Saturday, 27 January 2018


- What the latest stats we've got on motorists being done for double bay parking
- About 427 over this last 6 month period
- That's shocking.....compared to last year when we were hitting really big numbers and big 
- I seems these damn motorists have wised up and are much more careful when 
  parking up their cars
- Well somehow we need to find a way to get these numbers back up again......any ideas ?
- Could we narrow the bays even more ?
- Christ no.....they're already no more than a few inches wider than a normal saloon car
- Bugger.......
- Ah..... maybe I've got an idea which could entrap thousands in one foul swoop
- What's that ?
- We include in our terms and conditions wording that cars must be parked  " within "
  the bays
- Yes...unsuspecting motorists wont realise until its too late ........that if any tyre happens to
   clip the white line by even a centimetre a flagrant breach of this term has occurred......
   simply because " within " means inside the lines......if any part of the tyre is on the lines 
   then it is easy to provide photographic evidence to establish the fact that an infringement 
   has taken place
- How good is that ?
- Yes.....all down to scanning the English dictionary to find those awfully deceptive .... 
   but seemingly harmless...... little words 


Wednesday, 24 January 2018


Another day. Another PCN . Another refusal to pay. Another court case.

Counsel for the plaintiff (CP) : I see Bigot you've gone and done it again
B-J : Done what ?
CP :  Only keyed in part of your car registration number , when the terms and conditions clearly stipulated  that " full "  details were required to obtain a valid ticket
B-J : What details I entered were more than sufficient for a match
CP : That's your opinion
B-J : Well , you had no difficulty in matching the ticket details "AZ 01 " with the AZ01BTH
registration as seen on the camera photograph , shot a few minutes earlier when I entered the car park
CP : True.....but rules are rules
B-J : So tell me then.....why does the company want the full registration when 2 or 3 characters would suffice
CP : Bigot .....are you thick or what ?   It's bloody obvious why motorists are required to key the full registration number. The more characters there are to input the greater the likelihood of mistakes. All private car parking companies love it when motorists confuse the letter " I " with the number 1 ,  the letter "O" with 0 , the letter "S" with 5 , and the letter "Z" with 2. It's a hoot. Then of course there are all the motorists who forget which car they came in ......not to mention those with big fat grubby fingers who inadvertently press down too hard on the wrong key.  And oh companies love drivers who are dyslexic ....or who have myopia.  Then there are hundreds of motorists who have a poor short term memory , or those who think they know their car registration number but don't. The list is endless.
B-J : My God....this unforgiving ruthless behaviour is nothing more than blatant exploitation of the old and vulnerable, who make innocent mistakes..... of no real significance or impact to the management of the car park
CJ : You may call these mistakes " innocent " but in my book they are the consequence of stupidity......and my client has the right to cash in big time on idiot drivers who can't key in their registration numbers correctly
Judge : Are you calling me an idiot
CP:  Of course not.....your Honour........why on earth would I
Judge : I'm pleased to hear that......because only yesterday I received a PCN from your client for inadvertently keying in a "V" instead of a "U"
CP : Don't worry your Honour ....once I let the company know it was you....the PCN will be cancelled straightaway
Judge : So I take it double standards apply ?
CP : Good company will always apply common sense mixed with a huge measure of favouritism and bias cases where it seems prudent to do so
Judge : I've heard enough.....Bigot you have my utmost support and respect.....the claim against you is dismissed

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 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.

Tuesday, 9 January 2018


With history repeating itself again and again,  Bigot had become the perennial thorn in Rip Off Parking's side. With the company refusing to be beaten by this stubborn individual , Bigot found himself in court for the umpteenth time to fend off another unfair and unreasonable demand for money.

