Monday, 16 July 2018


  • The precise moment when a motorist keys in incorrect car registration details the contract has not yet been formed.
  • Indeed , by changing his/her mind a split-second later the motorist could simply walk away free from any contractual obligations.
  • The acceptance has not taken place since this requires money to be placed into the machine ,  with the issue of a ticket serving as proof of completion.
  • Keying in incorrect information is therefore not a breach of contract . It is simply a case of not fulfilling a pre-condition of the offer ,  which in normal circumstances would cause the offer to lapse.
  • The keying-in requirement is not part of any contractual performance on which breach of contract can be alleged. It is part of the process leading up to the formation of the contract , being a request for specific information.
  • Therefore the motorist is only guilty of innocent misrepresentaion which means (a) the basis of the claim is wrong and (b) damages awarded can be no more than the loss incurred ( which is situations like these is always zero ) 
Happy parking......



If this defence stands up to scrutiny then it could potentially defeat all PCNs issued under this heading , and put at end to the biggest scam of all .

In contract law an offer has to be in existence at the time the acceptance is made. Moreover the acceptance has to be unconditional for a contract to be concluded.

However there are many reasons which can bring about the lapse of an offer . One of course is a counter-offer / conditional acceptance. Another is when attached to the offer is a pre-condition which has to be fulfilled for the offer to still stand when a purported acceptance is made. If the pre-condition has not been met then the offer ceases to exist. 

So let's see how this rules apply to parking contracts. These morally bankrupt scammers are keen to state that in the offer there is a  pre-condition that correct licence plate details must be entered into the machine in order to proceed with making a contract.  When this doesn't happen because of  entry mistakes the offer has automatically lapsed. 
However , the motorist by inadvertantly entering incorrect details is now deemed to be making an offer in his/her own right. The machine of course accepts this offer since it has not been programmed to reject incorrect information. Proof of acceptance of course is when money is  taken ( not refundable ) and a ticket is  issued , which cannot be anything else but valid. 

Tuesday, 10 July 2018


Thorton v. Shoe Lane Parking ( 1971 )   Court Of Appeal

Held : The ticket machine constituted the offer. The acceptance was by putting the money into the machine.

Butler Machine Tools v. Ex-Cell-O Corporation ( 1979 )
Court Of Appeal

Held : The offer to sell the machine on terms provided by Butler was destroyed by the counter-offer made by Ex-Cell-O . Therefore the price-variation clause was not part of the contract. Indeed,the contract was concluded on Ex-Cell-O's terms since Butler signed the acknowledgement slip accepting these terms.
So when there is a battle ( of the forms ) whereby each party submits their own terms THE LAST SHOT rule applies, which means a contract is concluded on the terms submitted by the party WHO IS LAST to communicate those terms before performance of the contract commences.

In cases where motorists have entered incorrect details, the following defence could go along these lines.   
The ticket machine constituted an offer. This offer contained a term stipulating that the full licence plate details need to be keyed into the machine. By varying this term and only keying partial or incorrect details ,  a counter offer has taken place.
Since the machine was not programmed to reject any counter offer, acceptance went ahead  the moment the machine took and accepted the money.
Therefore the ticket was valid.
This analysis of the parking contract is the equivalent of the battle of the forms. 

But what if this defence doesn't work ?

Well , proceed along these lines. If the ticket is indeed declared invalid ( for the car driven into the car park ) , then having an invalid ticket is the same as having NO TICKET AT ALL. Therefore by not having a ticket , it would seem logical to assume that no payment has been made for parking the car recorded by the AVPC system. 
This means the PCN is based on an erroneous claim. The violation should have stated " non-payment " as opposed to " displaying an invalid ticket ". This makes the civil wrong one of trespass , in which case damages can be nothing more than nominal.
However, the reality is there has been no loss of income , because a tariff had been paid for a car which didn't enter the car park and use up a parking bay. The company therefore was never out of pocket as a consequence of this administrative mistake.

