89-year-old hit with fine after leaving car park because he couldn’t get parking app on his 20-year-old Nokia
An 89-year-old driver from Bury St Edmunds has been fined after leaving a car park in Haverhill, Suffolk, because he could not download the payment app needed to pay for parking on his 20-year-old Nokia phone. Roland Nice found on arrival that the car park no longer accepted cash, and after struggling between two payment machines with the aid of his walking stick, he gave up and drove off without parking. The case highlights growing concerns about older and vulnerable people being left behind as cash payments are phased out across car parks, shops and banking services.
Mr Nice spent eight minutes at the Swan Lane car park on 7 August before leaving, and days later received a penalty notice from operator Napier Parking demanding £100, reduced to £60 if paid within a fortnight. He said he had last used the car park two years earlier when coins were still accepted, and recalled paying just £1.40 in cash for two hours' parking. His wife submitted an appeal on 20 August, but the couple say they have had no response, and Mr Nice says the ordeal will make him think twice about visiting the town again. Napier Parking, a privately run operator not affiliated with Haverhill Town Council, has separately faced criticism, including a petition earlier this year calling for a mandatory 15-minute grace period at car parks.
- Pensioner, 89, fined for leaving car park unable to pay via app
- His old Nokia phone couldn't download the required parking app
- £100 fine issued by Napier Parking; appeal has gone unanswered
New here? Start with this
Many car parks are replacing cash payments with card machines or phone apps. This can make paying harder for people who do not have a suitable smartphone or who are less comfortable using digital services.
Parking in Haverhill’s Swan Lane car park is managed by Napier Parking, a private company. Drivers who use a car park without following its payment rules can receive a penalty notice, and the operator has faced local criticism over how its car parks are run.
The case raises questions about how people without access to digital payment can use everyday services. Older and disabled people may be particularly affected as cash options become less common.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
A parking operator must apply consistent enforcement of its payment rules, or the system becomes unworkable for all customers; making exceptions would create precedent undermining fairness to those who do comply. Modern payment systems are now industry standard, and operators cannot indefinitely maintain multiple payment methods as technology evolves. An appeals process was available to the customer, and standard enforcement of published rules is essential to the system's integrity.
The case against
An elderly person with older technology cannot practically access a digital-only payment system, and the operator's removal of all alternatives systematically excludes vulnerable people from the service. A £60 penalty is disproportionate to being unable to pay rather than unwilling to pay, particularly when the customer made documented effort to comply despite mobility challenges. Responsible businesses should accommodate those unable to adapt to rapid technological transitions, especially for services essential to community participation like parking.