SMART ARSE PARKING SOLUTIONS v. BIGOT-JOHNSON (2018)

Another cowboy outfit. Another attempted scam. Another day in court for Bigot , who had entered a car park only to drive out minutes later , having failed to find an available parking bay.

Counsel for the plaintiff (CP) : This man.......a  renown scourge of private car parking industry......entered my client's car park and then left without paying. This represents a clear breach of contract as Smart Arse Parking Solutions missed out on valuable ticket revenue , needed to help put food on the table for their impoverished directors'  starving wives and children .
B-J : But I don't recall ever entering into a contract for which this alleged breach was supposedly based upon. No contract means no breach in my book.
Judge : Mine too......
CP : The contract is presumed to have been entered into as soon as the camera clocks your entry
B-J : No,,,,,,the contract is formed at the ticket machine when the terms and conditions have been read and accepted ....plate details entered ....and correct payment made for the intended length of stay. 
CP :  Ah... but the rules state that after 10 minutes of entering the car park , you are contractually bound for acceptance has taken place by way of performance .....along with the fact you failed to exit the car park within that permitted time.
 B-J : So please correct me if I'm wrong..... a man say enters a book shop to look around and browse ....then decides not to make a purchase...... Are you saying he is legally bound to buy a product ? I think not. Neither is he a trespasser since he has been invited into that shop by virtue of all the invitations to treat displayed in the shop window.
CP: But...
B-J : But nothing......motorists are invited and welcomed onto car park sites. They all have a right to read the terms and conditions....for whatever time it takes to digest, interpret and understand what they mean....and then make a decision as to whether or not to enter into a contract. Motorists have a right to reject the offer to park there and leave without any legal obligations imposed upon them
CP: But...
B-J : But nothing.....a motorist who valiantly tries to find a parking space and then gives up has neither entered a contract nor caused the company any financial loss. When a car park is full maximum revenue has already been achieved. Moreover , at no point was his car parked up in a bay , because driving around looking for spaces hardly constitutes parking which has to be paid for. He too has a unfettered right to leave without fear of being sued for breach of contract .....or even trespass for that matter.
Judge : I agree.....this so called 10 minute rule is a nonsense and from what I have discovered there is no mention of it on the signage. Case dismissed with Smart Arse Parking Solutions to pay all of Bigot's costs.......which I hope are collossal 

PARKING EYE  v BEAVIS :  HOW  CAN  THE  £85 PARKING CHARGE BE ANYTHING BUT MANIFESTLY UNREASONABLE !

According to the Supreme Court judges the £85 charge imposed upon poor Beavis for an overstay of his allotted 3 hours of free parking was commercially justified. It seems that scammers like Parking Eye are entitled in this corrupt world of commerce to earn a crust and make a profit. Despite the fact the overstay was measured in minutes ( not hours ) the judges took the view that £85 was not manifestly unreasonable. So I ask myself at what point does a parking charge become manifestly unreasonable.
" Manifestly " means beyond all doubt, something that can be clearly shown or easily seen.
How £85 can not be seen as unreasonable is beyond me. Any independent observer would instantly regard the sum as excessive beyond any shadow of doubt. It is all to easy to see that this ludicrously high fixed sum is completely punitive in nature,  because it treats motorists who overstay by 5 minutes the same as those who overstay by 5 hours. The lack of a variable parking charge is both illogical and absurd.
Moreover, the fact remains that the total time of overstays is completely dwarfed by the total time given back by vast majority of motorists who understay.  This means  there is no loss of customer turnover with respect to the shops and supermarkets which the car park is aiming to serve. 
So let's now get back to my claim that the £85 charge is nothing but manifestly unreasonable.