Friday, 6 July 2018


                                                                                                                                                          GOTCHA PARKING SERVICES v. BIGOT-JOHNSON (2018)

Image result for parking lot images funny
Bigot was at it again. Entering a very busy shopping precinct car park managed by infamous Gotcha Parking Services ,  he noticed an empty bay which had the added benefit of a shelter. Not surprisingly he seized this golden opportunity to park up ,  only to receive a PCN several days later for contravening the company's terms and conditions. This area was supposedly reserved for trollies and was therefore out of bounds. Parking in an unauthorised area 

Counsel for the plaintiff :  This case your Honour has to be the most open and shut case ever. His blatant disregard for the company's terms and conditions beggars belief. His outrageous behaviour represented a grotesque mistchief, causing havoc to all the other car paark users looking for places to find and return their trollies.  
B-J : I don't recall breaking any rules
Judge : Well....... what did the signage say ?
B-J : The board  by the ticket machine did mention parking restrictions in bays designated for blue badge holders and disabled people.  And yes.... mention was also made of other  out-of-bounds areas designated for  taxi-ranks and  delivery vehicles. In addition to that there were markings on the tarmac which clearly indicated other no-go areas......but the bay under the shelter was neither mentioned in the signage or marked out as a restricted area. So the truth is obvious...... their terms and conditions did not include restrictions concerning these sheltered bays. 
CP : The man was a fool not to recognise these covered spaces were there for trolly pick-ups and drop-offs. 
B-J : I saw no trollies at all in the one I parked my car in....... so I naturally assumed the space was open for use as a parking bay  ......  :   with a quirky shelter thrown in for good measure. Motorists need to shelter their cars when flocks of pigeons are about....
CP : This man knew what excactly mischief he was up to.......he flouted the rules
Judge : Your client brings thousands of cases to court relying on the terms and conditions to allege petty.... sometimes spurious.... breaches.  But if there is no term.....whether by oversight or omission.... there can be no breach. Since Bigot had not been made aware that his slick and crafty behaviour represented a violation he was free to do what he did
CP : How can you believe Bigot....he's a complete lunatic
Judge : Or someone just off his trolly....... so to speak
CP : Yes.......
Judge : That may be so.....but common sense and sanity will be the basis on which my decision will be made...........therefore the case is dismissed


Monday, 2 July 2018



Image result for funny parking car imagesBigot had recently purchased a radio controlled car which he drove into a nearby shopping precinct car park run by Gotcha Parking Services. Naturally it seemed sensible to park up in the centre of an available bay , where the risk of being crushed by another much larger vehicle was extremely low. True to form the parking company issued Bigot ( the owner and keeper of the vehicle ) with a PCN for failing to buy a ticket. Bigot ignored the demand but not the opportunity to appear in court.

Council for the plaintiff (CP) : The photographic evidence clearly shows Bigot's vehicle parked up in a bay. Moreover it was an electric battery-powered motor which the driver had his own admission....... guided into and out of the car park. Despite its extremely small size it took up a valuable parking space depriving other motorists from accessing this bay during a very busy shopping period . A ticket had not been purchased .......a clear breach of the company's terms and conditions.
B-J : Firstly, your Honour......the car park was only half full. Secondly, it was not restricting other motorists from using this bay. Thirdly...... " parking "... as I understand it..... means the driver must inside the car in order to vacate it in pursuit of a task outside the vehicle , which was the purpose of the visit. But in my case the radio controlled car was merely waiting a few minutes while I decided what its next manoeuvres were going to be.
CP : The car had parked up in a bay .....
B-J : Not so.....just like taxi drivers who enter and exit the site they simply stop for a few minutes so people can be dropped off or collected. They are not parking their vehicles.....they are just waiting around for a few minutes before starting off on a new call and another journey. My vehicle too was in the process of waiting up before continuing its next journey.
Judge : And what journey was that ?
B-J :  A visit to other car parks and to wait up one of their empty bays.
Judge : And did you receive any more PCNs ?
B-J : Sack loads......none of which I intend to pay
Judge : Quite right......bringing this type of claim is an outrage taking up precious court time. No loss has been incurred whatsoever, The demand for money therefore is both vindictive and extortionate. Judgement for the defendant. 

Sunday, 1 July 2018


Bigot had decided once again to push Excel into taking him to court so that he could flag up another successful defence for other motorists to use when scammed for entering incorrect car registration details into the ticket machine. His efforts were not in vain.

