Sunday, 21 January 2018


If the following questions are answered to my satisfaction ( and I hope to the mediator's approval  ), then I  shall of course consider any sensible and reasonable settlement offer from yourself. Notes will be made with respect to each of your answers.

1. At the time of the alleged breach took place, explain what financial loss had

    actually been incurred ?

2. How can this figure be genuine pre-estimate of loss , when to any

    independent  observer no loss whatsoever had been incurred ?

3. Explain why excel were claiming £100 damages for an alleged breach, 

    when at the time the BPA code of practice clearly stated that the sum must
    be based on a genuine pre-estimate of loss?

4. Given the fact that it is a simple task to match the entry photo displaying my

    full registration plate to the ticket's incomplete registration details , explain 
    why this issue justifies a PCN ?

5.  Explain why after a 4 year absence of any letters from you , this dispute

     was suddenly resurrected just before Christmas last year ?

6.  Explain why you are demanding £267 of which the biggest chunk represents self-

     inflicted costs , when the law requires losses to be mitigated from the outset of the
     alleged breach.

7.  In 2017 it was reported in the Excel Parking v Burgess case , Excel made an out of 

     court offer asking her to pay a reduced charge of £10 for entering incorrect
     registration plate details. 
     Why did she received that offer ?
     And why wasn't that offer made to me ?

8.   Explain why , after Excel has lost several cases against defendants for entering

      incorrect registration details the company are still pursuing motorists like me for 
      the same alleged breach ? 

9.   Explain why a highly  respected Tory MP leading a debate on private car parking 

      firms said of a constituent ( a victim of a PCN for entering incorrect car 
      registration details ) , if this case goes to court " I hope he wins "  




Tuesday, 16 January 2018


The company was now finding Bigot a major thorn in their side , but now after five consecutive visits to their site they had rock-solid evidence to prove multiple overstays.  On each occasion Bigot had paid £3-50 , which only permitted him to a 2 hour stay. Another 10p of course would have enabled him to stay 3 hours.  As it stood each overstay was around 50 minutes, and Excel were confident of nailing Bigot big time with a four figure claim .

Counsel for the plaintiff : are without doubt a serial offender, who on five consecutive days overstayed by 50 minutes,denying my client  the desperately needed income to help pay the wages for hundreds of overworked admin staff , asked to process the tens of thousands of PCNs issued each and every week 
B-J: Hmmm......I do recall offering Excel 50 pence to cover the loss of income being the daily shortfall of 10p ,  over the 5 day period in question. But the company refused to accept it ,  insisting I paid £100 for each and every overstay. In my view Excel were under a duty to mitigate their losses , which stood at 50p ,  by accepting my fair and honest offer. By failing to mitigate , their claim for £500 plus other costs clearly demonstrates their excessive greed and crass stupidity.
CP : That 50p was an insult .....designed to provoke and humiliate my client , who strives valiantly to provide excellent parking opportunities for motorists struggling to find available spaces close to busy shopping areas. These were seriously long overstays, costing my client far more than 10p a day. 
B-J : Allow me to point out that 10p represents the shortfall in payment for 3 hours parking,
as I had on each of those five occasions put £3.50 into the machine , intending to pay the full tariff amount of £3.60. However , throughout the whole week,  the machine rejected my 10p coins .  So I calculated that £3.50 I paid over actually purchased 2 hours and 55 minutes parking time , given that the 2 hour tariff was only £2.40p.  
CP : Did you try any 20p or 50p coins ?
B-J : Am I crazy or what ?....... I was damned if I was going to gift Excel any free money by using more valuable coinage
CP : The rules are clear .......time is purchased in hourly units only....paying an extra £1.10
did not qualify you to enjoy any more additional parking time over the 2 hours you had paid for. Mind you the company did welcome these generous over-payments.
B-J : Your Honour....surely for a contract to work in such circumstances , it is an necessary to input implied terms into the agreement, for the sake of business efficacy. One such implied time should be that when a machine fails to register undamaged  royal mint coins , identified on the signage board as acceptable legal tender, a motorist is surely entitled to obtain an allowable parking time in keeping with the money paid over , calculated at 2 hours 55 minutes:. This a similar concept to paying a reasonable price for the goods and services received . 
Judge : astound me with your knowledge and grasp of the law. I am always open to being persuaded by good legal arguments , as in demonstrated by you in this case.
Therefore , I find against the plaintiff and dismiss his outrageous claim , which bears all the hallmarks of a corrupt, greedy ,  morally bankrupt  car parking operator 

Monday, 15 January 2018


( This short extract is taken from a undercover recording of their recent strategic planning
  meeting )  