Counsel for the plaintiff : Bigot do you admit to overstaying your allotted free time by 20 minutes ?
B-J : Yes.....
CP : And the reason for this flagrant breach of contract ?
B-J : I had just taken some medication for a neurological condition I have , and these pills somehow had made me feel strangely giddy 
CP : That's no excuse for overstaying
B-J : Well, it was almost an empty car park and in the interests of road safety I felt it necessary to stay a little longer until my head settled
CP :  Might I point out that the signage was quite clear about the penalty for overstaying
B-J : Yes at the entrance the Car Park was called " Welcome Break " so I assumed that all motorists were warmly invited to take whatever break they needed. Otherwise that sign  is nothing more than a gross misrepresentation.
CP : The signage I'm referring to are the onerous terms and conditions of the contract
B-J : Oh .....well it so happened that where I had parked there was graffiti spray all over the signage board making it impossible to read
CP : No excuses....... there were plenty of other signage boards you could have looked at
B-J : Maybe.... but I didn't happen to see them. It seems to me that private car parking companies need to be stopped from hounding decent law abiding motorists like me on a public interest basis.
CP :  Listen ......Rip Off have taken over 60,000 cases to county courts against smart -arse defaulting motorists like you in the past three years. Indeed there's not a cat in hell's chance of my client stopping now.....especially when there's so much easy money to be made.
B-J : Well my defence is that road safety takes priority of your petty rules, the signage wasn't adequate in all places, and finally there's no need to target overstayers if car parks are almost empty. These views of course make the lump sum claim for damages both punitive and unreasonable....... and therefore unenforceable.
Judge : I have to say that I'm appalled by the claimant's hounding of the defendant. Rip Off Parking is adopting  pernicious, bullying tactics, relying on the victim's apathy or fear to extort money. Indeed thousands of other victims , unlike the brave and admirable Bigot,  lack both the ability or funds to fight back. So relying on a recent decision in Parking Eye v. Bowen ( 2017) , in which the defendant , a top notch barrister,  successfully argued that his overstay for a power nap was necessary to continue the rest of his early morning drive safely for the sake of other road users .... I therefore find for the defendant.
CP : This is an outrage......
Judge : So let this be an important lesson for your client to learn from which the company directors need to carefully consider : the terms and conditions need altering to allow fairness , common sense and equal rights to apply. At present there are too many unconscionable practices being carried out in this unregulated business activity. 

Sunday, 7 January 2018

RIP OFF PARKING v. BIGOT-JOHNSON ( 2016 ) ......... Case No 2

Once more Bigot found himself in court mercilessly pursued by a private car parking company for ignoring yet another PCN , even though his overstay was purely the consequence of a helping out a fellow motorist ,  who had just been robbed by a knife-wielding mugger in the very same car park.

Counsel for the plaintiff : Did you Bigot ......or did you not .....overstay in breach of the company's terms and conditions ?
B-J : Yes , I overstayed because a woman needed my medical assistance as I was the only one in the car park at the time of her collapse
CP : No excuses allowed.......rules are rules
B-J : But surely....
CP : No surely buts please......Rip Off Parking have heard all the excuses under the sun and in the interests of fair play and equality the company chooses to ignore the bloody lot
B-J : But for my timely intervention the woman might have died.  Moreover I needed to stay with her until the ambulance service and police arrived
CP : No excuses overstay is a clear and blatant breach of contract which the company cannot and will not tolerate
B-J : So did the ambulance driver get a PCN for failing to purchase a ticket ?
CP :  Yes.....he did......and I believe his case is coming up next
B-J :  Christ almighty......does Rip Off Parking exempt anyone from this kind of malicious persecution .....or should I say, witch hunt ?
CP : Absolutely client nails anyone who defaults.....indeed .....hundreds of PCNs have been issued to workman hired to come onto the site to carry out urgent repairs... even  their own employees, new to the job of course, who are asked to empty money from the machines. Indeed drivers of supermarket courtesy buses , break-down trucks, security firm vehicles, fire-engines, post-office vans, taxis, refuse collection lorries, name but a few.....have all been clobbered........And all of them bleating pathetic excuses which are binned straightaway 
B-J : I have to say Rip Off Parking is an organisation without a heart , soul and conscience.
It is morally bankrupt.
CP : I agree ......but ethics and morality have no part whatsoever in its mission statement
B-J : Which is.....?
CP : To bleed motorists dry.....and to boost the directors' pay packets tenfold
Judge : Enough.....I've heard enough.....judgement of course goes to the defendant, in keeping with the one in Excel Parking services v. Drain Trace Ltd ( 2017) where the judge was gobsmacked that Excel expected a company working on the site to purchase a ticket. So much so ,  he asked the solicitor " if I was to have a heart attack whilst getting out of the car are you telling me that the ambulance would need to purchase a ticket before they attended to me ? ".........................The solicitor needless to say could not answer in the negative . and so was obliged to say yes. Moreover, the judge went on to say that common sense should prevail , and that he was sick and tired of private parking companies bringing unnecessary cases to court.

Friday, 5 January 2018


The are many circumstances in which it is right, fair and proper for private car parking companies to issue invoices against motorists who have either failed to purchase a ticket , or have overstayed the time permitted on the ticket. These types of transgressions have brought about a small financial loss to the company , which they legally entitled to chase up.
However , even in these circumstances where payment has been made, the PCN does not set out to recover losses but instead represents a blatant attempt to make easy profit.  These money making demands can only be described as manifestly unreasonable, and can never be justified on any sound and rational criteria. They bear no relationship whatsoever to genuine pre-estimates of loss incurred by any alleged breaches.
So what is the basis for distinguishing pay-by-the-hour car park operators from those than run manage car parks which offer the motorists up to 2-3 hours free parking.

