Asda Car park

[pin1onu]

ok so what do you suggest is done to solve this problem which will satisfy every one.

I've already given a couple of suggestions

 

As I understand it you agree that some form of control has to be used to help disabled and families who have children.

I suggest that if the signage was 30 foot high and 30 foot long with a clear message selfish sods would still abuse.

As I said above the signs don't work and you've just agreed. QED. The signs above use threats and as they stand are pretty empty threats at that. Penalty Charges are against the law. Why not try a different method.

 

Let us try to educate the morons among us to be more considerate

Quite agree.

 

While we're at it let's educate the morons who beleive that these signs are a good thing and that this method of solving the problem will work. As I've said earlier 10 out 10 for the trying to do something about the problem 0 out of 10 for the method.

[MikeBigg]

ok so what do you suggest is done to solve this problem which will satisfy every one.

 

Hmm. Satisfying everyone is hardly realistic.

 

What would I do? I'm not sure, but I wouldn't lie to my customers nor engage agents to lie on my behalf.

 

Furthermore, I wouldn't dress up the lies as good charitable works.

 

I am tired of companies (and government departments) trying to take my hard-earned money from me dishonestly.

 

By the by, I'm not fussed about parent and toddler spaces - I managed with my 4 kids - but using spaces set aside for less-able people is not on.

[Sidewinder]

Furthermore, I wouldn't dress up the lies as good charitable works.

 

The charitable donation will probably equate to a couple of quid per ticket with the PPC still raking off the lion's share.

[Bookworm]

The Sainsbury's in Bromley is plum in the town centre, where on street parking is at a premium. They have a scale of charges for the time you spend there and barriers. If you spend £5, you get up to 1 or 2 hours (can't remember which) free parking, and the more you spend, the longer you can stay. As a result, parking spaces are usually available, and I have seen no evidence of the abuse of special places, as there is space for all. I think it is a perfectly acceptable way of doing things.

[Sidewinder]

Our local Asda has (or had at least) a separate car park for Special Needs, whereby shoppers fill in a form with their registration number at Customer Services and a barrier controlled by ANPR then allows them access. Occasional users, or those changing their vehicle are still able to get in via an intercom to Customer Services placed by the barrier.

[emsgeorge]

I will stick my neck out and say .......

 

Clamping.

 

Clamp the sods who 'nip in for a packet of fags'.

 

Clamp the sods who 'nip in for a newspaper or a pint of milk'

 

Have it done in house by the supermarkets own security. (SIA'd of course)

 

Charge a nominal fee - £10, or no fee if you wanted to.

 

But most of all, make them wait for an hour at least before unclamping them. They have inconvenienced others, so you are inconveniencing THEM.

 

Problem solved. Because you are using store security staff, theres no conflict of interest. Because you aren't charging anything, theres no financial incentive. All you are doing is exactly what the person parking the car has done to others - inconvenience them.

 

Thoughts ??

[pin1onu]

I will stick my neck out and say .......

 

Clamping.

 

Clamp the sods who 'nip in for a packet of fags'.

 

Clamp the sods who 'nip in for a newspaper or a pint of milk'

 

Have it done in house by the supermarkets own security. (SIA'd of course)

 

Charge a nominal fee - £10, or no fee if you wanted to.

 

But most of all, make them wait for an hour at least before unclamping them. They have inconvenienced others, so you are inconveniencing THEM.

 

Problem solved. Because you are using store security staff, theres no conflict of interest. Because you aren't charging anything, theres no financial incentive. All you are doing is exactly what the person parking the car has done to others - inconvenience them.

 

Thoughts ??

Its one solution. They'd have to be very careful with compliance - i.e. prominent signs.

 

However the law does state that when an offer to pay has been made release must occur within a reasonable time. Given that in-house security people are on-site I think a wait of an hour would be "un-reasonable"

 

That said it will generate a lot of ill feeling. Given the aggravation that a lot of clampers face would the "inhouse" security want to take on clamping duties. I suspect not.

[MikeBigg]

They have inconvenienced others, so you are inconveniencing THEM.

 

Well, you may not have inconvenienced anyone - there are times when the reserved bays are virtually empty at my local sainsbury's, ie 9:30pm and often the bays are less than half full during the day.

 

If I were to park in a reserved bay at these times, I would have inconvenienced no-one.

