Key Points
- A father from Stockport, Tim Coates, has received a parking charge amounting to £100 for visiting the Peel Centre’s Marks & Spencer on 22nd June 2026.
- According to Ocean Parking, the charge was imposed due to the fact that his car was not parked entirely within the designated bay; an examination of the evidence done by Manchester Evening News revealed that only one wheel of his car was parked on the white line.
- The charge escalated to £170 when it was referred to a debt collector.
- Mr. Coates challenged the initial charge and explained that he did not know the result of his appeal until he got the letter from the debt collector.
- Ocean Parking explained that according to their records, they emailed Mr. Coates regarding the appeal on 3rd July 2026.
- The company also added that the two emails which were sent by Mr. Coates on 17th and 18th of August were marked as potentially spam and therefore did not reach the company’s inbox.
- The company has now announced that the penalty has been cancelled.
- This is because of the request made by Peel L&P who is the owner of the Peel Centre on 2nd of October.
Stockport (Manchester Mirror) October 13, 2026 – A Stockport father’s £170 parking charge, issued after he visited Marks & Spencer at the Peel Centre, has been cancelled in a new development in a dispute that began when one of his car tyres was photographed resting on a white bay line.
Tim Coates had been fined £100 by Ocean Parking after parking at the Peel Centre on 22 June 2026 before going into the Marks & Spencer store. The charge was later increased to £170 after the case was passed to debt recovery. Ocean Parking has now confirmed that the penalty has been revoked after a request from the centre’s owner, Peel L&P.
Why was the Stockport dad fined at M&S?
Mr Coates parked at the Peel Centre on 22 June to shop at Marks & Spencer. Ocean Parking, which manages the car park, said the Penalty Charge Notice was issued because the vehicle was “not being parked wholly within a marked bay”.
Evidence reviewed by the Manchester Evening News indicated that, when the £100 fine was imposed, one of Mr Coates’ tyres was resting on the white line marking the parking bay. The report said the car park’s rules require vehicles to be entirely within the confines of the designated parking spaces.
The case was first reported by the Manchester Evening News on 29 September in an article by its newsroom, which said Mr Coates feared other shoppers might not realise they were breaking strict parking rules. That report stated that he had appealed the £100 charge, but said his appeal was rejected and that he only learned of the rejection after receiving a letter from a debt collector.
The same account was carried by the Mirror, which reported that Mr Coates said the charge rose to £170 after the case went to debt recovery. The Mirror also reported Ocean Parking’s response that its records showed the appeal outcome had been emailed to him on 3 July.
What has changed in the parking fine case?
Ocean Parking has confirmed that Mr Coates’ penalty has been cancelled. As reported by the Manchester Evening News, a representative for the company said the decision followed a request from Peel L&P, the owner of the Peel Centre, on 2 October.
That request came shortly after the Manchester Evening News covered Mr Coates’ complaint. The cancellation means the £100 charge, which had escalated to £170, will no longer stand.
Before learning of the cancellation, Mr Coates had contacted Ocean Parking again. He said several important documents had been omitted when the original parking charge was issued. He told the Manchester Evening News that his intention was not simply to have the fine cancelled, but to draw attention to what he described as unfair practices and to stop other people “falling into the same trap”.
“It’s time common sense prevailed,” Mr Coates told the Manchester Evening News. “They must have noticed the attention they were receiving. Perhaps they are hoping this will fade away. My goal was never to have it cancelled.”
He added:
“When I received the news yesterday, did I celebrate? Yes, I did, because it feels like a small victory for the ordinary person.”
What did Tim Coates say about the appeal process?
Mr Coates said he believed motorists faced an imbalance of power when dealing with private parking firms. In comments reported by the Manchester Evening News, he said: “I feel like motorists are being extorted by these companies, and the appeal process is heavily biased in their favour. Regardless of their claims, my experiences tell a different story.”
He also said: “For those who park without realising their mistakes, it becomes an easy source of revenue for them, and I genuinely believe they are taking advantage of the situation.”
Mr Coates maintained that he did not receive an email informing him that his appeal had been rejected on 3 July. He said an attachment sent later remained unread. Ocean Parking acknowledged that some emails from Mr Coates had been overlooked because they were classified as spam.
