A driver has vowed to spend thousands of pounds to overturn a £100 parking fine he picked up when out shopping.
Lawrence Carnie has sworn he will do whatever necessary to overturn the fine after he was said to have left his car for almost 24 hours in a car park in Dartford, Kent.
Parking company Nexus has said that Lawrence left his car at the Tower Retail Park in Crayford, for 23 hours on June 10 last year.
But the 58-year-old has claimed he was only there for 30 minutes after he popped to the shopping park to look for new TVs at the Currys store.
He then returned again the next day, staying for an hour he said, but this was seemingly clocked as an overnight stay, exceeding the three hour limit.
Lawrence appealed against the fine but was rejected by Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA), an independent adjudicator.
The furious motorist then took his case to the British Parking Association and they too ran an investigation into his claim’s and came to the same conclusion, refusing his appeal.
But the retired bank manager isn’t taking the decision lying down and is now seeking legal help to fight the £100 fine.
He has said he’s willing to spend thousands fighting the decision, and even go to court if that’s what it takes.
Speaking to KentOnline, he said: “If I bumped into you in the street and said ‘give me £100’ you wouldn’t do it. That’s what’s happened here, they’re asking for £100 for not being there. It’s just so wrong what this company is doing.”
After the failed appeals, Lawrence reached out to CCJ Removals Service, who are assisting him on his legal standing.
Paralegal Luke Memory, who specialises in challenging parking fines, has taken the case and said that whilst most cases don’t end up in court, “Mr Carnie is an exception to the rule.”
He told the publication: “Once a claim is made against Mr Carnie we would instruct a barrister to draft a defence statement which costs £500 and this would lead to a court hearing at which Mr Carnie would instruct a barrister and this would cost approximately £1000.
“It’s off-putting for the common man but Mr Carnie is happy to fight it in court.”
The paralegal said the companies were “very clever” as the cost to fight a case in court was often much higher than the fine, meaning people usually didn't bother challenging them and paid up.
Mr Memory added that the parking company’s evidence is “littered with omissions and errors" that "clearly demonstrates that their records are inaccurate and unreliable.”
After he appealed, Lawrence was sent a 356-page document which detailed all the vehicles going in and out of the car park collated by the ANPR system.
Lawrence echoed the paralegal’s complaints, and said that the data was shoddy and that it showed 28 “impossible scenarios” of cars appearing to enter or exit the car park twice.
He added they had “lost” the photos of his car.
A spokesperson for the BPA said: "The motorist appealed the charge issued to their vehicle to POPLA which was rejected. POPLA deemed the charge to have been issued correctly
"The motorist made a complaint to the BPA about one of our members incorrectly issuing charges because of faulty ANPR equipment. However, no evidence of incorrectly issued charges was ever provided.
"We investigated and the operator provided information confirming that their ANPR equipment was not faulty. As this information related to other vehicles it was not appropriate to share with the motorist.
"We were unable to identify a breach of the Code of Practice and therefore closed the case."
A spokesperson for Group Nexus said: "The original challenge was rejected and the PCN upheld on the grounds that the motorist overstayed the free time allocation.
"Issues with the cameras are extremely rare. In this case we investigated the claim and could find no evidence that this vehicle had visited the site twice.
"The motorist then referred his challenge to POPLA, the independent adjudicator run by Ombudsmen Services who also rejected the appeal."