[BADGER 69]

I agree with you Bookworm. There isn't really any need for the any manning of the car park. Cardiff Airport manages a similar thing by useing unmanned barriers, both on the in and out.

 

These poeple who abuse these reserved spaces do not realise that there is a need for more space between the vehicles to allow access for wheelchairs, push chairs and the like. I was once amazed by a woman who said to me that she could not see why they had to take so much space. When I pointed why she said that she had not thought of that.

[IIIUMINATI]

Emsgeorge

Good man exactly my thoughts

To over come the problem of the unreasonable time element I would clamp

all wheels.Are you parking in the right bays?Paul on patrolIn the third in the series of undercover stories, BBC South East Paul Siegert looked at the problems caused by able -bodied drivers parking in those bays marked for disabled users only.

Have your say »

Paul took a look at the problems facing disabled drivers who are being denied their designated parking spaces by able bodied drivers.

While filming he met Jan Scotney who explained what problems she faces, as a wheelchair user.

Jan outside the supermarket..

Blue badges and disabled bays go hand in hand, you can't use one without the other. The only people issued with blue badges are those who are registered with a permanent disability, or who need to escort a disabled person, who cannot for various reasons walk any distance unaided.

Bays were marked out close to shops and local facilities so that the disabled could easily access them. Some bays are above average size for manoeuvring of wheelchairs and allowing doors to be fully opened.

Unfortunately a lot of the time these are taken up by people they were not intended for, the unthinking, uncaring members of society who can't be bothered to walk.

Bay abuse is not new but it is ongoing, with up to 30% of non-disabled people at the last survey, taking spaces away from those less fortunate than themselves.

Jan leaving her car.

Just try and imagine what it would be like if YOU were put in the position of not being able to walk unaided for 50 yards. Horrific??? But it happens and I'm sure you would be mortified to think you couldn't enjoy all the everyday pleasures we all take for granted.

My wheelchair has replaced my legs and has to be carried at all times, but I still drive and I need entry to my vehicle via a side door. The width of the disabled bays allow for this but imagine if I park in a normal bay and no-one read my notice saying "Please leave 8 meters for access".

Believe me, I have sat in rain and shine waiting for car drivers to return before I could load my chair aboard!

Some people are born disabled and others become less able but we are still members of society who have needs and dreams. Let's hope you never have the need to use a disabled bay and if you do I hope you can find one.

[patdavies]

Illuminati,

 

1) Disabled bays on private car parks have no legal existence whatsoever.

 

2) Blue Badges are issued for use on the public highway and publicly-owned car parks

 

Thus any statement that requires a Blue Badge to use a parking bay marked disabled in a private supermarket car park is simply false.

 

At out local Tesco a few years age, they expanded the store and moved the entrance/exit by about 100 yards. New disabled markings were painted on the bays nearest to the new entrance (as you would expect). The old disabled bays were left marked up despite the fact that they are further from the entrance than many 'normal' spaces. So a whole tranche of the car park is left unused by most drivers, although the spaces would never be used by a disabled driver.

 

As to parent/child spaces, these also have no legal authority and are simply a marketing issue.

[Bookworm]

Disabled bays on private car parks have no legal existence whatsoever.

Not quite true, although I guess you mean as regards traffic law. Under disability law, however, stores are obligated to have them in one form or another.

 

This opens an interesting point: If disabled spaces can not be kept free for disabled drivers, it could open the store wide open to accusations that they in fact only pay lip-service to the DDA, with all the legal implications this entails. But of course, as you say, the road traffic laws don't apply there, so what can be done to eradicate the problem?

[BADGER 69]

Illuminati,

 

1) Disabled bays on private car parks have no legal existence whatsoever.

 

2) Blue Badges are issued for use on the public highway and publicly-owned car parks

 

Thus any statement that requires a Blue Badge to use a parking bay marked disabled in a private supermarket car park is simply false.

 

At out local Tesco a few years age, they expanded the store and moved the entrance/exit by about 100 yards. New disabled markings were painted on the bays nearest to the new entrance (as you would expect). The old disabled bays were left marked up despite the fact that they are further from the entrance than many 'normal' spaces. So a whole tranche of the car park is left unused by most drivers, although the spaces would never be used by a disabled driver.