- We could be up shit creek if we are not careful
- Hell's bells.....we're certainly getting a whole load of bad press
- Shocking
- Outrageous
- And all we're trying to do is to come up with effective parking solutions to tackle the
  problem of excess demand over supply of precious parking spaces
- An economic reality which we mercilessly exploit
- But that objective goes without saying
- Yes.....the motorists' lobby is gaining so much momentum Parliament has begun to sit
  up and listen
- There's a real risk that our shameful line of business could be regulated by legislation
- It is shameful
- Shameful indeed
- What we need to do is demonstrate to the public at large.....and politicians.....that the traffic
  space maximisation objective is of such importance and benefit to the motoring 
  community , the imposition of ludicrously high penalty charges is absolutely necessary to
  deter motorists from undermining our noble efforts
- And how do we go about achieving that ?
- By proving beyond all doubt that any infringement no matter how small dramatically 
  hampers our valiant efforts to manage car parks with efficiency and effectiveness for
  the benefit of all those motorists desperately seeking available spaces ......
- How ?
- By being more cunning and deceptive than ever before.....but mainly by lying through our 
  back teeth 
- Right then ....let's all agree on that
- Yes
- Yes
- So what's next on the agenda ?
A proposal to narrow the parking bays .....
Don't tell me.....this creates more bays and even more ticket revenue
- No that extra source of income is chicken feed.....the money making idea behind this 
  racket is to ensure that open door space is so tight, many returning  fat bellied drivers  
  wont be able to get back into their cars to drive off. The inevitable delays will lead to many
  more PCNs being issued for overstays. And what's even better is that many drivers will 
  park up encroaching onto the next bay , where we can really shaft them for double parking.
- Brilliant.....truly brilliant
- But hold on.....why not make the parking bays shorter as well. Most cars these days are
  the size of tanks. So by hiding the condition on our signage boards " cars must be parked
  inside the bay's boundary lines "'s guaranteed that we will be dishing out tens of 
  thousands of PNC's...... because of the near impossibility of the task
- Now that's what I call a perfect scam
- Like shooting fish in a barrel 


Sunday, 14 January 2018


- Goddamn it we're losing too many cases in court
- I know....and I thought that Beavis decision had us in the driving seat and motorists on the
  back pedal
- Yes....we were meant to be on easy street ripping off motorists for the slightest mistake.
  But judges are now giving decisions in favour of defaulting motorists and this is not what 
  we planned for
- The bastards
- All our best efforts to pay for top lawyers to draft mean and nasty, watertight terms and
  conditions that offer no scope for motorists to avoid liability have been to no avail. The
  small minority of stubborn , die-hard motorists who know enough about the law to 
  outflank us in court are undermining our business model
- I know....but thankfully they are few and far between.  The vast majority of motorists are 
  weak, utterly spineless, gullible, ignorant , don't-want-the-hassle  push-overs who haven't
  got the will to fight......who easily succumb to our threats and intimidation letters ....who
  pay up more out of apathy and fear than acknowledgement of any wrongdoing
- Lovely isn't it
- Nevertheless we need to stay ahead of the game......and do even more to keep this
  wonderful gravy train on track
- Like what ?
- Like rigging the ticket machines to only accept around 60-70% of pound coins put into
  them. Coins that don't register. Motorists will, of course, expect them to be returned. But 
  that wont happen. Sure....this will really piss them off...but not enough to give us any
  real hassle or grief . Complaints are unlikely.... but should any be made over a lost pound 
  .....these will be met with " Shame you can't prove it so fuck off " reply.
- Brilliant .....
- Motorists will either put in an extra pound to cover the tariff charge required for
  their intended stay, or settle for a shorter stay having already overpaid by a pound.
- Marvellous......what a fabulous money spinner
- And I'm working on some more devilishly clever scams to boost our profits even further
- Oh do keep me posted
- I sure will


Saturday, 13 January 2018


After 6 years of fruitless attempts to get  Bigot to pay up for a PCN dating back to February 2012 , the company clearly had a load of unenforceable demands which they were desperate to give one last try , hoping that the many would capitulate and hand over the money. Not Bigot. He wasn't going to ignore the court papers to give the company an easy ride. So yet again Bigot stood in court  to put one over these highway robbers. 

Counsel for the plaintiff (CP ): Your Honour, this man failed to enter the correct registration number thereby making his ticket invalid. He clearly accepted this particular condition when  he placed his money into the machine  , and so he is obliged to pay the required penalty charge because of his error. 
B-J : Might I point out to the court that the situation I was in regards standardised contracts where the parties are of unequal bargaining power.. I am also aware that the courts have an inherent dislike of standard-form-take-it-or leave-it contracts . Judges' rules have been put in place to mitigate the perceived unfairness of harsh, onerous and punitive terms, by giving the benefit of doubt to any issue of interpretation of the words to the party upon whom the contract was foisted. 
CP : All this hardly seems relevant . The words on the signage board were cleverly drafted and perfectly clear : please enter your registration number details.
B-J : True......but I do recall the absence of the word "full" .....which has suddenly started to appear on recent signage. And the instruction simply asked for my registration number.
CP : Bigot are you a complete moron....nearly all motorists who read the instruction key in the correct registration details .....including the letters. 
B-J : That may be true but my interpretation of the instruction was enter just the numerical  digits as opposed to the full registration plate. Therefore I beg the court to apply the contra proferentem  rule to uphold my interpretation of the wording used. This rule entitles me to receive the benefit of the doubt and that my interpretation of the wording takes precedence of the company's. There was in my opinion an inherent uncertainty  in the words which led me to key in just the numbers from my registration plate. This contra proferentem rule allows my subjective interpretation to take precedence over an objective one, and in doing so makes my ticket therefore completely valid.
Judge : Bigot.....i love and respect your analysis .....and even if I didn't .....I am more than happy to make a decision in your favour. 