1. The business model for limited free parking works on the basis that the great majority of motorists who enjoy the benefit of free parking at the site,  are effectively subsidised by the minority of defaulters, who have been given clear notice of the consequences of overstaying. Regretably, the PCNs issued need to be substantial in order for the car park operators to cover their operational costs. 

2. Moreover the penalty charge could be regarded as the consideration in the contract which the defaulting motorist is obliged to pay under the agreed terms. This means that the PCN is not in principle a claim for damages , and as such can be set at a level to make the business commercially viable.

3. In pay-per-hour car parks , the business model is entirely different. Ticket revenue is sufficient to meet operational costs , which means PCNs are not intended to cover costs but are simply there to provide opportunities for generating lucrative profits. They are nothing more than speculative invoices demanding sums way beyond any actual loss that may have occurred , say for example due a 15 minute overstay.  

4. In hourly paid car parks the law regarding damages has to apply ; namely that the sum claimed must be a genuine pre-estimate of the actual loss incurred . This means that in the above example the loss of revenue equates to one unpaid hour. 

5. The Court of Appeal  in the Beavis case made a clear reference to the fact that their decision , in favour of Parking Eye , was NOT relevant to pay-per-hour type of car parks.

6. In pay and display car parks , the parking fee clearly represents the consideration given by the motorists under the terms of the contract. This means that any excessive claim for damages imposed on a defaulting motorist becomes an unenforceable penalty , simply because it is manifestly unreasonable and punitive in nature.

7. The Supreme Court in the Beavis case took the view that the £85 penalty was commercially justified by also looking at Parking Eye's business model , which needed to focus on the traffic space maximisation objective. This included the need to deter motorists from overstaying,  and to ensure a reasonable turnover of visiting motorists.  By making parking spaces quickly available the number of potential customers coming to that shopping area greatly increases.  The abuse of limited free parking , especially where the site is always very busy, needed to be deterred. 

8. But PCN's issued by pay-per-hour car park operators tend to focus on one business objective only : to fleece the unsuspecting and innocent motorists , who commit minor transgressions. Their business model is nothing more than a licence to print money and get rich quick.

9. Finally , it needs to be pointed out that in a busy hourly-rate car parks , operates with a 100 bays , open 10 hours a day , charging £1 per hour can generate £7000 per week , which generates a yearly revenue total of £350,000 . This is more than enough to cover the maintenance and administrative overheads of an organisation that needs only to install a ticket machines, display boards and computer linked cameras.  In sharp contrast Parking Eye in the Beavis case would need to find well over 4000 defaulters to reach that figure .....possibly double if discounted fines of £40 were on offer for prompt payment. The two business models are indeed poles apart.

10. Read the judgement ( via the Parking Prankster case list blog ) of Deputy District Judge C. Mahy sitting at Wrexham County Court in the case of Parking Eye Ltd v. Cargius  2014. Although this judgement took place during the early stages of the Beavis dispute , the well articulated rationale for distinguishing the two types of car parking operators cannot be faulted.

Thursday, 4 January 2018


Yet again Bigot was refusing to pay a PCN which claimed he failed to enter the correct  vehicle licence plate number into the ticket machine in order to make the ticket supposedly valid. despite using up only one hour of his paid 4 hour stay. The company was adamant he was in breach of this  rather lucrative money making racket , and therefore the fine had to be paid. Bigot of course refused , happy to take his chance in court.

