NASTY PCNs : PRIVATE  PARKING COMPANIES' MONSTROUS LIES 

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. )  

INCORRECT  REGISTRATION NUMBER : ONE POSSIBLE  LINE OF DEFENCE ?

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.


   

DEFINITION OF PARKING
                                                                                   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 : Ah....you 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 claim.....case dismissed.

INTERPRETATION OF CAR PARKING SIGNAGE

GOTCHA PARKING SERVICES v. BIGOT-JOHNSON (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 honour.......it 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 ?.......you 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 : No.....it has to be one ticket per car...
B-J : I'm afraid that is not the case.....it'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.
  

 INTERPRETATION OF CAR PARKING SIGNAGE 
                                                                                                                                                    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"......it'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 fully........so 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 Bigot.....how 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



                 








                                        

THE GREAT PCN RACKET : FAT  CAT EXECUTIVES REVEAL THE  SHOCKING TRUTH IN A MOST ASTONISHING PHONE CALL CONFESSION 

- Hi Simon.....how'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 true....so 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
   know.......at 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 week.....so 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
    .