WRONG REGISTRATION ON PARKING TICKET                                                                                                                                             
DEFENCE STATEMENT  OF HOWARD BIGOT-JOHNSON

RE : Claim No. RIPOFF34888 

UNMANNED PRIVATE CAR CARKS CLEARLY REQUIRE A SYSTEM WHICH CAN COMBAT TWO MAJOR PROBLEMS : NON-PAYING MOTORISTS ,  AND OVER-STAYERS.  CULPRITS NEED TO BE IDENTIFIED SO THAT CAR PARK OPERATORS CAN OBTAIN SOME FORM OF FINANCIAL REDRESS. PROOF IS NEEDED WITH REGARDS TO WHEN DRIVERS ENTERED AND LEFT THE CAR PARK AND WHAT MONEY ( IF ANY ) WAS PAID OVER TO COVER THE PARKING TIME USED.  THIS IS DONE BY MATCHING THE PHOTO RECORDS OF CAR REGISTRATION DETAILS WITH THOSE KEYED INTO THE TICKET MACHINE. WHEN A MATCH IS MADE IT BECOMES AN EASY TASK TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT ANY PAYMENT WAS MADE , AND WHETHER OR NOT SUFFICIENT PAYMENT WAS MADE.

IT IS MY CONTENTION THAT DESPITE KEYING IN THE TWO NUMERICAL CHARACTERS OF MY LICENCE PLATE , THE TIMES AND DETAILS WERE CLEARLY SUFFICIENT TO MAKE A MATCH WITH THE ENTRY PHOTO , WHICH OF COURSE DEPICTED ALL SEVEN  LICENCE PLATE CHARACTERS..  THE FACT THAT EXCEL ACKNOWLEDGED I HAD PAID THE CORRECT FEE  CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES T HAT A SUCCESSFUL MATCH HAD TAKEN PLACE  , AND THAT MY UNPRESCRIBED MODE OF ACCEPTANCE HAD MADE NO PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER.             ((SEE DOCUMENT 1 )

I NOW WISH TO EXPLAIN AND EXPAND UPON EACH POINT OF MY ORIGINAL SUBMITTED DEFENCE.


1. PRIVATE CAR PARKING COMPANIES CANNOT IMPOSE DRESSED UP CRIMINAL FINES. UNDER CONTRACT LAW THEY CAN ONLY ALLEGE BREACH OF CONTRACT AND CLAIM DAMAGES TO COVER ANY FINANCIAL LOSS , WHICH IS A DIRECT CONSEQUENCE OF AN ALLEGED BREACH.  DESPITE REPEATEDLY ASKING THEM TO EXPLAIN AND HOPEFULLY QUANTIFY THEIR FINANCIAL LOSS , MY REQUESTS WERE COMPLETELY IGNORED AND SO I CAME TO THE ONLY CONCLUSION THAT MY ALLEGED BREACH HAD NOY CAUSED THEM ANY FINANCIAL LOSS WHATSOEVER.

2. EXCEL PARKING WAS PAID THE CORRECT FEE FOR THE TIME USED. THE FUNDAMENTAL PART OF MY CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS WAS THE MONETARY CONSIDERATION. THIS HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED OVER IN FULL. THE FACT THAT I LEFT WITH TIME TO SPARE CREATED AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COMPANY TO EARN EVEN MORE MONEY IN RELATION TO THAT PARTICULAR PARKING BAY. 