Counsel for the plaintiff : Please tell the court why you refused to pay the £70 PCN ?
B-J : This demand was ridiculous since I paid for 4 hours parking of which I only used up one. Indeed , I feel I was owed a refund but asking for one which be like pissing against a gale force wind. Moreover that freed up parking space was no doubt sold again earning the company another 3 hours ticket income. So how can it be commercially justified to extort another £70 from a hard up motorist like me ?
CP : You broke the entered an incorrect licence plate number
B-J : An innocent mistake owing to my dyslexic condition
CP : No excuses made a mistake and that renders you liable for the fine
B-J : My research has uncovered that this company makes a substantial profit on ticket revenue after taking into account all their overhead costs the money made from unjust and unfair PCNs provides a lucrative profit centre on a scale, which would take even Donald Trump's breath away.......such is the huge number of motorists who fall victim to this devilishly clever trap 
CP : Your point ?
B-J : This means that the income from the 90% of motorists who are forced to pay up has enabled the company to get very rich ,  using some of the excess profits to take future disputes to court......... producing yey another more effective way of bullying and intimidating innocent motorists into handing over their hard-earned money 
CP : That's what good business is all about
B-J : So you're saying that this type of penalty charge is a commercially justified deterrent, even though the main purpose of car park companies is to manage the limited number of bays effectively ,  by ideally focusing their efforts to combat non-payers and over-stayers
CP: Yes that the gist of it
B-J :  But why clobber motorists who make innocent mistakes punching in their registration plate numbers ?  Surely the misuse of tickets concerns the practice of a motorist passing over his/her ticket to another driver. Whenever the ticket is linked to one car then it becomes obvious should it ever appear on the dashboard of non-payer's vehicle. If the ticket is not passed over then surely no financial loss has been incurred by the car park operators ?
CP :  True.... but the aim of course is to pounce on the huge number of idiot motorists who fail to enter correct registration plate details. Why my client is working on the idea of getting motorists to enter the make and model of the car as well......... as this is guaranteed to increase the likelihood of even more typo errors .......possibly ten fold.  
B-J : So you agree........ PCNs are more about fleecing motorists than trying to cover their basic overheads
CP : Indeed ....... because let's face it......... the parking company's directors need these horrendously excessive profits to finance their mansions, yachts , private jets and five star holidays.........and your £70 is just as vital as all the other thousands of £70 PCNs issued each and every week of the year  regarding this scam

Wednesday, 3 January 2018


Another parking fine and so another court case. Bigot this time had inadvertantly placed his ticket on the dashboard but upside down. 

B-J : May I beg the court's permission , your honour , to start off my defence with a quote
Judge : I trust it is relevant to your defence
B-J : Oh indeed it is....
Judge : Well please keep it brief
B-J :  " Just a glance at any fee versus fine will demonstrate that admirably.  The car parks are cash magnets for the operators who milk the motorist and use harassment and threats to extort money."
Counsel for the claimant : I object your honour...... this statement is a wicked lie....
Judge : How dare interrupt the defendant.......I wish to hear him out 
B-J : Thank you your honour......" Their intimidating letters are intended to frighten , and their message is quite simple .....stand and deliver ; the motto of the highwayman in a long bygone era. The only thing missing is the pistol, but they use the threat of courts , which could be expensive if people use legal representation, and an ever-escalating tariff of fines that simply bleed the motorist further ".....................especially in my case where I made a simple innocent inadvertent mistake which cost the claimant at the outset no financial loss whatsoever.
CP : Those outrageous comments are the ravings and rantings of an ignorant , unintelligent nobody.....who knows sod all about this money spinning racket......oops sorry...... legitimate parking industry
B-J : Oh .....but these were the words  spoken in a parliamentary debate on private car parking companies by the well respected MP...... Nigel Evans , Conservative, for Ribble Valley on March 16th 2015 , as recorded in Hansard.
CP : Oh..... I never realised
Judge : That's not surprising given the level of incompetence I've come to expect from lawyers like you who representing rogue outfits like your claimant's

Monday, 1 January 2018


This time Bigot was incandescent with rage having received yet another PCN from the biggest money grabbing company known to man and motorist. This was for a second visit to the hospital car park in which he believed he had no duty whatsoever to purchase a ticket , having already paid for an all day ticket. So confident the judge would side with him Bigot had organised a champagne celebration party for after the trial. However, even best laid plans go can sadly astray , as the following extract from the trial's transcript reveals.

Counsel for the plaintiff ( CP ) : Bigot it true you entered the hospital car park at     11.05 am but failed to purchase a ticket  for your three hour stay ?
B-J : Yes.....but why the hell should I. The fact is a purchased an all day ticket at 9.30 am. However ,  my wife needed her lap top which I had forgotten to bring me. So I returned home to collect it and re-entered the car park at 11.05 only to go back to the same bay I used earlier. Naturally , I believed my original all day ticket was still in force.
CP : Sorry to inform you that wasn't the case. You terminated that contract the moment you exited the car park at 10.15am. Therefore when you re-entered the car park 50 minutes later a new ticket was required..........a ticket you negligently or foolishly failed to buy
B-J : Well shag me with a rag man's trumpet...... you name me another business which asks a customer to pay twice for the same product or service ?
CP : I can't but car park companies are different. They operate on a vastly different business model, overloaded with terms and and conditions , which are drafted by skilled lawyers to be grossly in their favour, to the detriment of innocent and gullible motorists. These numerous  and nasty rules so cleverly inserted into their contract are..... I'm afraid to say......legally watertight and horribly welcome to the world of freedom of contract. 
B-J : But this £70 fine was both uncalled for and unconscionable. If the company had any morality.... or goodwill....... it should only issue a PCN when attempting to recover the exact amount which relates to actual loss of income incurred , or when a deterrent fine is deemed absolutely necessary. Moreover, most of the money raised from this source  should automatically be donated to a worthy charity, such as MIND which has to deal with hundreds of stressed out motorists, completely paranoid about overlooking and breaking parking rules.
Judge : Get real grabbing dogs like them would rather die than see motorists and others benefit at their expense