B-J :  Do you accept that I made a mistake by entering the registration details of my other car ?
Excel : You sure did........that's how we tracked down your address 
B-J :  So you sent me a PCN was claiming I had an invalid ticket for the car I parked up ?
Excel : You sure did and that's why we're out to shaft you good and proper
B-J :  And this invalid ticket was non-transferable and could not be used for any other car including the one I arrived in
Excel : Correct.....
B-J : But surely the ticket I bought was valid for the car I had left at home ?
Excel : Yes ....of course......but that wasn't the car you used to park up
B-J : I agree......but the reality is that no ticket had been purchased for the car I arrived in
Excel :  No......I guess not......... your ticket was invalid
B-J : Oh......  but I thought we had established that the ticket I purchased was valid for the car I left at home....and that I failed to buy a ticket for the car I used to park up ...... which means your claim against me needed to be based on non-payment...... rather than this nonsense of having an invalid ticket 
Excel : But the ticket was invalid for the car caught on camera
B-J : No the ticket was valid for some other car......the car on the camera was not paid for and therefore I parked up without a ticket.......but since I had paid money for a car which hadn't used up a bay..... that income more than covered the all in all my transgression never cost Excel at penny
Judge : Nice argument.....which I feel obliged to accept if only on the grounds of natural justice . Case dismissed
Excel : This is not on.....Bigot's actions need to be penalised
Judge : As I see it the purpose of your parking terms and conditions on motorists should not be to penalise those who make genuine mistakes. The purpose ought to be to stop motorists from undermining the effective management of a busy car park in order to maximise the use of limited spaces , and to secure the full tariff revenue for periods of time motorists have stayed. It is obvious to any parking company that many people will continue to make genuine errors regarding their vehicle registrations. Discretion needs to be applied. 
To make Bigot pay a penalty charge in addition to the payment he had already made is absurdly repugnant to both common sense and natural justice.

Friday, 29 June 2018


Firstly these fraudsters dress PCNs up to look like fines because most people see them as compulsory and unavoidable payments , the consequence of having committed a crime.  The truth is these parking charges are nothing more than a claim for liquidated damages as an agreed consequence of a breach of contract ,  which of course is a civil law matter.
The rationale should always be that the sum is a genuine pre-estimate of loss , which in the case of parking violations is never the case. Losses for overstaying can be no more than the difference in tariff charges. Losses for non-payment essentially amount to the tariff charge which should have been paid. Losses for entering incorrect registration number details are zero. In other words hefty parking charges should be deemed under contract law as unenforceable penalties . Administration fees for chasing up drivers' address details might be a genuine loss which these companies are able to claim back , but these can be no more than £10-15. 
But heaven forbid should a motorist ask for a breakdown of the liqidated damages sum. Repeated requests will be met with repeated silence. Why ? The answer is simple : companies cannot explain or justify the charge , especially when it is all about making lucrative profits. Under contract law injured parties are not allowed to make a profit from an alleged breaches of contract. Damages are meant to put the injured party back into same position as if the breach had never occured. 
Some sly and devious parking companies will argue that penalty charges aim to cover a tiny proportions of the operational overheads , including the tracking down of motorists' addresses and the chasing the alleged debts. As regards pay-by-the-hour parking ,  this argument is totally flawed and represents yet another monstrous lie. Any sensensible business would set an hourly tariff price above its hourly unit cost to create a healthy profit margin. The hourly unit cost is calculated by taking the budgeted total overheads and dividing that figure by the estimated number of hours purchased , based on expected occupancy levels. Therefore , the operational overheads have already been covered and accounted for. This means for instance any alleged breach of contract , such as a 10 minute overstay, will not incur any loss other than the £10-15 mentioned above.
PCNs are not about compensation but pure greed for profit. A £70 parking charge demand is the equivalent of converting one tariff paying motorist into thirty. This behaviour is both obscene and immoral . So when an unwelcome and unwarranted PCN arrives through your letter box and you intend to fight it , it may be wiser to pay them £15 to cover their legitimate losses.  By stating that unless they provide a detailed breakdown as to how the other £55 loss has come about as a direct consequence of the breach, this cheque should end the matter. Moreover , at this point the company is under a duty to mitigate their losses and not incur further expenditure chasing up these manifestly unreasonable and unenforceable debts .

( However in cases where companies run car parks looking to charge overstayers who abuse the limited free parking on offer , they are entitled to use the PCN revenue to help contribute towards recovery of their operational costs. In addition to that the charge could well  include a deterrent element , especially if the car park is very busy , where spaces at a premium and where traffic space maximisation has become an essential business objective. See Parking Eye v. Beavis. )  