Thursday, 11 January 2018


Bigot was flabbergasted. Here he was again back in court having ignored a recent PCN from this notorious parking company.......all because he  quickly vacated the car park  after seeing their onerous terms and conditions.

Counsel for the plaintiff : Our cameras clocked you entering the car park at 10.23 am and then leaving the site at 10.35. This was a 12 minute stay for which you failed to purchase a ticket. And as you well know, non-payment justifies the issue of a PCN which you have steadfastly refused to pay.
B-J : Why should I pay..... the parking company that you represent is a rogue operator trying to obtain money by unwarranted threats and coercion. 
CP : There was a clear breach of the company's terms and conditions
B-J : Not so...... for instance,  a man might enter a shop with the intent to buy, but on inspection of the item he had in mind , he decides against  buying it and walks out. He can hardly be sued for breach because there was no offer made for the shopkeeper to accept.  So to put it in a simple nutshell : no contract had come into existence.
CP : Your point being....?
B-J : In pay-per-hour car parks, the offer has been established as the ticket machine , and acceptance is made by the motorist when he puts the correct money into the coin slot. This legal analysis of the situation allows the motorist after reading the terms and conditions to make a choice : to either accept the offer or reject it. And if he chooses the latter he is entitled to leave the car park without incurring any legal or financially liability.
CP : What......that can't be right. You had parked up for 12 minutes and my client wants your money.
B-J : Well , that doesn't surprise me at all but he cannot bring a claim under breach of contract since one was never entered to. His only recourse is to sue me for trespass..... even though I entered the site with the company's tacit permission to do so.
CP : Is that so ?
B-J : Indeed was clearly implied by the huge signage board visible on entry       which said     " WELCOME " in big bold capital letters
CP : Sod that for a game of client will not let you off the hook so easily.....I can guarantee he will have you back in court demanding damages for trespass 
B-J : Ah .....but to succeed in that claim the company will have to establish some kind of financial loss such as damage to property or loss of revenue. However since the car park had plenty of unoccupied bays  at that time , my presence there for just 12 minutes could not have resulted  in any loss whatsoever. Issuing a PCN in these circumstances is nothing more than highway robbery
Judge : Bigot....... I agree with you entirely

Wednesday, 10 January 2018


The purpose of this requirement along with the instruction to place the ticket face up on the dashboard was surely to stop the mischief of the ticket being passed onto another motorist to use , who of course could then avoid buying one. Car park attendants could easily check and match the registration details on the ticket to the car in question.
With camera-automated car parks, the operators  can easily check the camera records of the car registration plate with those entered into the ticket machine to make an instant match. Even if the details are not exactly matching, it is still easy to establish that the car entering the car park was the one for which a ticket was purchased, such as when the letter "O " is entered instead of the number " 0 ". This advanced technology of course enables companies to dispense with car park attendants , which reduces their operational costs considerably.
Despite The Beavis ruling , two recent County Court judges ruled in favour of the defendants when both had entered in error the registration details of their other car. See Excel Parking v Burgess (2017) and Excel Parking and Excel Parking v Koselka        (2017). In each  case both argued they had paid the correct money , had not overstayed , and the errors were innocent mistakes with no deceit intended. The company had not suffered any financial loss whatsoever. 

Finally I would like to revisit the law on offer and acceptance regarding ticket machines as this might provide a possible line of defence against claims that parking tickets are invalid if incorrect registration plate details are entered into the ticket machine.
In Thornton v. Shoe Lane Parking (1971) the Court of Appeal held that the ticket machine constituted the offer. The acceptance of the offer with all its terms took place when money was put into the machine. The ticket was dispersed after the acceptance took place.
In the car park scenario terms of the offer are meant to be accepted unconditionally as soon as payment is made.  However by entering different or incomplete details , the purported acceptance has varied this particular term with regards to providing the correct registration plate details . This makes the acceptance conditional which by legal definition turns it into a counter-offer. With the boot on the other foot , acceptance of the counter-offer takes place when the money is taken by the machine ( with no refund possible ). The issue of the ticket with the keyed in registration details printed on the front  is therefore valid , with all but one of the car park's terms and conditions applying.  Any PCN issued is  by any logical conclusion unfounded and unenforceable.