The earlier reporting by the Manchester Evening News said that, after Mr Coates complained to the International Parking Community (IPC), a DVLA-accredited trade body, it indicated that evidence pointed to him being notified by email on 3 July about the rejection. The IPC said it had not seen evidence suggesting Ocean Parking failed to send the notice or provide the necessary information.
What does Ocean Parking say happened?
Ocean Parking has given a detailed account of its handling of the case. In a response reported by Stockport Nub News, a spokesperson said: “We can confirm that the PCN was issued at the Peel Centre, Stockport, on 22 June 2026 for the vehicle not being parked wholly within a marked bay.”
The spokesperson said Mr Coates appealed on 1 July and that the company’s records showed the appeal outcome was emailed to him on 3 July.
“When they subsequently contacted us on 10 August stating they had not received the outcome, we provided a further copy on 11 August,” the spokesperson said.
Ocean Parking said the Penalty Charge Notice was passed to debt recovery on 14 August after no further correspondence or payment was received. It added that, when Mr Coates contacted the company again on 2 September about the opportunity to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), it advised that the standard 28-day period had expired but that he could submit a non-standard appeal.
“No further contact has been received and no appeal has been submitted to the IAS,” the spokesperson told Stockport Nub News.
In the latest Manchester Evening News report, an Ocean Parking representative said the company possessed supporting evidence from its internal system, including details of the appeal’s delivery, a copy of the email sent to Mr Coates, and confirmation that the email was received in its inbox. The company said this evidence verified that the document was sent on 3 July 2026.
The representative also said Mr Coates could not have submitted an appeal directly to the Independent Appeals Service on 18 August because that fell outside the 28-day window allowed for appeals. The company said that, where an appeal is submitted after the standard timeframe, the appellant must contact the operator to arrange a non-standard appeal. It said it had no record of Mr Coates making such a request.
Regarding emails sent on 17 and 18 August, Ocean Parking said they were flagged by its email system as potential spam and were therefore not delivered to its inbox. It said Mr Coates had successfully made contact through other messages before and after those dates, indicating that he had been able to communicate with the company during that period.
In a previous statement, an Ocean Parking spokesperson said: “We recognise that receiving a parking charge can be aggravating, and we have made efforts to address the motorist’s concerns by providing copies of the relevant correspondence and outlining the options available to them.”
Background of the development
The dispute began on 22 June 2026, when Mr Coates parked at the Peel Centre in Stockport before visiting Marks & Spencer. Ocean Parking issued a £100 charge on the basis that the vehicle was not wholly within a marked bay.
Mr Coates appealed the charge on 1 July. Ocean Parking says it emailed the appeal outcome to him on 3 July, while Mr Coates says he did not receive notification of the rejection until a debt collector’s letter arrived.
The charge was passed to debt recovery on 14 August, increasing the amount demanded to £170. Ocean Parking said it later told Mr Coates that, although the standard appeal period had expired, he could pursue a non-standard appeal through the IAS.
The case attracted coverage from the Manchester Evening News, Stockport Nub News and the Mirror. Following that coverage, Peel L&P asked Ocean Parking to cancel the penalty on 2 October, and the company subsequently confirmed the cancellation.
Prediction: How this may affect shoppers and motorists
For shoppers using privately managed retail car parks, the case is likely to reinforce the importance of checking bay markings before leaving a vehicle, even during a short visit. The reported rule at the Peel Centre required vehicles to be completely within the white lines, and the original charge was issued after a tyre was photographed on the line.
Motorists who receive a parking charge may also pay closer attention to appeal deadlines and confirmation emails. Ocean Parking says appeals must be submitted within 28 days, and its account of this case states that a late appeal requires the motorist to contact the operator to arrange a non-standard appeal.
For people who feel they have not received correspondence, the development highlights the value of keeping records of appeals, emails and letters. In this case, Ocean Parking said some of Mr Coates’ emails were classified as spam, while Mr Coates said he did not receive notice that his first appeal had been rejected.
The cancellation may also encourage other motorists to question parking charges where they believe communication has failed or evidence is unclear. However, the outcome followed a request from the landowner, Peel L&P, rather than a published ruling by an appeals body, so it does not establish a general precedent for every disputed private parking charge.