Thursday, 28 June 2018


Motorists in their thousands get isued PCNs by these morally bankrupt private car carking companies. Why motorists need to enter car registration numbers is one question that needs to be asked ,  along with why they have to predict the period time they intend to stay. Having a barrier on entry which issues a ticket..... to be later entered into a machine prior to exit to determine payment avoids ( a) any need to submit car registration details and (b) any need to make an overpayment. But hey..... all this would severely undermine two very lucrative income streams.
Firstly,  motorists find it difficult to predict the time needed to park up so over-estimates and over-payments are the norm. Overstayers of course are warmly welcomed by these money grabbing scammers. Moreover incorrect registration number details are also commonplace with poor unfortunate victims being hammered , even though companies incur no actual loss whatsoever when tickets have been paid for in full..... and in good faith.
Innocent  and honestmistakes are made but no mercy is ever shown. Matching car registrations on the AVRC photos to whatever details have been keyed in offers no problems to these theiving rogue outfits to make a match. They know that motorists have paid for their parking spaces ,  but tariff revenue is not sufficient to satisfy their greed. They want to bleed motorists dry.
No sympathy, understanding or respect is ever shown to motorists who have made errors keying in their registration numbers irrespective of legitimate reasons as to why :
    - poor vision 
    - small lettering on key pad buttons
    - poor memory
    - key pads placed positioned so low down , users with bad backs cannot reach or read
    - arthritic, weak, shakey fingers
    - big bulky fingers unable to depress the right button from those in a tightly packed cluster
    - easily confused elderly drivers
    - keys which are faulty or non-working
    - keys which are hard to depress fully or are too sensitive ( double clicking )
    - drivers suffering from autism 
    - drivers who are dyslexic
    - hard to distinguish letters/numbers on the buttons ( such as zeros and O's , Q's and O's,
      B's and 8's , ones and I's , 5's and S's.......and so on 
Oh yes....these innocent and honest mistakes will never be accepted as legitimate excuses , because these evil companies have nothing but contempt for their victims..... being hellbent on making obscene profits from even the most weak and vulnerable motorists .
Therefore , it is my contention that this alleged violation brings about no loss or damage whatsover to the company , which means in effect the charge is a manifestly unreasonable penalty, unenforceable in a court of law. But the line of defence which does need to be researched and/or explored goes along the following lines :

Fact : the car parking ticket machine has been establish in law as  " the offer "
Fact : the offer comes with  "a pre-condition  " that the correct registration number must be entered into the machine prior to paying
Fact : by inadvertantly failing to meet this pre-condition , the offeree is making a term of his own 
Fact : by placing a variation on the car registration details , the purported acceptance has become by default  " a conditional acceptance "
Fact : a conditional acceptance is nothing more than  " a counter-offer " ( which the machine will not reject since it is programmed never to question or query the data input  )  
Fact : so when the machine accepts the information submitted along with the payment , acceptance of the counter-offer now takes place when the ticket is duly issued
Conclusion:  this of course makes the ticket valid

In other words... this scenario is the parking equivalent  of   " the battle of the forms ". So please add this line of defence to any others you may want to use in order to avoid being fleeced by these highway robbers. Your best bet is to take note of many excellent template defences available on tthe internet , details of which might well apply to your situation. Don't go to court relying on a single defence. Hit the bastards with everything, you've got....... including the defence above.


Monday, 25 June 2018

                                                                                   GOTCHA PARKING SERVICES v. BIGOT-JOHNSON (2018)

Bigot was now looking to rattle a few more cages belonging to these notorious private parking companies. Needless to say his latest stunt brought about another unwarranted PCN . which of course Bigot refused to pay. His day in court had arrived and the scene was set for another triumph to savour and relish.

Counsel for the plaintiff (CP): This devious reprobate .....this nasty spiteful litte man had the blatant audacity to enter the car park ........only to leave his car there all day without paying for a ticket. Consequently , my client was seriously out of pocket. 
B-J :  Yes....I didn't pay for a ticket...... because no way was I parked up on his site for even a single minute.
CP : Your honour the car  was  first photographed  entering the car park at 8-45 am and then on leaving the site at 6-40pm. Total parking time........ 9 hours 55 minutes.

B-J : My car.....your Honour ......was not parked up at all if one looks at the strict mean of the term " parking ". Parking involves bringing a vehicle that one is driving to a halt , leaving it temporarily and typically in a designated bay or car parking area for a specific period of time. To be in a designated bay the car has to be on the ground in order to occupy it. In my case none of these requirements were present.
Judge : I'm perplexed......please explain
B-J : Firstly ,  on entering the site I  allowed  my three passengers to disembark the vehicle before inflating a huge balloon which was attached to the roof of the car. This balloon eventually lifted the car into the air.  A rope from the car had been attached to a metal fence so as to anchor the car in fixed raised position , 30 feet up from a parking bay and several metres away from the fence. So at no time was I parked up in a bay........just simply hovering above it. Moreover the car was constantly moving to and fro in the air, whilst I remained inside. 
CP : were still in effect on the site..... which surely to God includes the ground below and the air space above.
B-J : Yes.....but by using the air space above and having no contact with the ground.....the vehicle in question had ceased to be a car ........indeed it had been converted into an air balloon   
CP: This is ridiculous.......
Judge : And so is your claim against BIgot.....without proof of actual parking.....there is no merit in this dismissed.

