Frustrated dad pursued by bailiffs for £500 over £70 parking penalty he had ‘no knowledge of’ after family day out in Rochester

A furious dad says he was wrongly hounded by bailiffs out of hundreds of pounds over a parking fine he had no knowledge of.

But after Wilson Chowdhry took the matter to court to prove that was the case and recover sums owed to him by Medway Council, who had issued the fine, he says they tried to slap another charge on him.

The frustrated dad-of-three says he’s been left “angry and upset” by the ordeal which followed a family visit to Rochester for a day out during the King’s Coronation bank holiday on May 8, last year.

He recalls hundreds of cars being parked along the Esplanade and after finding a space, him and his wife spoke to locals and a traffic officer, who said it was free to park in the space.

After enjoying their day out the family returned to their hometown of Chigwell in Essex and thought nothing of it.

However, the council upholds that Wilson had parked “illegally” and that it has evidence a penalty ticket was attached to the windscreen. It also says it has no record of his encounter with a ticket officer at the parking location.

But Wilson claims it came as a shock to him as a year later, on May 7, 2024, he discovered bailiffs at the door pursuing a parking ticket he had heard “nothing” about.

The 50-year-old, who receives almost all letters electronically due to “systemic failures” with the postal service in his area, says he had not received a single penalty fine or letter through his door in the last year.

After paying more than £500 to the bailiffs, Wilson submitted an appeal, providing evidence of his issues with the post delivery in his street, including press clippings detailing a range of complaints from others about the service.

He said: “When the bailiffs arrived, I felt anger and upset – it’s something we’ve raised again and again with Royal Mail.

“My young daughters didn’t know what was going on and started crying.

“There’s a lot of essential items you can buy with that money but to have to pay that for a parking charge you never knew about – it was painful and a moment of anguish.”

Because the council did not receive payment for the parking penalty it says it sent four letters over a six-month period but did not receive a response.

As a result, it was passed to an enforcement agency in December last year.

After bailiffs took payment from Wilson, he submitted an “Out of Time’ application to the court to ask for more time to challenge the ticket.

Although the council would have challenged this application, an “administrative error” delayed its response. As a result, the court made a decision to revoke the bailiff charges.

In response to his appeal, Civil National Business Centre, a court which processes various civil claims, decided on July 23, that Wilson would only need to pay the £70 original fine and that Medway Council should process a refund for the difference.

However, Wilson did not receive a letter notifying him of this decision by the court, which he attributes to his postal service problems, so he called for a follow-up on the progress of his case when he remembered in August.

It was then he says he was notified by the court that he had been successful and was told once Medway council received notification to this effect, it would return his funds.

But when he phoned Medway Council it said it had not received a letter from the court and told Wilson to make contact once he had received a letter.

To his surprise, on October 7, Wilson received a letter, which he says is a “rare occurrence”, dated September 25 from Medway council, informing him he would need to pay another £70 penalty relating to the incident.

Having already paid £500, Wilson called the council and queried the letter – asking the council officer to check the system to confirm he had paid the bailiff charges and quizzing the council on whether they had received a letter from the courts explaining he was due a refund.

However, he says the worker he spoke to insisted he would need to pay the additional £70 on top of the bailiff charges.

After maintaining that he had been informed he was due a refund, he was left on hold for 20 minutes by the council officer.

When they eventually got back to him, he was informed by a more senior officer that he would not need to pay the additional £70 fine as he could see it had been settled and advised Wilson to email in for a refund.

The dad-of-three added: “How is it ever acceptable that we were being charged an additional amount despite being owed a refund of over £400? It’s crazy.

“And for a system not to flag that up when I’m calling – for me it’s just phenomenal. I’d want to know why the council haven’t responded to me more proactively considering it’s a debt that they owe me.”

It is understood the council will now refund £424, of which £114 will be paid by Medway Council, with a further £310 due to be refunded from the enforcement agency.

But, according the council, Wilson will now need to pay the Penalty Charge Notice at £70 or appeal.

Despite being on the phone with the council, he was told he would need to email a different team to issue his refund, but he believes “there should be an automated repayment scheme”.

I’d like to get my money back and I’d like to see the system change

He emailed on October 7, the day of his call with Medway council, and it replied on October 14 to say it wanted to “apologise” for the inconvenience caused, stating it was refunding the bailiff charges.

He said: “Why am I not being given direct communication with somebody so I can get this rectified expediently considering I’ve been out of pocket now since May.

“I’d like to get my money back and I’d like to see the system change, whether it’s a software update or some sort of administrative changes, protocol change – something that prevents other people from going through the same process as I have.

“This devious notice to owner could have resulted in me paying additional costs despite already paying a substantial amount to bailiffs under duress through lack of knowledge of a penalty fine.

“A blatant incorrectly applied additional charge seems like an error too much, it makes me angry and upset.”

While Wilson concedes it’s possible he may have made a mistake with his parking on his visit to Rochester last year, he says he would have dealt with this by paying the original £70 had he known about it.

He added: “The courts have decided in our favour and these extended delays are quite despicable – I’ve been as patient as I can be but I’m at my wits end.”

A Royal Mail spokesperson said: “We take the delivery of mail very seriously and work to ensure all items are delivered on time.

“We have taken strides to improve our service in Chigwell and nationally. Currently, 93.5% of First Class letters arrive within two days.

“If a customer is concerned about deliveries on their route we encourage them to contact us directly so we can investigate.”

A Medway council spokesperson said: “Penalty Charge Notices are issued when vehicles are parked illegally, which happened in this instance.

“However, we are sorry for the delay in responding to correspondence due to an administrative error. We have received a formal complaint in relation to this case, which we are reviewing.”