 

As to parent/child spaces, these also have no legal authority and are simply a marketing issue.

 

 

I am amazed. This is so selfish. Do you know what it is like to be disabled, or to look after someone who is. My late wife was disabled and I know how other poeples selfishness can make life so much more difficult for the disabled: life is difficult enough as it is for them without some ignorant pig making it more difficult. You my experience it yourself yet. :x

[robin9342]

I am amazed. This is so selfish. Do you know what it is like to be disabled, or to look after someone who is. My late wife was disabled and I know how other poeples selfishness can make life so much more difficult for the disabled: life is difficult enough as it is for them without some ignorant pig making it more difficult. You my experience it yourself yet. :x

 

I am sure Patdavies is not being ignorant, simply pointing out the law!

 

My Tesco will "allow" others to park in disabled bays without a blue badge. For example, if you have broken your leg.

[Sidewinder]

Badger 69 - I don't think that anybody was intending to say that disabled parking spaces are unneccessary, unworthy or that able bodied people should be encouraged to deliberately use spaces reserved for special needs. There is however a (naturally) powerful case to be made on both sides which inflames opinion. The issue at stake is whether it is right for PPCs to charge those able bodied people who use spaces reserved for disabled customers or parents with children. A supermarket or PPC has no legal statute to enforce 'fines' or to charge those who break the 'rules', unlike those which exist to enforce on-street parking regulations. Time and again though one will see drivers with quite properly acquired blue badges use spaces close to the door, waiting for one to become free then breaking into a trot across the threshold and walking around the store for an hour or so before lifting bags into the car and leaving, yet at the same time one can see people struggling to walk, perhaps suffering an injury who cannot park in reserved spaces as they do not qualify for the blue badge. An understandable anomaly exists as to why the blue badge holder is allowed to park by the door, but could have parked in a normal space and walked a few yards further, yet the person finding movement difficult would receive a parking ticket if using a space closer to the entrance. Using Pat's example, Tesco have gone to extremes to create extra disabled parking spaces even though some are rarely used as they are now too far from the entrance, but being reserved this is denying those bays to the able-bodied. Is a blue badge holder charged for parking in a non-disabled space? Are PPCs charging customers because they can or because the store is being deprived of income through one person being able to park at the expense of somebody else?

 

Don't misunderstand me - I have a disabled mother and father in law and know well the frustration involved in moving about when there is insufficient provision to do so, but it is equally annoying to non-disabled shoppers when a car park is full, it is close to closing time and the only free spaces are reserved for disabled but are not being used. Supermarkets in particular are going overboard to make themselves disabled and parent friendly but sometimes alienate the able-bodied who also spend good money at the store week in week out. There is no easy answer as with the greater drive for supermarkets to attract customers it is only a matter of time before we see reserved spaces for disabled shoppers, parents with children, those with sprained ankles and bunions, special spaces for wet weather where you have not got an umbrella, basket shoppers, big trolley shoppers - each could make a case for needing special treatment.

[sean the sheep]

Hi - I read an article in my local paper last week stating that Asda will now be 'fining' anyone wrongly parked in 'Parent & child' & disabled spaces. Most of you will be familiar with the standard article which is being published in newspapers around the UK.

 

http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg54/oscarcat15/MerthyrExpressArticle.jpg

 

After easily seeing off a private parking companies request for £60 last September by sending them the relevent letters re contact the driver not the RK etc and then ignoring them (nothing heard since October), I sent a letter to the said newspaper to put their readers straight on the laws re Asda's ignorance to the law relating to private car parks and amazingly it got published in this weeks letters page. This letter will now be read by thousands of people and will certainly open up their eyes to the unlawful antics of Asda & their PPC.

 

http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg54/oscarcat15/NewapaperArticle31-08-08.jpg

 

I have to say I agree with the fact that there should be a scheme to allow for priority parking for disabled & parent/child. However I totally disagree with the schemes the supermarkets are trying to put in place by employing these [causing problems] PPC's knowing full well they are unlawful.

[Sidewinder]

That should put the cat amongst the pigeons! I can't see many private parking tickets getting paid in your area for a while. Be interesting to see if the PPC put up their argument next week.....but I doubt it!