3. I DO NOT DENY  THE FACT THAT I ONLY KEYED IN THE NUMERICAL CHARACTERS OF MY VEHICLE REGISTRATION PLATE. THIS WAS AN INNOCENT MISTAKE THAT  DID NOT UNDERMINE THEIR ABILITY TO MAKE A MATCH. I OFTEN USED A COUNCIL RUN CAR PARK WHICH REQUIRED ME TO KEY IN DETAILS OF MY REGISTRATION NUMBER ONLY. EXCEL'S WORDING OF " PLEASE KEY IN YOUR REGISTRATION NUMBER " LED ME TO INTERPRET THAT AS THE SAME REQUIREMENT AS THE COUNCIL'S.  I BELIEVE  THAT SINCE I COMPLIED WITH THAT REQUEST NO CONTRAVENTION HAD TAKEN PLACE; THE RECEIPT SHOWED THE KEYED-IN INFORMATION  AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT I WAS TRYING TO BE OBSTRUCTIVE. GIVEN THAT THIS FORM OF STANDARD CONTRACT WITH ITS ONEROUS TERMS IS BETWEEN TWO PARTIES OF UNEQUAL BARGAINING POWER , THEN BEING THE  WEAKER PARTY  MY LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE WORDING SHOULD BE ALLOWED. I BELIEVE THIS TO BE THE APPLICATION OF THE CONTRA PROFERENTEM RULE.

3(A)   I ALSO CONTEND THAT  A CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE OFFER HAD BEEN MADE , ALBEIT INADVERTANTLY ,  BY VARYING THE TERM WHICH STATED THAT ACCEPTANCE NEEDED TO INCLUDE THE COMMUNICATION OF THE LICENCE PLATE DETAILS.  THIS CONSTITUTED A COUNTER-OFFER WHICH WAS THEN ACCEPTED BY THE OFFEROR ( EXCEL )  THE MOMENT MONEY ENTERED THE COIN SLOT.  THEREFORE THE ISSUED TICKET HAD TO BE VALID.

4. EVEN IF I AM DENIED THE BENEFIT OF DOUBT THAT I HAD INDEED PURCHASED A VALID TICKET,  EXCEL HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE ALLEGED BREACH BROUGHT ABOUT ANY FINANCIAL LOSS.  IF THERE WAS NO LOSS THEN THE CLAIM FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES OF £100 IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN UNENFORCEABLE PENALTY, PUNITIVE IN NATURE AND MANIFESTLY UNREASONABLE. 

( SEE DOCUMENT 2 : PARKING EYE V MRS X )

5. ONE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF CONTRACT LAW IS THAT AN INJURED PARTY CANNOT MAKE A PROFIT FROM A BREACH. THE AIM OF DAMAGES IS SIMPLY TO PUT THE INJURED PARTY IN THE SAME POSITION AS IF THERE HAD BEEN NO BREACH. IN MY CASE IF I HAD KEYED IN ALL SEVEN CHARACTERS OF MY VEHICLE REGISTRATION PLATE EXCEL WOULD BE NO BETTER OFF : THE CORRECT PARKING FEE HAD BEEN PAID. MOREOVER MAKING A PROFIT FROM THE BREACH IS WHAT EXCEL HAD CLEARLY SET OUT TO DO. THE PARKING CHARGE ITSELF REQUIRED ME TO PAY FOR THAT A 2 STAY HOUR FIFTY TIMES OVER. 

6/10. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES MUST ATTEMPT TO BE A GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF THE LOSS. THE ALLEGED OFFENCE TOOK PLACE IN FEBRUARY 2012 . AT THIS TIME THERE WAS NO BEAVIS RULING AND THE BPA's CODE OF PRACTICE REGARDING PARKING CHARGES STIPULATED THE VERY SAME REQUIREMENT.  
( SEE DOCUMENT 3 )

INDEED IN THAT YEAR EXCEL WERE BANNED FROM ACCESSING DVLA DATA BECAUSE OF THE COMPANY'S BLATANT DISREGARD OF THE BPA's GOVERNING RULES.  
( SEE DOCUMENT 4 )                                                                                                               
MOREOVER EXCEL's POLICY OF HARASSMENT AND THREATS IS WRONG. ONE ONLY HAS TO READ THE PAPERS TO SEE THE VAST PROFITS CAR PARKING COMPANIES ARE NOW MAKING OUT OF UNWARRANTED PCNs, WHICH FEARFUL AND ANXIETY-RIDDEN MOTORISTS ARE FORCED INTO PAYING. 

