stating that the inclusion of what became S.4 would reduce the number of cases that would be brought to Court from around 9,000 p/a to around 200 (for the year their figures were based-on, only 235 drivers were in receipt of a Court notice). ParkingEye in the last year have issued 8,000 claims through the Courts. This has lead HHJ Malone QC to Stay all ParkingEye cases brought in East Anglia. In March, the QC will decide whether or not these cases have any legitimate purpose and if they don't, this could spell disaster for the PPC industry. He could also put ParkingEye on the vexatious litigant list thus preventing them from ever taking anyone to Court. Now, that would be hilarious considering Capita paid £57m for it in Oct. 2013. It's value if the learned QC decides PPC PCNs have no legal substance would be £0. EengDem

1:40pm Sun 23 Feb 14

stevedawson says...

Well l never, l just wish l could understand the last misive with all its abbreviations. Sad.
Well l never, l just wish l could understand the last misive with all its abbreviations. Sad. stevedawson

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree