PARKING OFFENCE : OVERSTAYING
EXCEL AT SCAMMING v. BIGOT-JOHNSON ( 2016 ) Case No. 1
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 ......like to treat motorists badly.... showing no mercy or forgiveness?
CP: Yes ........not to mention a whole load of hatred and contempt as well