An 82-year-old grandmother from Stockport has been hospitalised for six weeks after falling outside court, where she had just successfully fought a parking fine that should never have been issued against her.
Jackie Whitehurst sustained severe injuries to her shoulder and arm moments after winning her legal battle against parking company Parkingeye in January, per the BBC.
Her relatives are furious that the elderly woman was forced to attend court at all, having been wrongly pursued for more than twelve months over a penalty notice for a vehicle she no longer owned.
"It's not Parkingeye's fault she fell over but it's their fault she was at court," her son-in-law Simon Bessell told the BBC.
The parking firm maintains it "followed every process correctly" throughout the dispute.
The parking charge notice was issued in January 2025 for an alleged offence at a pub car park in Saffron Walden, Essex.
Parkingeye claimed DVLA records identified Mrs Whitehurst as the registered keeper at the time.
However, the vehicle had been written off in a collision approximately ten months before the alleged parking incident occurred.
Mrs Whitehurst was issued with a parking ticket
|WHITEHURST FAMILY
"We explained it was an old person who drives a couple of miles a week around Stockport," Mr Bessell said. "There's no way she would be in a pub car park near London a few days after Christmas."
The family informed Parkingeye that Mrs Whitehurst was no longer the owner and contacted the DVLA to correct their records, which was completed by February 2025.
Despite this, the parking company continued pursuing the unpaid penalty.
Mr Bessell acknowledged that his mother-in-law did not respond to all correspondence from Parkingeye, explaining the process had left her "incredibly anxious" as she believed she had already demonstrated the car was not hers.
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS
The company could have checked the DVLA database again to verify ownership but failed to do so, according to the family.
Following an appeal that went in Parkingeye's favour, the firm obtained a County Court Judgement against Mrs Whitehurst, leaving her "distraught".
When the family challenged the CCJ, Parkingeye agreed to set it aside and emailed a consent order twice for her signature, but these messages ended up in her junk folder.
"Sending an email to an 82-year-old lady about a court hearing, it's not right at all," Mr Bessell told the BBC.
Mrs Whitehurst was issued with a £100 fine
|WHITEHURST FAMILY
A judge at Stockport County Court ultimately overturned the CCJ in January, ruling that Mrs Whitehurst was "vulnerable" and that allowing the claim to proceed would constitute an "abuse of process".
Shortly after leaving the courthouse, Mrs Whitehurst fell while attempting to get into her daughter's car.
Her condition has worsened during her time in hospital, prompting grave concerns from her family.
"She's just got worse and worse. You ask yourself, is she going to come out of hospital?" said her grandson James Whitehurst.
He described the company's conduct as "bullish" and lacking compassion.
"It feels like there's an air of arrogance from them and no empathy," he told the BBC.
A spokesperson for Parkingeye said: “When the rules of a car park are broken the keeper details are requested from the DVLA database using a fully automated process.
“Mrs Jacqueline Whitehurst was the registered owner of a vehicle that generated a parking charge after using the car park at the Rose and Crown in Saffron Walden. It is a legal requirement to ensure that a vehicle is correctly registered with the DVLA.
“Mrs Whitehurst failed to provide any evidence to prove that she was not the registered owner when she appealed and then failed to respond to our request for further information. After rejecting the appeal, the independent appeals service POPLA reviewed the case and found in favour of Parkingeye as well.
“A County Court Judgment (CCJ) was issued after Mrs Whitehurst failed to respond to our letter before County Court Claim.
“In October, we then received an application to set aside the judgement, and this was the first occasion on which evidence regarding vehicle ownership was provided.
“Parkingeye issued a consent order by email confirming that we agreed to the judgement being set aside and the claim being dismissed. This needs to be signed by both parties but we received no response. The consent order was resent by email in January this year, again without reply.
“The only option left was for us to file our response to the court and provide a copy to the motorist, reiterating that we did not oppose the judgement being set aside.
“We don’t want to see any motorist end up in court and we have followed every process correctly to provide an audit trail and ensure that the case could be resolved as quickly as possible."