1. Council run car parks impose fines half that sum despite having far greater overheads
2. £85 is 3 times the value of my yearly road tax
3. The sum represents for a large number of people two days wages
4. It equates to 12 full days of parking in most pay-by-the-hour car parks
5. It equates to Beavis paying around £100 an hour for the extra parking time he used
6. The money Beavis was asked to pay simply provided another slap up meal for one
    of company's directors at a plush 5 star restaurant 

It is plain to see that his £85 not only contributed to Parking Eye's recovery of operational costs but also contributed an obscene amount of profit in their quest to get rich quick at the motorists' expense. The figure of £85 clearly had a punitive element to it which in itself made it manifestly unreasonable.
And for the company to suggest a high figure was needed as a deterrent is a joke.
Parking Eye do not want motorists to be deterred from parking at their site. They want  motorists to come and transgress. They go out of their way to entrap them , often using inadequate signage and ambiguous wording. They know and rely upon motorists arriving late back to the car park , despite their best intentions not to do so.  Unavoidably delays are inevitable for a variety of legitimate and innocent reasons. 
Any decent company which sets out to treat motorists fairly would introduce a variable parking charge of 50p  for each overstay minute , after the expiry of a 10 minute grace period. This way a motorist who overstays by 20 minutes would be obliged to pay £5 , whereas the motorist who overstays by 5 hours would be rightfully charged £145 , unless of course there was a genuine reason put forward to warrant a reduction. 
It seems to me Beavis was a victim of a harsh ruling. A ruling which was manifestly unfair because it allowed the bad guys to win , subjecting  tens of thousands of innocent and vulnerable motorists to unwarranted bullying, intimidation and threats .

     

PRIVATE CAR PARKING COMPANY'S DEVILISHLY CONCEIVED BUSINESS MODEL

Its business model is one of pure genius when it comes to pay-by-the-hour car parks. The plan involves the removal of car parking attendants replacing them with automated cameras and ticket machines. Now the scene is set for creating 5 very lucrative revenue streams :

1. Correct payments for the hours actually used
2. Deliberate over-payments which occur when motorists plan to leave early,  resulting in 
    purchased hours being unused . This of course enables parking bays to be purchased 
    again earning additional revenue. 
3. The imposition of ludicrously high parking charges on motorists whose transgressions
    more often than not cause no loss whatsoever to the company
4. Additional charges imposed on motorists who ignore the PCNs
5. The accrued interest from the investment of vast cash mountains built up over time ,
    courtesy of all those motorists who paid the bogus fines out of fear and anxiety. 

Welcome to the world of get-rich quick , morally bankrupt parking cowboys.
    

RIP OFF PARKING DIRECTORS HOLD AN EMERGENCY BRAINSTORMING MEETING

-  We cannot afford to be complacent
-  Absolutely.....motorists are out in the thousands and they all need to be shafted
-  Shafted
-  Shafted like never before 
-  So we need to up the number of PCNs sent out each week
-  Is that possible ?  .....They're already at a record high. And the scams we've got going for 
   us can't really deliver that many more
-  Yes ...and if that is true , it's of paramount importance to come up with something which
   is excitingly new and devilishly cunning 
-  I agree.....there's always scope for bleeding these soft-touch motorists even more. What
   we've got is a captive market , since street parking spaces are in such short supply. So 
   they have no choice but to come to our sites and agree to our nasty and onerous terms 
   and conditions.
-  So why not raise the parking tariffs ? 
-  The local retailers would complain that such a  move would deter motorists from shopping
    there. No....we must do our best to attract motorists to come and shop in the area and to 
    use our car parks. Low tariffs and 2 hours free parking usually does the trick.
-  What we need to do is sneak in a new term or condition into the contract which most will
   fail to notice.....and those who do will find it incredibly hard to abide by. A term which will 
   regularly snare and entrap tens of thousands into handing over their money.
-  I've got an idea .....a real gem.....guaranteed to generate a huge new block of PCN's
-  Great.....let's hear it then
-  Well , we put up on the signage that cars must not only park within the bays but also
   they must be " facing straight and properly aligned ". This means any motorist who parks
   at an angle ........even one degree out.......can be clobbered. All we need to do is provide 
   photographic proof 
-   Yes....I can see the beauty in this.... in that if one motorists has parked up at an angle, 
    others will .......or perhaps even forced .....to do the same. It's absolutely brilliant...... 
-   Don't we just love being part of this money making racket

    
  
        

RIP OFF PARKING v. BIGOT JOHNSON  (2017)......Case No. 4

Bigot was on a roll. With Parliament about to stick the boot in to these cowboy parking companies , Bigot decided to stick one in of his own. This time he parked up and keyed in "FUCK OFF " into the ticket machine,  which duly issued a ticket with the same expletive details. Not surprisingly he found himself in court defending  yet another claim of failing to purchase a valid Pay and Display ticket.

