Reputations

[Mossycat]

OK from reading this forum I gather that a lot of private parking companies don't care about their reputations, they play the numbers game.

 

But has anyone tried suggesting to companies that employ them that they are aiding and abetting in a crime?

 

A lot of very knowledgeable posters have argued extremely well that the wording used by the companies (both on the tickets and in their letters) is fraudelent and is really an attempt to obtain money by deception.

 

Companies that employ them (I am thinking of Supermarkets like Sainsbury's, Tesco, Asda etc) however usually go out of their way to protect their reputation, so I was wondering if anyone had tried writing to any of these supermarkets pointing out that the companies they sub-contract their parking enforcement to are breaking the law and pointing out that now you have told them they should investigate and act on it otherwise they become an accessory to the crime.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Mossycat

 

(Yes I am planning something)

[BADGER 69]

Yes I have written to ASDA pointing out that they have no statutory Authority to issue fines and that it is illegal for them to do this. So far they have ignored it.

[ShortlyTdwarf]

Yes I have written to ASDA pointing out that they have no statutory Authority to issue fines and that it is illegal for them to do this. So far they have ignored it.

 

So have I, repeatedly, for a ticket I got for parking in a disabled bay. Despite the fact that my disabled badge is permanently stuck to my dashboard. ASDA didn't want to know and said it was a matter to take up with TCP as they were the ones who issued the ticket.

 

So much for their supposed concern for the disabled in their car parks.

[pin1onu]

OK from reading this forum I gather that a lot of private parking companies don't care about their reputations, they play the numbers game.

 

But has anyone tried suggesting to companies that employ them that they are aiding and abetting in a crime?

 

A lot of very knowledgeable posters have argued extremely well that the wording used by the companies (both on the tickets and in their letters) is fraudelent and is really an attempt to obtain money by deception.

 

Companies that employ them (I am thinking of Supermarkets like Sainsbury's, Tesco, Asda etc) however usually go out of their way to protect their reputation, so I was wondering if anyone had tried writing to any of these supermarkets pointing out that the companies they sub-contract their parking enforcement to are breaking the law and pointing out that now you have told them they should investigate and act on it otherwise they become an accessory to the crime.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Mossycat

 

(Yes I am planning something)

Mossy,

 

BBC Watchdog are becoming interested in this issue however they seem to be more concerned with the DVLA handing out our details.

 

It might be worth pointing the realities of the situation to Watchdog as they can give widespread publicity to the the practice and its illegality. The supermarkets I'm sure won't want their reputations besmirched in that sort of way.

[Mossycat]

Thanks for your replies Badger and ShortlyTdwarf, I suspected that they might respond with a take it up with the parking company response.

 

Pin1onu that's not a bad idea, in fact it's a slightly (read that as a lot) bigger idea than I was originally thinking.

 

Mossycat

[Rooster-UK]

Perhaps things have changed, but when a parking ticket is issued on a supermarket carpark, by employing the ticketing company to work on their behalf, they are also, by definition, employing the person who issues the ticket. Does he become a proxy employee?

If he is an employee then the supermarket is responsible.

Surely the supermarket have a duty to ensure that anyone who is employed by them or working on their behalf, works within the framework of the law.

 

Could be interesting.

 

Rooster.

[Mossycat]

Perhaps things have changed, but when a parking ticket is issued on a supermarket carpark, by employing the ticketing company to work on their behalf, they are also, by definition, employing the person who issues the ticket. Does he become a proxy employee?

If he is an employee then the supermarket is responsible.

Surely the supermarket have a duty to ensure that anyone who is employed by them or working on their behalf, works within the framework of the law.

 

Could be interesting.

 

Rooster.

 

That was my understanding, one I intend to push now that I have seen some of the postings on this site (I know where to come for advice now)

 

Mossycat

[Rooster-UK]

Good luck with it.

It could solve a lot of problems.

[pin1onu]

Surely the supermarket have a duty to ensure that anyone who is employed by them or working on their behalf, works within the framework of the law.

Just to add a bit of weight to this. When clamping is involved the landowner/agent has a responsability to employ licensed persons to do the clamping. There is a specific offense under the PSI legislation about employing unlicensed companies/individuals.

[emsgeorge]

But that doesn't cover ticketing, only clamping and towing. Which is why most companies use ticketing.

[pin1onu]

But that doesn't cover ticketing, only clamping and towing. Which is why most companies use ticketing.

Agreed but it shows that the lawmakers are thinking along the lines of making not just the clampers/ppc's liable but also the landowners.

[BADGER 69]

Rooster. What you are referring to is called vicarious liability. This only applies for an employee but does not apply to a business that is engaged as an agent. I discussed this very point with my law tutor, a barrister, and he explained the situation.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Rooster. What you are referring to is called vicarious liability. This only applies for an employee but does not apply to a business that is engaged as an agent. I discussed this very point with my law tutor, a barrister, and he explained the situation.

 

Which is governed by the law of agency.

 

If a principal employs an agent, and that agent either with the actual or apparent authority of their principal negligently causes loss, damage or harm then the principal is liable as if they had themselves caused the loss, damage or harm.

[Mossycat]

The angle I am looking at here is along the lines of 'Guilt by Association' or tarring the supermarket with the same brush as the parking contractors they employ.

 

Sometimes the actual legal position comes second to public opinion, particularly where reputations are involved.

 

I don't want to post too much openly about my plan because we do get trolls who read this but I might PM some of you for advice if that's OK.

 

Mossycat

[green_and_mean]

Not all supermarkets 'employ' enforcment companies some companies will enforce car parks for free.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Not all supermarkets 'employ' enforcment companies some companies will enforce car parks for free.

 

Doesn't change the agency arrangement though.