RIP OFF PARKING'S TOP MAN TALKS TO AN UNDERCOVER BBC REPORTER
- Nice little business you run here
- Not half.....we make so much money it makes my eyes water
- I guess the market potential is huge
- It's massive..... given the fact its customer base is made up of stupid, spineless motorists
who we can fleece over and over again.... and of course with more people using cars to
go shopping at places where parking spaces are at a premium......the scene is set to cash
in on these suckers left, right and centre
- Like shoting fish in a barrel ?
- Exactly
- But surely customers matter ? Shouldn't meeting their needs be part of your company's
mission statement ?
- Bollocks to that......this type of customer is nothing more than a cash cow that needs to be
milked dry......or to put it another way........butchered
- Oh
- And yes...... customers are mentioned in the company's mission statement in that we
commit ourselves to treating them all equally and in the same way
- What way is that then ?
- We treat them all like shit
- Well I never
- If any of our terms and conditions are broken.....no matter what pathetic reasons
motorists come back with to have their parking charges cancelled or reduced ....
we set about them in a unforgiving, pernicious way......such is the nature of our
voracious policies......there no room in business for sentiment or compassion. We treat
them all the same whether they are alive or dead
- What....even when they are dead ?
- Absolutely ......just because a motorist dies at the wheel of his car seconds after parking
it up in a bay......the fact he fails to purchase a ticket still means we have a legitimate claim on his estate for that £150 outstanding parking charge
- So do all motorists pay up ?
- I should say so.......not many can withstand the relentless onslaught of harassing letters,
threats and intimidation ? Indeed.....the majority cave in straightaway.....despite the fact
we obviously go out of our way to trick , deceive and entrap them. Even those who refuse
to pay the fines straightaway eventually capitulate when we up the ante and threaten them
with bailiffs, CCJs and loss of their credit ratings.......but then of course we do encounter
a very small, stubborn, well-educated group of motorists , who are more than prepared
to fight their case in court
- So do any of them win ?
- Unfortunately yes.....but we can't afford bow down and accept that we're batting on a
losing wicked......Good Lord no......the company will keep on persevering with taking
motorists to court come what may.......because the fear factor our policy creates far far
outweighs any of the decisions that often go against us
- Clearly then .....your policy is akin to a war of attrition......which most motorists don't
want to engage in
- Brilliant isn't it....
- Well , thanks for that interview .......the recording of that will go out on Panaroma next
week
- You little sod
- Well, that's what happens when you upset the producer of the programme by issuing
an unwarranted PCN to his wife , who keyed in an "5" instead of a "S"
Monday, 12 February 2018
Saturday, 10 February 2018
PARKING FINES : BIGOT FINDS A LEGITIMATE WAY TO
AVOID GETTING PCNs
In many unmanned private car parks the camera is king. Vehicle registration plates are photographed on entry and exit , giving these parking cowboys countless opportunities to issue PCNs for overstaying and entering incorrect registration plate details. Yet despite this supposed foolproof technology , Bigot found the perfect riposte as highlighted in this following landmark case.
Smart Arse Parking Solutions v. Bigot-Johnson (2018)
Counsel for the plaintiff : We believe this man......the defendant .....entered the car in his metallic grey Toyota Corolla and left without paying. Unfortunately we have no photo records to prove this but by a fortunate co-incidence one of Smart Arse's employees was in a pub where Bigot was proudly boasting about his amazing coup
B-J : Show me the evidence that I used that car park on that day
CP : We do have photos of a car similar in colour and make to yours .....but unfortunately the vehicle registration plates were obscured from view by a pedestrian
B-J : Still no proof that is was my car in those photos
CP : No....however although the plates were not visible there was a woman of your age who walked just in front of the car on entry.......and just behind the vehicle on exit.
B-J : An amazing co-incidence
CP : Yes indeed....but my client strongly suspects it was you who was up to no good and foul play........and that your wife had a part to play in it
B-J : Well ...Smart Arse Parking knows all about foul play being the perpetrator of the lowest, meanest, most dastardly tricks known to mankind in entrapping motorists and then bullying them relentlessly..... until they submit into paying unfair and unwarranted PCNs
Judge : Well , as I see it suspicion alone is not evidence enough to establish Bigot as the
culprit involved. Moreover hearsay evidence of a confession is inadmissible too. Case dismissed.......and by the way Bigot..... how far from the car would a pedestrian have to be to interfere and block out the camera's view ?
B-J : Well....having no actual experience to draw upon....I would offer an opinion of around four to six feet
Judge : Useful information that......thank you very much indeed
CP : Your Honour.....motorists are not allowed to get away with such practices
Judge : Ah....but there's nothing in the company's on-site signage that states otherwise.
And in any case there is nothing in law which can forbid a random pedestrian or stranger to walk in front and behind slow moving vehicles in a car park. People milling about in car parks happens all the time. And freedom of movement is a sacred democratic right is it not ?
