Author: Zoe Wood

In February, I parked briefly outside a clothing store to visit a nearby shop. As soon as I entered, the shopkeeper informed me that parking was not allowed in that area.I immediately returned to my vehicle and left. The total duration of my stop, according to the parking charge notices (PCNs) I received the following week from Euro Parking Services (EPS), was just two minutes and 24 seconds.I appealed against the fine that day via email and received an automatic acknowledgment. However, I heard nothing more from the company.Then, at the start of April, I received a reminder stating that the fine had increased to £100. The letter included a paragraph stating my appeal had been rejected, although I had not been informed of the decision.In response, I submitted a second appeal. I am willing to pay the original £60 charge if my appeal is formally rejected, but I strongly object to being charged more when it failed to communicate the result.More fundamentally, I believe no one should be fined for stopping for just over two minutes. It feels deeply unjust and contrary to common sense.AA, BirminghamWith parking companies sending out 41,000 parking charge notices (PCNs) in Britain every day, we could devote this column to the scourge of excessive charges. I was intrigued, however, to see someone penalised for a stay of under five minutes.It turns out that the small parking area you used is reserved for the customers of the adjacent clothing store. The landowner hired EPS to manage it due to concerns motorists were using it while visiting other businesses.The signage states that the spaces are for customers of that store only, and your registration must be entered in a kiosk inside it to validate the stay. The site does have a five-minute “consideration period” (the window motorists have to decide whether to park at a location) but once you have parked and left your car, that ends.After I got in touch, EPS offered you another fortnight to settle the charge at £60, as you did not receive the appeal rejection (although a search of its system indicated it was emailed). This is what you wanted, and you have paid up. Had you wished to take it further, there is always the Independent Appeals Service. This is my final column, but I will still be writing about consumer affairs, so get in touch in the usual wayWe welcome letters but cannot answer individually. Email us at consumer.champions@theguardian.com or write to Consumer Champions, Money, the Guardian, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU. Please include a daytime phone number. Submission and publication of all letters is subject to our terms and conditions.

In January, I bought a pair of designer “snakeskin” trainers by A Bathing Ape for £300 from the online reseller StockX. Several years ago I had the same pair and loved them.Unfortunately, a few weeks after I started wearing them, I noticed the leather was peeling, and I contacted StockX to see whether it could help. I found its response unsatisfactory.It told me I was not eligible for a refund because the trainers were released in 2020. Five-year-old shoes “may experience structural and material damage or signs of durability”, it said, adding that another reason I was being turned down was because the shoes were now “used”. It offered me a $40 (£30) voucher or $30 cash refund.Taking into account the price and description of the shoes on the website, I think a reasonable person would expect to be able to wear trainers for longer than this and be covered under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 if they are faulty.This risk to the buyer doesn’t seem to be mentioned on the site and leaves no recourse for customers with quality issues. I assumed StockX would want to examine the shoe, contact the seller and explore the cause.HS, NewcastleFor the uninitiated, StockX is a stock exchange-style trading platform where “sneakerheads” can buy and sell limited-edition trainers. The shoes are new but can be several years old, as those “in the know” buy coveted styles in the hope of reselling at a profit.You have to look for it, but the StockX “help” section carries the disclaimer that shoes five years or more old “may experience structural weakness and a lack of durability”.“If you choose to wear a pair of older shoes purchased on StockX, we cannot guarantee the shoes’ long-term integrity,” it adds.Given we are told some trainers in landfill, last 1,000 years, it seems surprising that a pair from 2020 should fall apart. But if you are buying from an individual seller, which you do on a marketplace such as StockX, you have fewer rights than when buying directly from a retailer.The Which? consumer law expert Lisa Webb says: “Provided you receive the goods in the same condition as they were described to you, you’ll probably find it quite difficult to get your money back. We’d always advise checking if the site offers any buyer protection … in case something goes wrong.”Our involvement persuaded StockX to accept a return for a full refund as a “one-time exception”. This is a good outcome. Those with trainer collections tell me there is a debate about whether the expensive trainers being traded are “collectible”, as opposed to “wearable”. If you want the surety of a rock-solid high street-style footwear returns policy, it’s best to stick to the high street.We welcome letters but cannot answer individually. Email us at consumer.champions@theguardian.com or write to Consumer Champions, Money, the Guardian, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU. Please include a daytime phone number. Submission and publication of all letters is subject to our terms and conditions.