With regards to his ongoing battle with the most infamous private parking company of all time , Bigot-Johnson deliberated extended his stay by 5 minutes only to receive as expected another £70 PCN demand. As usual he refused to pay willing to take his chance in court for a third time. 

Counsel for the plaintiff : I put it to you Bigot that you have breached the company's terms and conditions by not having a valid ticket at the time you left the hospital car park. 
B-J : I only over-stayed by 5 minutes
CP : A clear breach of contract
B-J : But the demand for £70 is unfair , unreasonable and unjust . The £70 charge amounts to an extortionate sum which should be by all accounts an unenforceable penalty
CP : Not according to our Supreme Court who in a ruling against Beavis said the such charges are commercially justified 
B-J : Well these law lords got in all wrong
CP :  Oh please enlighten this court as to why ?
B-J : I notice that the company has a variable pricing tariff , which requires motorists to pay more if they wish to park for longer periods
CP : That is true
B-J : But in the case of over-stays there is a fixed penalty charge to cover all type of breach irrespective of whether the transgression is petty or serious.
CP :  Can't argue with that....
B-J : So take motorist A who overstays by 7 minutes only to receive a PCN.......this amounts to a fine of £10 for each minute involved. Motorist B who overstays by 70 minutes incurs a fine equivalent to £1 per minute , whereas motorist C who oversays by 4 hours 40 minutes , the charge per minute is a mere 25 pence. 
CP : Yes ...your maths is correct
B-J : This means that motorist A  who is only guilty of a minor transgression is penalised and punished far more than motorist C who was blatantly and flagrantly in breach of contract . If C's car occupied the bay for over 4 hours , the company of course......... ..... assuming the car park was busy..... would indeed have missed out on 4-5 hours of additional income ..........which isn't the case with motorist A. The loss caused by his breach was insignificant and therefore justice demands  a penalty charges should to reflect this fact.
CP : Why ?
B-J : For reasonableness , fairness and justice to apply, proportionality becomes an essential requirement. Fixed sum penalties are totally unjust for lack of proportionality and the Supreme Court judges failed to address this issue. Siding with businesses who have no soul , heart or moral conscience beggars belief. Consumers need to be protected.
CP: Or perhaps motorists should get back to their cars in time before their contracted stay runs out ......or better still be prepared to purchase an extra hour or so to allow for any possible problems or delays which might adversely affect their ability to make a prompt return . Might I suggest they set warning alarms on their watches and mobiles
B-J : Do I take it you ,,,,and the company you represent to treat motorists badly.... showing no mercy or forgiveness?
CP:  Yes ........not to mention a whole load of hatred and contempt as well


- Sorry I'm late .......I got held up in a queue at the garage
- Oh that's alright......there's the big deal in being late happens all the time.......that's life
- True.... and about that Beavis result ?  Such a god send.....we can fleece motorists now 
  with impunity. The gravy train is up and running for sure
- Yes......those Supreme Court judges unbelievably fell for the argument that the £85 fine
   needed to have a deterrent effect
- And what's more... they believed fines up to a £100 were commercially justified and not
  manifestly unreasonable
- Amazing.....because let's face it we don't want motorists to be deterred from overstaying
  ......heavens above.....we want them to overstay in their hundreds .....better still in their
- Quite right  the sole purpose of the fixed sum penalty of £85 is to catch out the vast 
  number of motorists who arrive back just a few minutes after the free parking period has 
  expired .....maximising our profits to unprecedented levels. If these poor sods were better 
  time keepers our income stream would dwindle to nothing . And we don't want that 
- No
- The deterrent argument was without doubt a wonderful smokescreen to justify our rip off
   charge of £85 ..... hiding the fact that our true goal was to make easy money off the backs 
   of motorists who constantly lose track of time 
- Oh happy days
- Yes happy days indeed