CP : Oh my God .....Smart Arse directors are going to be really pissed off by this outcome
Judge : I'm glad to hear it
B-J : Me too
AVOID GETTING PCNs
In many unmanned private car parks the camera is king. Vehicle registration plates are photographed on entry and exit , giving these parking cowboys countless opportunities to issue PCNs for overstaying and entering incorrect registration plate details. Yet despite this supposed foolproof technology , Bigot found the perfect riposte as highlighted in this following landmark case.
Smart Arse Parking Solutions v. Bigot-Johnson (2018)
Counsel for the plaintiff : We believe this man......the defendant .....entered the car in his metallic grey Toyota Corolla and left without paying. Unfortunately we have no photo records to prove this but by a fortunate co-incidence one of Smart Arse's employees was in a pub where Bigot was proudly boasting about his amazing coup
B-J : Show me the evidence that I used that car park on that day
CP : We do have photos of a car similar in colour and make to yours .....but unfortunately the vehicle registration plates were obscured from view by a pedestrian
B-J : Still no proof that is was my car in those photos
CP : No....however although the plates were not visible there was a woman of your age who walked just in front of the car on entry.......and just behind the vehicle on exit.
B-J : An amazing co-incidence
CP : Yes indeed....but my client strongly suspects it was you who was up to no good and foul play........and that your wife had a part to play in it
B-J : Well ...Smart Arse Parking knows all about foul play being the perpetrator of the lowest, meanest, most dastardly tricks known to mankind in entrapping motorists and then bullying them relentlessly..... until they submit into paying unfair and unwarranted PCNs
Judge : Well , as I see it suspicion alone is not evidence enough to establish Bigot as the
culprit involved. Moreover hearsay evidence of a confession is inadmissible too. Case dismissed.......and by the way Bigot..... how far from the car would a pedestrian have to be to interfere and block out the camera's view ?
B-J : Well....having no actual experience to draw upon....I would offer an opinion of around four to six feet
Judge : Useful information that......thank you very much indeed
CP : Your Honour.....motorists are not allowed to get away with such practices
Judge : Ah....but there's nothing in the company's on-site signage that states otherwise.
And in any case there is nothing in law which can forbid a random pedestrian or stranger to walk in front and behind slow moving vehicles in a car park. People milling about in car parks happens all the time. And freedom of movement is a sacred democratic right is it not ?
CP : Oh my God .....Smart Arse directors are going to be really pissed off by this outcome
Judge : I'm glad to hear it
B-J : Me too
EXCEL AT SCAMMING v. BIGOT-JOHNSON (2018)
This was the case which this notorious parking bully boy believed it could win. At long last Bigot would be defeated in court. Not only was he up for non-payment of a parking fee but also criminal damage to property.
Counsel for the plaintiff : Bigot......do you admit to failing to pay for one hour's parking and destroying one of Excel's highly sophisticated ticket machines
B-J : No....
CP : Well , the facts speak for themselves. The company received no monetary payment for the one hour stay, and we have dozens of photos depicting the carnage inflicted upon the ticket machine ......which I might add was left beyond repair
B-J : Ah well....the machine was clearly faulty because my first £1 coin got stuck in the slot.I tried to retrieve it by using a thin piece of wire but to no avail. So I telephoned the Excel's number to explain the difficulty I was in and to find out what my options were if any.
CP : Yes ?
B-J : I asked them if it was OK to have " another go " at retrieving my coin. I was told " yes, by all means ", which I took as blanket permission to use any other method that I saw fit.
CP : But setting about the ticket machine with a sledge hammer and other heavy duty tools , which you rather conveniently had in the back of your car was not what the company envisaged.
B-J : Permission was given with no restrictions in place. I think " by all means " says it all. They never enquired as to what means I might be employing. Drastic action called for drastic measures.
CP : I'm sorry but your actions amounted to criminal damage ........the like of which Excel has never seen in all its years of operation
B-J : My actions were the only means by which I could achieve my objective. Indeed , I successfully managed to retrieve my coin from the wreckage scattered about my feet. As to what happened to all the other coins strewn about the place I haven't a clue , but I do recall a huge queue of people with itchy fingers and big smiles ready to dive in as soon as I left the scene.
CP : Ah ......but there's still the matter of non-payment
B-J: Yes .......I intended to make a payment at the other ticket machine, which was at the opposite end of the car park. However , some other motorist had been inspired by what I was doing.....and had already set about that machine with a hefty crowbar and other implements of destruction. So you see ....payment was now impossible...... and as a consequence of that..... the possibility of forming a contract had gone completely.
Judge : I agree.....when performance.......ie payment.......was rendered impossible for lack of ticket machines in good working condition , it was obvious that acceptance of the offer could never take place. Therefore, in such circumstances neither party has any rights against the other. Case dismissed.
Friday, 9 February 2018
RIP OFF PARKING DIRECTORS CAUGHT YET AGAIN ON TAPE HAVING A JOLLY CONVERSATION ..........
