A teacher has been left frustrated and bewildered after a parking operator demanded £100 for an alleged infringement that occurred almost three years earlier.
Monika Wentowska, 43, from Whitstable, Kent, received what was described as a "final notice" in November 2025 relating to an incident at Prospect Way retail park in March 2023.
The letter from Parkingeye warned of potential court action unless she settled the charge, yet Wentowska maintains this was the very first she had heard of the matter.
The alleged breach involved returning to the car park within four hours, violating the site's "no returns" policy.
Ms Wentowska, who operates a local tutoring business called the Little Science Society, expressed shock at receiving the notice so long after the supposed offence.
According to the details of the case, the 43-year-old visited the retail park twice on March 27 2023, with her stays lasting 17 minutes and 20 minutes respectively.
Despite spending just 37 minutes in total across both visits, she fell foul of the regulation prohibiting motorists from returning within a four-hour window.
"I was in the car park twice within one hour. I think the policy at the time was no return within [four] hours. That's ridiculous for a place with five shops," Ms Wentowska said.
Monika Wentowska received the fine nearly three years after the alleged contravention
|She insisted she had no intention of exploiting free parking to visit the beach or similar, adding: "If you forget something, you go back."
The Whitstable resident admitted she had been unaware of the parking restrictions and now fears additional penalties may arrive, having used the car park numerous times since the original incident.
The passage of time has left Ms Wentowska unable to defend herself properly, as she cannot produce receipts proving she was a genuine shopper on the day in question.
"I couldn't prove I was shopping because who keeps their shopping receipts from three years ago?" she said.
She has pledged to withhold payment as a matter of principle rather than an unwillingness to pay legitimate fines
|LATEST DEVELOPMENTS
When she contacted Parkingeye seeking further information, the company informed her that too much time had elapsed for an appeal.
"I just feel like I'm being unfairly treated. The rule is ridiculous," the teacher stated.
She has pledged to withhold payment as a matter of principle rather than an unwillingness to pay legitimate fines.
She said: "It's not that I don't want to pay the fine, but this one I will not accept because the rule is ridiculous in the first place. It's the principle."
Parkingeye disputed Ms Wentowska's account, stating that initial correspondence had been dispatched in April 2025, with the final notice following in November.
A spokesman for the operator said the car park "features prominent and highly visible signs throughout, providing information on how to use the car park responsibly."
The company confirmed Ms Wentowska had been granted a late appeal but this was rejected because she failed to demonstrate she was a genuine customer.
However, she retains the option of pursuing a further challenge through Popla, the independent appeals service handling disputes over parking charges on private land.
Kent Online, which originally reported the story, noted this case forms part of a pattern of similar grievances from shoppers caught by the site's no return policy.
More From GB News