[patdavies]

I am amazed. This is so selfish. Do you know what it is like to be disabled, or to look after someone who is. My late wife was disabled and I know how other poeples selfishness can make life so much more difficult for the disabled: life is difficult enough as it is for them without some ignorant pig making it more difficult. You my experience it yourself yet. :x

 

I am also amazed.

 

I fail to see that my stating the legal facts can be selfish and I also fail to understand what exactly in my post has triggered your diatribe.

 

Nowhere, do I encourage people to park in these spaces - I merely point out their unenforcability in law.

 

Whether I know what it is like to be disabled is totally irrelevant to the enforcability of these marked spaces on private land.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Illuminati,

 

1) Disabled bays on private car parks have no legal existence whatsoever.

 

. . .

 

As to parent/child spaces, these also have no legal authority and are simply a marketing issue.

 

While I agree that this is the case in the majority of instances it would be perfectly possible in English Law to formulate a contract with the driver of the vehicle whereby they agree not to park in places designated for the use of disabled persons (or any other category - including those with children). This could be enforced by clamping under the current law, I can also see how it would be possible to structure a charge of a supplementary fee (but some collection issues remain).

 

The fact that this does not happen at present is as a result of (i) ignorance (ii) laziness (iii) lack of willingness to invest - on the part of the landowners/tenants.

[patdavies]

While I agree that this is the case in the majority of instances it would be perfectly possible in English Law to formulate a contract with the driver of the vehicle whereby they agree not to park in places designated for the use of disabled persons (or any other category - including those with children). This could be enforced by clamping under the current law, I can also see how it would be possible to structure a charge of a supplementary fee (but some collection issues remain).

 

 

Yes, I agree. However, to do this, takes us back to the old signage issues, I guess.

 

We have a retail park near here that has disabled spaces. Each space, has in front of it that a vehicle not displaying a disabled badge is liable to be clamped, etc. However, it doesn't say blue badge. I could write my own 'disabled badge' on a piece of A5 and display it - thus removing the implied consent to clamping.

 

So, a part of that contract would surely require the landowner/etc. to issue their own disabled badges/permits for use on their car park.

[BADGER 69]

My apologies to you Patdavies for having misunderstood you. The people who abuse the blue badge scheme infuriate me. Also those who obstruct the drop downs in the pavement provided for the disabled. I would like to force them to have to be in a wheel chair for just a week.

 

I think that providers of private parking could very easily make their systems legal without resorting to the methodes they use.

[IIIUMINATI]

Hi patdavies

Better get printing and print a few for your mates. (Which colour do you prefere)

Could you post a template we could all use.

[pin1onu]

I am also amazed.

 

I fail to see that my stating the legal facts can be selfish and I also fail to understand what exactly in my post has triggered your diatribe.

 

Nowhere, do I encourage people to park in these spaces - I merely point out their unenforcability in law.

 

Whether I know what it is like to be disabled is totally irrelevant to the enforcability of these marked spaces on private land.

 

It is an interesting point that Pat makes. We shouldn't be shooting the messenger.

 

The real farce in all of this is that planning applications for retail complexes, new buildings etc must by law contain provisons for disabled parking and disabled access but totally ignore the matter of how to ensure these spaces are used by those they are intended for and how they can be effectively controlled.

 

Surely the real villains are the councils who approve these planning applications and the planners/developers/landowners who make them.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

. . .

 

Surely the real villains are the councils who approve these planning applications and the planners/developers/landowners who make them.

 

No, the villains are clearly those who park in places that have been set aside for those who have a greater need.

 

It's a case of "two wrongs don't make a right".

[sean the sheep]

That should put the cat amongst the pigeons! I can't see many private parking tickets getting paid in your area for a while. Be interesting to see if the PPC put up their argument next week.....but I doubt it!

 

Correct !! No replies whatsoever in this weeks newspaper or its letter pages. Thought Asda or its PPC may possibly reply. My feeling is that they or anyone else who wanted to dispute the contents and facts of the letter haven't had their opinions published as I advised the newspaper to check the facts for themselves (pointing them in the direction of this site) and ultimately they have decided that there is no argument against anything in my letter.

I've had lots of people telling me what an informative letter this was and how it has opened their eyes to the [problem] that Asda are proposing to carry out and have not had 1 negative response or comment.

As Sidewinder points out, I can't see many private parking tickets getting paid in this area for a while.