- This racket we're operating is amazing
- Yeh.....it's a wonder the Krays didn't think of this first
- Legalised extortion is what they would call it
- I know.....so it's not surprising we're getting bad press reviews.....and motorists forums on
the internet slagging us off big time
- Our company reputation and public image is shit......but who cares so long as the money
keeps rolling in
- Yes....and even though thousands of motorists get caught out each week vowing
never to return to any of our sites.......there are tens of thousands more ready and
willing to take their place
- Yes....treating our motoring customers like scumbags doesn't impact badly at all on our
business turnover. We're still making money hand over fist.
- Indeed, motorists ......thank God.....are ignorant gullible sapheads.......nothing more than
a load of mugs, dipsticks, dopes, soft touches, easy prey.....error-prone fools who find
it impossible to keep time ..... and key in their car registration plates correctly
- I know.....I've been done myself parking up at an Excel car park....but a quick phone call
to their top man explaining who I was immediately resulted with an instant apology and
the cancellation of the PCN
- Quite right......the brotherhood has to stand together shoulder to shoulder
- It's so important that all the private car parking companies work together to ensure that
the law doesn't change in favour of the motorist. That would be an utter disaster. But
thankfully we have the funds now to lobby and persuade MPs into thwarting or watering
down any intended legislation that could undermine our hugely successful business
model. The power of money eh ?
- Yes......as it stands we're also winning the battle to convince more and more retail parks
to let us in to find desperately needed solutions to resolve their traffic flow problems. The
fact there were never any problems in the first place seems irrelevant. Giving them a
financial sweetener will always do the trick. Once in ....motorists' will then find their
goose is well and truly cooked, while we of course snap up the golden eggs
- But surely some of these supermarkets will suffer a drop in customer turnover if a
growing number of motorists fail to return ?
- Very unlikely.....because as I said before .....there are hundreds more motorists who are
willing to their place...... given that demand for available parking spaces will always
exceed supply. We are in a perfect win-win situation.
- Well if that is the case why not screw the motorists even more by upping the PCN charge
to £150........we can commercially justify it on the grounds that we have to employ far
more admin staff to help process and chase up the ever-increasing number of PCNs
we issue each week
- Why not indeed
- Is there any champagne left?
- This racket we're operating is amazing
- Yeh.....it's a wonder the Krays didn't think of this first
- Legalised extortion is what they would call it
- I know.....so it's not surprising we're getting bad press reviews.....and motorists forums on
the internet slagging us off big time
- Our company reputation and public image is shit......but who cares so long as the money
keeps rolling in
- Yes....and even though thousands of motorists get caught out each week vowing
never to return to any of our sites.......there are tens of thousands more ready and
willing to take their place
- Yes....treating our motoring customers like scumbags doesn't impact badly at all on our
business turnover. We're still making money hand over fist.
- Indeed, motorists ......thank God.....are ignorant gullible sapheads.......nothing more than
a load of mugs, dipsticks, dopes, soft touches, easy prey.....error-prone fools who find
it impossible to keep time ..... and key in their car registration plates correctly
- I know.....I've been done myself parking up at an Excel car park....but a quick phone call
to their top man explaining who I was immediately resulted with an instant apology and
the cancellation of the PCN
- Quite right......the brotherhood has to stand together shoulder to shoulder
- It's so important that all the private car parking companies work together to ensure that
the law doesn't change in favour of the motorist. That would be an utter disaster. But
thankfully we have the funds now to lobby and persuade MPs into thwarting or watering
down any intended legislation that could undermine our hugely successful business
model. The power of money eh ?
- Yes......as it stands we're also winning the battle to convince more and more retail parks
to let us in to find desperately needed solutions to resolve their traffic flow problems. The
fact there were never any problems in the first place seems irrelevant. Giving them a
financial sweetener will always do the trick. Once in ....motorists' will then find their
goose is well and truly cooked, while we of course snap up the golden eggs
- But surely some of these supermarkets will suffer a drop in customer turnover if a
growing number of motorists fail to return ?
- Very unlikely.....because as I said before .....there are hundreds more motorists who are
willing to their place...... given that demand for available parking spaces will always
exceed supply. We are in a perfect win-win situation.
- Well if that is the case why not screw the motorists even more by upping the PCN charge
to £150........we can commercially justify it on the grounds that we have to employ far
more admin staff to help process and chase up the ever-increasing number of PCNs
we issue each week
- Why not indeed
- Is there any champagne left?
Wednesday, 7 February 2018
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
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
Tuesday, 6 February 2018
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 .
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.
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.
Saturday, 3 February 2018
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
- 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
Friday, 2 February 2018
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
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
Monday, 29 January 2018
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 )
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 )
Saturday, 27 January 2018
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
- 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
Wednesday, 24 January 2018
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
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
Tuesday, 16 January 2018
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
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
Monday, 15 January 2018
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
( 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
Sunday, 14 January 2018
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
- 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)