Friday, 15 June 2018



Another day. Another wretched money grabbing private parking company. Another PCN.
And another day in court for the intrepid Bigot-Johnson who was prepared yet again to humiliate these corporate arseholes for all the world to laugh at and smile.

Counsel for the plaintiff: Your is an undisputed fact that Bigot parked his 2 seater car without paying for a ticket. This type of criminal behaviour needs to be stamped out immediately using the full force of the law to do so. How else can my client earnan honest living.....a crust to feed his family? There was a total failure of consideration which in my mind justifies the imposition of a £100 fine. How else can this mischief be stopped ? If my client loses this case..... all bloody motorists will be at it in their tiny little cars.... 
Judge : Is this true Bigot......... that you deliberately chose not to pay ?
B-J : Yes.......but why should I ? see my wife and I have identical cars and on that particular day I followed her into the car park where it became apparent we could both park our vehicles within the same bay. So my wife purchased a 3 hour ticket for a single bay, which easily accommodated both our cars.
CP : Hold on.......that can't be right ?
B-J : Well......nothing on the signage says that this space saving manouevre wasn't an option. A bay was paid for in full.... so therefore the company can't complain of any loss of income.
CP : has to be one ticket per car...
B-J : I'm afraid that is not the's one ticket per bay......and until you change your signage we shall continue to double up so to speak
Judge : Yes.....small is beautiful without a doubt  and  I must say how much I admire your cheek and creative thinking. Case dismissed.

Saturday, 9 June 2018

                                                                                                                                                    EXCEL AT SCAMMING v. BIGOT-JOHNSON (2018)

Bigot was livid when Excel had decided to narrow the bays in order to squeeze in more parking spaces. By doing so the company was encouraging motorists to park outside the lines or risk being unable to open the car doors fully.  But Bigot had other ideas. Once parked up ,  he enlisted the help of other sympathetic motorists to heave the car over onto its side This way the car was well inside the designated parking area, but Excel were having none of it. They issued Bigot with a PCN for parking a vehicle in an illegal fashion,  not in accordance with its rules. As expected the dispute went to court. 

Counsel for the plaintiff :  Your Honour......
as you can see from the photographic
evidence......Bigot had parked his car in
an improper fashion , contrary to the terms
and conditions ....all of which were clearly displayed on the company's giant noticeboard sited right beside the ticket machine. The man is a nuisance and a 
bloody menace.....
B-J : I strongly object to the use of the word "bloody"'s an unwarranted expletive ...a term which should not be used in a court of law
Judge : I agree.......but you're happy with the two labels " nuisance " and " menace "
B-J :  Yes indeed....the fact that the company sees me in this way is truly wonderful......but nowhere in the signage does it say that vehicles have to be parked up on four wheels. The use of the word " improper " implies many things but not when a car is parked in such a way as to give motorists , who might park in either of the adjoining bays, the maximum space possible to enable all 4 doors to open they can exit and re-enter their cars in an easy and comfortable way.
Judge : I admire your altruistic attitude and the sacrifice you have gone to to provide a more pleasurable parking experience for the users of this site. I myself drive a Hummer .....which I might add is a bummer of a vehicle to park ........even in sites which provide generous spaces. Deliberately narrowing the bays smacks of selfishness and vindictive greed. Case dismissed.......claimant to pay all costs
CP : I protest.....Execl's boss is going to have my guts for garters
Judge : Oh dear..........but that's life when you choose to represent and work for intolerant , unsympathetic and nasty organisations like private oparking companies.  Good day to you sir. And about meeting up with me  ( and Sir Greg Knight ) for a pub lunch and pint at the usual watering hole ? It's my turn to pay.
B-J : Yes.....looking forward to it.......see you both soon



