They tried to pretend the Data Protection Act does not allow them to produce a copy of the contract. This is clearly nonsense.
They tried to pretend the Parking Charge of £70 is a core contractual term.
If it was a core term, it would be given equal prominence to the actual core contractual terms, shown here on the signage.
The Prankster cannot see that there is a charge of £75 anywhere on this sign. Perhaps it is in the small print - but if so then it is not a core term. Despite this, CEL seem to have a disconnect with reality, asserting that the charge is mentioned in large bold font.
Although CEL argue the amount is a contractual charge, the NtK states the charge is for breach of contract - payment not made in accordance with signage.
The signage small print, happily for us decoded by the motorist in his appeal, also confirms the charge is for breaching conditions. It also confirms it is a deterrent, and not therefore based on a pre-estimate of loss calculation.
Later on, they say it is a pre-estimate of loss after all.
They list various random categories, 'some of' which make up the charge, in the hope the assessor will magically guess which ones they are.
Which leads us on to the picture of the week.
The Prankster freely admits the only reason for this entire blog is the naked woman spread-eagled over the bonnet of the car.
The Parking Prankster