7. THE BIGGEST SCAM OF ALL IS ISSUING PCNs FOR KEYING IN INCORRECT DETAILS. THE OLD AND VULNERABLE ARE EASY TARGETS TO EXPLOIT : POOR VISION , POOR MEMORY, WEAK / SHAKEY FINGERS, EASILY CONFUSED VICTIMS. THESE ARE ALL INNOCENT REASONS WHY KEYS ARE MISSED,  NOT PRESSED DOWN FULLY,  OR WRONGLY CHOSEN. SOME MOTORISTS MIGHT ALSO SUFFER FROM DYSLEXIA OR AUTISM.  INDEED, EXCEL HAVE LOST RECENT CLAIMS , QUITE RIGHTLY , AGAINST MOTORISTS WHO HAVE MADE SUCH MISTAKES . THE BURGESS CASE IN PARTICULAR ILLUSTRATES THE COURT'S RELUCTANCE TO BE A PARTY TO UNCONSCIONABLE AND UNREASONABLE BEHAVIOUR BORN OUT OF GREED AND EXPLOITATION OF THE INNOCENT MOTORISTS.
( SEE DOCUMENT 5 )


8. THE BUSINESS MODEL THAT EXCEL USES IS ONE BASED ON DECEPTION AND ENTRAPMENT BY CREATING ONEROUS TERMS AND CONDITIONS , WHICH MOTORISTS ALL TO OFTEN FAIL TO MEET.  BAD SIGNAGE , INADEQUATE PLACEMENT OF SIGNAGE, DEFECTIVE TICKET MACHINES, AND SO ON. NO ONE WANTS A SYSTEM OF FREE-FOR-ALL UNREGULATED PARKING , BUT MOTORISTS LIKE ME ARE ENTITLED TO BE TREATED FAIRLY , WITH RESPECT , FORGIVENESS AND SYMPATHETIC UNDERSTANDING. THE APPEAL SYSTEM UNFORTUNATELY IS GEARED IN FAVOUR OF THE CAR PARK OPERATORS AS PARLIAMENT KNOWS ALL TO WELL. THANKFULLY A NEW BILL IS READY TO BECOME LAW   DESIGNED TO CURB THE POWER AND ABUSES PRACTICED BY MANY UNSCRUPULOUS PRIVATE PARKING COMPANIES. 

9/11/12. THIS DEMAND FOR £100 ( RESURRECTED IN DECEMBER 2017 ) IS IN MY VIEW UNRESONABLE, UNFAIR , UNJUST AND UNWARRANTED. THE ALLEGED BREACH TOOK PLACE IN FEBRUARY 2012 , AND AFTER FRUITLESS MONTHS OF ARGUING MY POINT , AND THE SUBSEQUENT THREATS OF CCJs , BAILIFFS AND DAMAGE TO MY CREDIT RATING , THE DEBT WAS THEN TRANSFERRED TO A DISCREDITED SURREY BASED FIRM OF DEBT COLLECTORS. THEN AFTER ALMOST A 5 YEAR GAP ANOTHER FIRM HAS APPEARED ON THE HORIZON (BW LEGAL ) MAKING A LAST DITCH ATTEMPT TO EXTORT £267 BEFORE THE 6 YEAR LIMITATION RULING APPLIES.  REGRETFULLY IN 2016  I DECIDED TO BIN ALL THE EARLIER LETTERS/E-MAILS SENT AND RECEIVED BECAUSE I BELIEVED EXCEL HAD GIVEN UP THE GHOST.  NATURALLY THESE DOCUMENTS WOULD HAVE BEEN EVIDENCE OF THEIR RUTHLESS TACTICS AND UNHELPFUL BEHAVIOUR . HOWEVER THERE IS MORE THAN ENOUGH EVIDENCE IN DOZENS OF COURT CASES WHERE EXCEL HAS RECEIVED BAD PRESS WITH JUDGES UP IN ARMS OVER THEIR OUTRAGEOUS BEHAVIOUR . 