Monday, 4 June 2018


- Hi's things ? Still making shit loads of money ?
- Oh yes........motorists in general are like lambs to the slaughter. The great majority 
  fall victims to all our well conceived scams.......paying the fines without a whimper
- The numpties 
-  Yeah   but  we still get the few stubborn ones who refuse to roll over ......quite prepared to
   fight us all the way
- Then nerve of these people........depriving us of " fines " which help pay for the bread on
   our table......along with the luxury yachts for us to enjoy extended mediterranean holidays 
- Too our only course of action is to take these buggers to court come what
   may.....just to make them quirm and suffer throughout the long protracted process
-  Absolutely.....but doesn't it piss you off that these unwavering sods often win their
   cases in court ?  It makes me wonder why we bother with these arseholes ?
-  Off course we bother. I don't give a damn about these unfortunate outcomes. The fact of
   the matter is that county court judgements are not binding and never will be. So we 
   can keep hammering away until we find a judge who hates motorists more than us. What 
   really matters is that we must never give up on harassing , intimidating and threatening 
   these toe-rags,    What is a few thousand down the pan in relation to the hundreds 
   of thousands we rake in from the compliant majority. This great and monstrous bluff must 
   be kept in place....... and taking non-payers to court does just that. Motorists  need to all times.... that we will never give up on demanding our pound of flesh 
-  I agree..... we cannot afford to throw our hand in.....and expose the bluff. God forbid such
   an insane act. We have the financial clout to hire the best lawyers and take cases to any
   appeal court and beyond. Look what happened to Beavis.....when good lawyers were on
   the case 
-  Yeah......Parking Eye shafted him good and proper ......charging him £85 for over-staying
    in a car park which offered its customers  2-3 hours of free parking......bloody amazing
-  Yes.....what a racket we're in.....especially when one considers that most motorists 
    understay.....which more than compensates for the isolated incidence of an over-stay.  No
    negative impact there as regards the so-called traffic space maximisation objective
-   Well got to go now.......thousands more PCNs to send out these I need to
    recruit more staff today
-   Bye now.....I'm off shopping for another top-of-the range Merc to add to my collection
-   Good luck with that SImon....bye


Thursday, 31 May 2018


Mrs Cammelleri's discovered to her horror that her car had been impounded for overtime parking. So would a tiny grammatical oversight be enough to save her from paying the fine ?
The offence she was alleged to have committed was a breach of a West Jefferson village parking ordinance , which stated it was illegal to park " any motor vehicle camper, trailer , farm implement and/or non-motorised vehicle " on a street for more than 24 hours. 
All bases covered ?. Well may be not.
Her defence was that her car wasn't a " motor vehicle camper ". Infact it appears that motor vehicles were not included in the list and therefore by deduction were exempt from the one day restriction.The municipal office were quick to point out that the grammatical error was inadvertant , and that it was obvious to everyone what the list set out to include. 
At the bench trial the case went against her.  The judge declared that " anyone reading the ordinance would recognise the fact that a comma was clearly missing , and that  motor vehicles were therefore included in the list......along with campers "   
But undeterred she appealed to the Twelfth Appellate District of Ohio.  Here, the three higher ranked judges held that there was ambiguity in the ordinance as it was written. Consequently , the claim for the $120 fine was dismissed. According to grammer rules , items in a series must be separated by commas. The judges concluded that reading "motor vehicle camper "  as one item did not produce an absurd result. If the village desired a different reading ( one to distiguish motor vehicles from campers ) then a comma should have been inserted.
Indeed in English law a car parking company can also be hoisted on the horns of its own petard through bad or inadequate wording on its signage. Ambiguity may well invoke the contra proferentem rule , which will often come to the aid of the weaker put-upon party.

Monday, 21 May 2018


Private parking companies could do no worse than change the existing albeit dreaded PCNs into something motorists would welcome and accept : new and exciting PCN scratchcards.
These would state what the parking violation was, along with the parking charge to be paid. However,  now there would be on offer three alternative options , one of which lies under the grey coated area to be scratched off...... should the motorists be prepared to gamble.  

Option 1.   Pay double   50 % chance

Option 2    Paying nothing   40 % chance

Option 3    We pay you the parking charge  10 % chance

The PCN scratchcard has to be returned to the company within 14 days or  face a much stiffer parking charge and court proceedings. If an unscratched PCN card is returned by letter ,  inside must be the payment for the original fine. If the scratched PCN card has revealed the pay double fine , a much more welcome cheque of course needs to accompany it.  Any motorist who sends in a winning PCN must remember to provide details of his/her bank account so that the payment can be made straightaway. Happy days indeed.

All this will bring fun and excitement to motorists who previously viewed PCNs with hatred, anger and contempt. The adrenalin will start flowing the moment the scratching takes place. The prospect of getting off scott free or perhaps even winning will be tantalisingly irresistible. The reality of having those expectations met will bring unbridled joy into a situation so often associated with doom and gloom .
This innovative concept could make the proposed new parking bill an irrelevancy with motorists for the first time ever more than happy to pick up PCNs.

