Hannah Robinson was just 18 when she first found herself on the receiving end of relentless payment demands from Excel Parking, a private car park operator that’s become notorious for its controversial “five-minute payment rule.” Now, after years of legal wrangling, Excel has been ordered to pay £10,240 to charity after losing a court battle against Robinson not once, but twice—a case that’s shone a spotlight on practices in the UK’s private parking sector and triggered moves for government reform.
Robinson’s ordeal began in June 2021, when she started parking regularly at the Feethams Leisure car park in Darlington, where she worked in a restaurant above. Like many Excel car parks, Feethams enforced a strict rule: drivers had to pay for their parking within five minutes of entering, or risk a £100 penalty charge notice (PCN). For Robinson, this rule quickly became a nightmare. She paid for her parking each time, but technical glitches—poor phone signal and a sometimes-unreliable payment app—meant paying within five minutes was often impossible. Despite her best efforts, the PCNs kept coming.
Initially, Robinson paid some of the charges, which were reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days. But as the PCNs piled up, she began to question their fairness and, toward the end of 2022, started appealing the notices. Her appeals fell on deaf ears. In February 2024, she received a letter from Excel demanding payment for 67 unpaid charges—each £100, plus a £70 debt collection fee—totaling a staggering £11,390. When she didn’t pay, Excel escalated the matter to court, initially seeking payment for two PCNs plus fees, before later attempting to amend the claim to pursue 11 different PCNs.
Feeling overwhelmed, Robinson turned to her grandmother for support. “I’m so happy I stuck at this and stopped dealing with it alone,” she told the BBC. The law firm Keidan Harrison offered to help her free of charge, and campaigner Lynda Eagan joined her cause. Eagan described Excel’s demands as “relentless,” saying, “They thought they could bully a teenager and continued to pursue her into her early 20s, even though she had already paid them thousands in parking fees and then unjustifiable charges until she had no money left.”
The legal showdown took place in March 2025 at Middlesbrough County Court. Robinson was represented by barrister Seth Kitson, who argued that the £100 penalties were unenforceable because Excel had “no legitimate interest in forcing its users to pay within five minutes.” Kitson called the rule “inherently preposterous”—especially given the poor phone signal and the time needed to pay by phone—and said it was an unfair contract term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
District Judge Janine Richards sided with Robinson, dismissing Excel’s original claim and its attempt to expand it. She found that Excel’s “conduct in relation to this litigation was both unreasonable and out of the norm,” ordering the company to pay £10,240.10 in legal costs. Because Robinson had free legal representation, the judge issued a pro bono costs order, directing Excel to pay the sum to the Access to Justice Foundation charity.
Excel wasn’t ready to give in. The company applied for permission to appeal the costs order, but at a further hearing, Judge David Robinson refused the request. Even after two defeats in court, Excel maintained its hardline stance. In a statement to the BBC, the company insisted: “The individual concerned has repeatedly breached the clearly displayed and entirely fair contractual terms and conditions on more than 100 separate occasions. We stand by our position that the terms of parking are lawful, reasonable, and unambiguous. Persistent breaches of this nature cannot be justified. We remain committed to ensuring that those who deliberately and repeatedly disregard parking rules are held accountable.”
The Access to Justice Foundation confirmed that Excel has now paid the £10,240. But the story doesn’t end there. The five-minute payment rule, which had drawn widespread criticism from MPs and parking campaigners, was officially banned by the two trade associations for private car park operators on February 17, 2025. The ban came after a wave of publicity about similar cases—including that of Rosey Hudson in Derby—and mounting political pressure. A new Code of Practice was introduced to ensure fairer treatment for drivers.
Despite the ban, Excel continues to pursue legal action against drivers who fell foul of the rule before February 17. According to campaigner Lynda Eagan, the company “continues to bring similar cases to court simply to coerce other innocent victims of their five-minute rule into paying, out of fear of a court hearing.” Eagan has been helping others fight charges through a Facebook support page and encouraged drivers to stand up for themselves: “Even though Excel Parking Services have suffered the humiliation of this defeat, they continue to bring similar cases to court simply to coerce other innocent victims of their five-minute rule into paying, out of fear of a court hearing.”
The controversy has prompted government action. Following the high-profile cases and mounting complaints, the government has announced plans to introduce its own code of practice for private car park operators—one that all operators will be required to follow. The public consultation on the proposed code is open until September 5, 2025, giving drivers and advocacy groups a chance to have their say on future parking regulations.
For Robinson, the outcome is more than just a personal victory. She hopes her experience will inspire others to challenge unfair charges and not be intimidated by large companies. “The support around me has been amazing and I’m so grateful for everyone’s patience and advice, and can’t thank the lawyers enough,” she said. “I hope this helps others to not let Excel win and don’t give in to them.”
As the dust settles, the case stands as a warning to private car park operators and a rallying cry for drivers everywhere. With the government’s new code of practice on the horizon, the landscape of private parking enforcement in the UK could soon look very different—one where fairness, not fear, takes the driver’s seat.
