There is nothing quite as satisfying as watching an entitled person face immediate, expensive consequences for their rudeness.
When a middle-aged woman decided that her five-minute errand was more important than accessibility laws, she dismissed a parking enforcement officer with a curt, arrogant phrase.
She told him to “deal with it.”
He did exactly that, delivering a perfect dose of malicious compliance that left the internet cheering.
Now, read the full story:
Richard is a hero. This story is a perfect example of how entitlement and rudeness often go hand-in-hand, and how satisfying it is when those two traits lead directly to a consequence.
The fact that Richard usually gives people a chance makes the woman’s immediate dismissal even more galling. She didn’t just break a rule; she actively disrespected the person whose job it is to enforce that rule.
When she told him to “deal with it,” she handed him the exact permission he needed to drop that £80 fine right onto her windshield. That expensive five minutes was a beautiful act of poetic justice.
The woman’s behavior—parking illegally and then aggressively dismissing the officer—is rooted in a deep sense of entitlement. She believes her immediate convenience outweighs any societal rule or the needs of others.
When that entitlement is challenged, the response is often aggressive dismissal, precisely because the entitled person believes they are immune to consequences.
As Dr. Robert V. Smith, a clinical psychologist, noted when discussing narcissistic entitlement, the immediate reaction is often to shut down the challenger: “They see the enforcement officer not as a person doing a job, but as an obstacle to their immediate gratification. The dismissal is a power play, an attempt to assert dominance.”
Unfortunately, this type of behavior has real-world, negative consequences for those who rely on accessible parking. According to a 2023 survey by the UK charity Disabled Motoring UK, over 90% of disabled drivers reported difficulty finding suitable parking due to the misuse of accessible bays.
The woman’s “five minutes” directly contributes to this systemic problem, forcing disabled individuals to walk further, wait longer, or abandon their shopping entirely.
Richard’s malicious compliance was effective because it used the woman’s own words against her. He didn’t argue or plead; he simply executed the highest level of “dealing with it” available to him.
The fine serves as a necessary deterrent, reminding entitled drivers that accessibility laws are not suggestions meant only for the inconvenient.
Check out how the community responded:
The vast majority of Redditors celebrated Richard’s swift and satisfying malicious compliance, agreeing that the woman deserved the fine.
Many commenters shared their own revenge fantasies or real-life stories involving people misusing disabled parking spots.
Several users felt that even an £80 fine wasn’t enough punishment for such blatant disregard for accessibility.
Finally, some Redditors offered thanks on behalf of the disabled community for Richard’s dedication to his job.
Richard’s story is a small, satisfying victory in the ongoing war against entitlement. The woman chose to be rude and dismissive, and Richard chose to enforce the law with perfect, bureaucratic precision.
It was a beautiful moment of malicious compliance that cost her £80.
What is the most satisfying act of malicious compliance you have ever witnessed?
