A woman has been told by debt collectors that she owes £175 for an unpaid fine despite claiming to have parked for less than half an hour in a 30-minute free zone.
Kathryn James has received demands from a collection agency regarding the unpaid charge, but she maintains that it was wrongly issued in Romford, London.
James insists her spouse followed proper procedures when parking the vehicle, which is registered under her name.
The incident took place last year when James's husband used their car for shopping.
Google Maps
|The incident occurred on Collier Row Road
He entered the vehicle's registration at the payment terminal to activate the complimentary 30-minute parking period available on the street.
Upon returning within the free time limit, he discovered a traffic warden in the process of issuing a penalty notice.
"He went with the traffic warden to the parking machine, put the registration number in again, and it showed her the free parking," James explained.
The warden photographed the terminal screen displaying the valid parking session and uploaded this as evidence, according to James' account.
The enforcement officer informed them that despite the evidence, the penalty would remain active and require formal dispute.
James stated that the warden advised her husband that only the vehicle's registered keeper could submit an appeal.
Initial attempts to contest the charge were unsuccessful, with the council claiming her husband lacked authority to challenge it.
James subsequently submitted her own written appeal to Havering Council but alleges she received no acknowledgement or reply during the following twelve months.
Google Maps
|James claims they did not breach the 30-minute free limit
The local authority maintains "there is no evidence that an attempt was made to register for a free parking session" when the penalty was issued.
The photographic evidence reveals a parking terminal displaying a timestamp of 1.13pm, merely four minutes following the penalty's issue at 1.09pm.
While the image confirms free parking was obtained, it does not indicate when the initial registration occurred.
James stated: "What I can't stand is that they've got the evidence from their own system that this shouldn't have been issued."
"It's absolutely disgusting," James added, criticising the council's approach to resolving such disputes.