Counsel for the Plaintiff  ( CP ) : The receipt clearly shows that car registration details which were entered was not the full and correct registration as per the terms and conditions. Clearly the defendant's behaviour was nothing short of pure provocation  and wilfulness. He validated the incorrect details , and therefore one can clearly see the payment process was not followed correctly.
B-J : But you still kept the money ......didn't you ? So do I assume that this money was confiscated as part of my punishment , or was in fact treated as payment for the 2 hours parking. 
CP : Ah.....although a payment was made , no payment was made for the vehicle parked at this site. The cameras have no entry or exit records for the car with the registration "Fuck Off "......and only the owner of the car is entitled to a refund. Your vehicle's registration was on camera but there was no payment made for it. In other words Bigot you screwed up big time for sure.
B-J: So I take it....no contract was ever entered into for the car RTB 65 SNN
CP : No.....
B-J : So how can there be a breach of contract then.....if there was no contract ?
CP : But you did enter into a contract.....
B-J : Yes ....but only for a car that didn't exist.... because according to you ...no vehicle with the " F O " registration parked at the site. You see the ticket that was issued was valid but only for that car. You can not now claim it was an invalid ticket for the car with the RTB registration. There was no ticket issued for that registration , because I chose not to enter into a contract with the company for that particular car. I set out to commit an act of trespass.
CP :  Oh....
Judge : Oh indeed.....this claim will therefore be struck out on two grounds. Firstly , it was brought under the wrong heading. Secondly , no damage or loss was ever incurred by the company. 
CP : Hold on a moment...what about non-payment of a ticket......loss of ticket revenue ?
Judge : Well that didn't occur either..... since Bigot did hand over money there and then simply to compensate the company for the exact loss you now allege. Rip Off were never at any point in time out of pocket. 
CP : I believe my client is being had here ....
Judge : Just like the tens of thousands of motorists who have well and truly been had by Rip Off Parking over the years ....because they didn't have the balls to stand up against this mean, mercenary, money grabbing client of yours  

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 )

RIP OFF PARKING DIRECTORS' BAR ROOM CONVERSATION GETS CAUGHT ON TAPE AGAIN......

- 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 
  profits 
- I know.....it 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 




















   

REALLYOUTTOGETYOU  PARKING SERVICES v. BIGOT-JOHNSON  ( 2017)  ......Case No.3

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 boy....do 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 Lord....no.....the company will always apply common sense mixed with a huge measure of favouritism and bias ......in 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

EXCEL AT SCAMMING v. BIGOT-JOHNSON ( 2017)

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 : Bigot....you 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 : Bigot....you 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 

PARKING COWBOYS PLAN TO RIDE ROUGHSHOD OVER MOTORISTS YET AGAIN......

( 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 "......it'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 


         

TWO RIP OFF PARKING DIRECTORS ARE CAUGHT ON TAPE HAVING THE FOLLOWING CONVERSATION........

- 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

  
     

REALLYOUTTOGETYOU PARKING SERVICES v. BIGOT-JOHNSON (2017)    Case No.2

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. 

REALLYOUTTOGETYOU PARKING SERVICES  v. BIGOT-JOHNSON (2017)   Case No. 1

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 yes.....it 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 monkeys......my 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

RECEIVED A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE FOR ENTERING INCORRECT CAR REGISTRATION PLATE DETAILS ?   THEN READ ON.........

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.

RIP OFF PARKING v. BIGOT-JOHNSON (2017) Case No. 3

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 .....one 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. 
  

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 allowed......an 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 not.....my 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,.....to 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.