INCORRECT CAR REGISTRATION : IT CAN'T BE BREACH OF CONTRACT ONLY AN ACT OF INNOCENT MISREPRESENTATION

• 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......

        

INCORRECT CAR REGISTRATION : WHY NOT CONSIDER THIS AS A POSSIBLE DEFENCE ?

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. 

INCORRECT  CAR REGISTRATION :  USEFUL CASE LAW TO KNOW

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.

PARKING IN AN UNAUTHORISED AREA 

                                                                                                                                                          GOTCHA PARKING SERVICES v. BIGOT-JOHNSON (2018)


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

 
.  

DEFINITION OF PARKING

GOTCHA PARKING SERVICES v BIGOT-JOHNSON (2018)

Bigot 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 ......by 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 there must be a driver 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. 

INCORRECT CAR REGISTRATION
  
EXCEL AT SCAMMING v BIGOT-JOHNSON (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 non-payment......so 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.