13. NO DOUBT EXCEL WILL QUOTE PARKING EYE v. BEAVIS WHERE THE SUPREME COURT JUDGES RULED THERE WAS COMMERCIAL JUSTIFICATION FOR AN £85 PARKING CHARGE .  HERE THE CAR PARK IN QUESTION OFFERED FREE PARKING FOR 2 HOURS, AND SO THE PARKING CHARGES WERE THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME FOR THE COMPANY , AND THAT A DETERRENT WAS DEEMED NECESSARY TO MANAGE A VERY BUSY CAR PARK.   MOTORISTS WHO OVERSTAYED CLEARLY UNDERMINED THAT ALL IMPORTANT TRAFFIC SPACE MAXIMISATION OBJECTIVE.
THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN MY SITUATION ARE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT LEADING ME TO BELIEVE MY CASE CAN BE DISTINGUISHED ON THE FACTS. THE CAR PARK IN QUESTION IS PAY-PER-HOUR ONE  AND THAT MY ALLEGED MISDEMEANOUR DID NOT UNDERMINE THE TRAFFIC SPACE MAXIMISATION OBJECTIVE.
( SEE DOCUMENT 7 : PARKING EYE v CARGIUS )

MOREOVER THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT PARKING EYE HAD A LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN CHARGING £85 IN ORDER TO CONTROL THE CAR PARK IN THE INTERESTS OF RETAIL OUTLETS AND THEIR SHOPPERS , AS WELL AS TO PROVIDE AN INCOME STREAM. HOWEVER ONE COULD EASILY ARGUE THAT EXCEL'S OVER-ZEALOUS AND UNREASONABLE BEHAVIOUR WAS CLEARLY NOT IN THE INTERESTS OF RETAIL OUTLETS THE CAR PARK WAS MEANT TO SERVE. MOTORISTS WERE VOWING LIKE ME NEVER TO RETURN ,  CHOOSING TO SHOP ELSEWHERE. INDEED EXCEL LOST A SITE IN MANSFIELD BECAUSE OF COMPLAINTS FROM MOTORISTS THREATENING NEVER TO RETURN. BUT THE MAIN DISTINGUISHING FACT IS THAT EXCEL HAVE A MORE THAN SUFFICIENT INCOME STREAM BASED ON TICKET REVENUE FROM THE VAST NUMBER OF OVER-PAYERS ( FEARFUL OF BEING CAUGHT OUT FOR OVER-STAYING ).


14. THE CHARGE MADE AGAINST ME IS CLEARLY A PENALTY AND PUNITIVE IN NATURE. IN CONTRACT LAW IT IS NOT RIGHT OR FAIR TO IMPOSE THE SAME  FIXED SUM TO COVER ALL TYPES OF BREACH , ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE MINOR OR TRIFLING IN NATURE .  LIQUIDATED DAMAGES NEED TO BE SCALED IN ORDER TO BE FAIR AND PROPORTIONATE IN RELATION TO THE TYPE OF BREACH INCURRED. SERIOUS BREACHES DO WARRANT SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGES, WHEREAS PETTY BREACHES SHOULD ONLY WARRANT NOMINAL DAMAGES.  


FINALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TWO OBSERVATIONS :  

(1)  A WELL RESPECTED CONSERVATIVE MP ( NIGEL EVANS ) WHO WAS LEADING A PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE ON PRIVATE CAR PARKING COMPANIES, TALKED ABOUT A MOTORIST KEYING IN INCORRECT CAR REGISTRATION DETAILS. KNOWING THAT THIS MOTORIST WAS GOING TO FIGHT THIS CASE IN COURT , THE MP DECLARED  " I HOPE HE WINS ". 
( SEE DOCUMENT 8 )

 (2) IN A 2012   MAY EDITION OF THE CRIMINAL  LAW AND JUSTICE WEEKLY THE AUTHORS DENNIS J. BAKER AND LUCY X. ZHAO CALLED FOR ACTION AGAINST INFLATED AND FRAUDULANT PARKING FINES.  BY COMMENTING ALSO THAT
PRIVATE PARKING COMPANIES WERE SHOWING CONTEMPT FOR THE LAW BY IGNORING COUNTY COURT RULINGS WHICH IN THEIR EYES WERE CLEARING NOT BINDING ,  I FELT ENCOURAGED NOT TO BECOME A VICTIM OF EXCEL'S HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE PROFITEERING  RACKET. 
( SEE DOCUMENT 9 )