Saturday, 19 May 2018


It beggars belief that some companies like Parking Eye and Excel go out of their way to treat their customers like shit. Their business model is based on obtaining money by fraud , seizing upon the slightest transgressions with pernicious bullying tactics , relying on victim's apathy or lack of funding to fight back. They never listen to reason or legitimate excuses . Their unforgiving and aggressive attitude towards motorists is breathtaking in its zealous and  ruthless pursuit of lucrative profits.
Whereas most businesses promote customer care as one of its core mission statement objectives, private parking companies choose to have a hidden agenda to " screw the bastards " anyway they can.  Whatever happened to showing customers a little bit of sympathy and respect ?
These modern day highway robbers go out of their way to make life  difficult , awkward and miserable for the motorists. Everything they do smacks of deliberate entrapment to lead their customers make mistakes .......and then hit them with the threats , intimidation and harassment to pay these deviously engineered albeit bogus fines. 
They are completely unhelpful in the extreme. Requests for information and/or explanations
are treated with contempt. Do they provide sticky-back tickets which adhere to the dashboard ? No. Do they choose to have a set up where payment for tickets is on exit ( not entry ) ? No. Do they allow overstayers to pay the extra on return to the car park ? Like hell they do. These are firms which have mind sets like a cruel sadistic tyrants.  
Name me one other company that " fines" its customers. Yes , customers may be asked to leave or be blacklisted. They will often be given warnings first about unacceptable behaviour. Many might well be chased for non-payment of goods and services , but in the main customers are valued because building up a strong customer base is essential if businesses are to survive in a world of highly competitive markets .
So why do private parking companies treat their customers with such contempt ? Well in many cases they have a captive market with parking spaces being at a premium. Demand will often outrun supply, and therefore if car parks are busy then it seems there is no need whatsoever to  envourage repeat custom. In other cases what does it matter if a car park is only half full. Clobbering just one unsuspecting motorist earns the same revenue as 50 paying ones. This racket has  almost become a licence to print money. Customers are like sitting in a barrel......there to be shot at time and time again.
The welcome sign ....such irony....always prominently displayed outside the car park modelled on the " welcome to my den said the spider to the fly " scenario , or on Hannibal Lector's invitation  " let me make you dinner tonight ". Motorists are never viewed as customers but victims on which to feast.. 



Another brazen attempt by a morally bankrupt private parking company to nail Bigot for ignoring his most recent PCN . This was issued on the basis that he failed to park within the designated lines of the bay. 

Image result for car parking lot images

Counsel for the plaintiff (CP) : As you can see your honour from this aerial photograph Bigot's car tyre was touching the white line .....contrary to the terms and conditions he agreed to abide by....... when he entered the contract of his own free choice
B-J : Which were ....?
CP : To park the car  "within " the the lines...........which in simple language means inside  
the lines 
B-J : And the purpose behind this term ?
CP : Well , this offence amounts to using up two bays......which in simple language means double parking.......a mischief which can cost the company a great deal of money in lost revenue
B-J : Yes......this could be the case if the car park is exceptionally busy with waiting motorists desperately looking out for available spaces.....but your photo clearly demonstrates that the parking lot was empty.......hence no mischief done
CP : But it is still a breach of Excel's conditions
B-J :  And the damage to revenue is what ?
CP : can't say exactly
Judge : Well seems to me that your relentless pursuit to shaft Bigot in court is nothing more than indulging in pernicious bullying tactics......and yes there has a breach but only on a petty technicality , which suggests nominal damages of £1.....with all costs of course to be met by the claimant. Case dismissed.
B-J : Don't you think £1 is a bit steep ?
Judge : Yes....on reflection I do.....change that to one penny
B-J : Your honour I am eternally grateful
Judge : And so you should cheeky little scallywag

Friday, 18 May 2018


- How are things ?
- Couldn't be's amazing how so many motorists pay up without a whimper
- I know....I know.......why the other day we nailed a confused old man who drove into our
  car  park by mistake .......fannied around looking for an exit ......before eventually finding 
  one and leaving. Needless to say we banged him a ticket and the silly old fool paid up
  having never actually parked his car
- Well......beat this .....we issued a PCN to a guy who bought a ticket and displayed it  
  on the dashboard as instructed.......trouble was the hot sun caused the ticket to curl up so
  much so..... our rottweiler attendant... with an IQ well below 60..... couldn't read it. The 
  awkward bugger put in an appeal but our inside man at POPLA told him the fine still had 
  to be paid.....and hey presto a cheque for £100 was duly paid 
- The sucker
- The sap
- Yes we could go on for ages with these wonderful stories of how motorists get taken  
   for a ride........but I am worried about this new Parking Bill that could become law within 
   the year
- Don't worry .....parliament will still give us enough leeway to carry on screwing motorists
   left, right and centre. With parking spaces at a premium we can always resort to doubling
   the hourly charges....and let's face it by making motorists pay on entry based on their  
  wildly optimistic predictions of what time they might need.....there will be vast numbers of 
  overstayers who we can legitimately clobber. Moreover if we increase the number of  
  reserved and disabled bays many wlll choose to chance it believing the car parks to be's like shhooting fish in a barrel
-  So good of you to reassure me
-  It's a pleasure
-  Going any way nice this year ?
-  Oh yes......just bought a million pound yacht to cruise around the mediterrean
-  Well .....have a good time....bye
-  Bye


Friday, 11 May 2018


Parking firms have continued to keep up the pretence that fines can be imposed upon motorists who fail to abide by their terms and conditions. " Fines " carry the connotation of criminal liability warranting compulsory payment. Such a devious and cunning ploy.
However all alleged contractual  breaches are simply and purely a civil matter , which mean that parking firms can only put in claims for liquidated damages . And as the law still stands today  these claims must be a genuine pre-estimate of the loss suffered as a direct result of the breach. The only exception being overstaying in a busy site where the only income for the operator comes from parking charges , which can in certain circumstances embody a deterrent component ( see Parking Eye v Beavis )
In pay-by-the-hour car parks which on most occasions are rarely full any liqidated damages claimed for breach of contract are still subject to existing Consumer Law regulations , along with many general principles established in Contract Law precedents.
One of these is that the injured party cannot make a profit from a alleged breach of contract, since the liqidated damages claimed must be based on a genuine pre-estimate of the loss. 
All this is perfectly fair and fine. Contract damages are meant to be compensatory. They cannot be wildl over-the-top estimates. Pre-determined damages cannot be set at an  amount that will put the injured party in a better position after the breach , than the party would be in if all the contractual terms had been performed.
So how in God's name can a fixed sum parking charge of £100 be a genuine pre-estimate of a loss , when a serious breach of a term carries the same punitive consequences as a minor and petty breach. How can a five minute overstay give rise to the same claim for damages as a 5 hour overstay. How can a £100 demand for compensation be genuine when the breach , such as failure to display correctly paid-for ticket, causes no loss of income to the parking firm whatsoever. 
But now let's look at the real lie and total lack of genuineness in their estimate of their losses. Usually they kick off with a standard £70 PCN. Is this genuine ? I think not. By offering a £30 discount for prompt payment suggests otherwise given that £40 is beginning to approach the correct estimate. Motorists who send in say a cheque for £15 to cover  alleged losses often don't get chased up for the rest. Why ? Well firstly , the company may still have made a profit out of the scam , and secondly the motorist could argue ( quite successfully in court ) the duty imposed upon firms to mitigate their losses has surely been achieved by this appropriate and fair payment..     
Private parking firms will no doubt continue to flout the law with utter contempt. Never ones to willingly mitigate their losses , they prefer to compound and esculate them with the help of dodgy debt collection agencies. They continue to find ways to deceive and entrap motorists into making mistakes. They resort to countless scams to boost their already obscene profits. They act without sympathy , compassion and forgiveness. They muscle in on supermarket sites on the pretext of resolving a traffic flow problem , which probably never existed in the first place. All part of a ruthless business model to exploit the thousand of motorists , who are prone to poor timekeeping and keying in incorrect car registration details. 
If these morally bankrupt operators were committed to basing parking charges on genuine pre-estimates of loss , then they were be forced to adopt a sliding scale of parking charges ranging from £2 to £20.......but no more. If there was ever an industry which seemingly has a licence to commit fraud ,  then the private parking industry stands head and shoulders above despised loan sharks and shameful big name banks.    

Thursday, 10 May 2018


When a motorist for whatever reason keys in the wrong car registration plate details but pays the correct money either a valid contract has been entered into or not.
Car parking firms can not say in one breath a contract has been entered into but the ticket is unfortunately invalid , because if a valid contract has been entered into then by definition the ticket has to be valid.
Moreover , if the ticket is deemed to be invalid by failure to carry out a precondition of the offer that correct CRP details are deemed to be an essential requirement to establish an unconditional acceptance of the offer, then by definition no contract has come into existence on which to allege any subsequent breach.

How private car parking firms have not been questioned in court over this curious point in law beggars belief.