Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Post hidden as FOS Complaint showed your name.   Redact, check through and repost if you want it back up.
    • Will do   dont understand  “f there's little or nothing to do with the debt or CCJ, that in itself is important.” Narrative mentioned 6 x payments of £100  for payment plan but not £2.5k. many thanks in advance
    • bet it doesn't say WILL anything a dca has ZERO legal powers to take anyone to court esp if they don't OWN the debt i'e they state our client is XXXXX   only the owner of a debt can do court.   and as a dca is NOT a bailiff etc etc let them huff n puff.
    • read the letter in post 23 here  Payplan - Cover My Life & Cover My Payments - Debt Management Plan Companies - Consumer Action Group it explains how the 3/6yrs works straight from the ombudsman's mouth.    
    • Hi, Everyone was so helpful with my last issue I am hoping for a bit more advice.   About three years ago I had a regular window cleaner company but they starting playing around. Firstly by randomly turning up to do the windows earlier than expected then one time they opted to come round and climb over my fence to do the back windows whilst I was out.  Then the fun started as they claimed to have cleaned the windows on two separate occasions but it was apparent they hadn't (the birds mess on the kitchen window was the clue) and they tried to bill me for the clean.   After two occasions of not cleaning the windows I stopped the direct debit system they used (go cardless) as I refused to pay for something they hadn't done. Queue the various demands for payment which I ignored. They sent letters in the post asking for £60 and a year ago said if I didn't pay they'd send me to the debt collection agency.    Today, I get a letter from elite debt collection in Sunderland asking for £72 for the window cleaning company as they are now acting for them with the popular if I don't pay in 7 days it's off to court threat.   Firstly,  as there was no signed agreement in place with the window cleaner firm can the debt collector add a fee to the alleged debt? Secondly, can they just rush off to money claim and take me to small claims without a letter before action?   I'm quite happy to defend if they did as they didn't clean my windows no matter what random invoice they may have on their systems.   Thank you  
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Mother fined £70 because she stayed in Asda car park to breastfeed baby daughter


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1977 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

A new mum was slapped with a £70 parking fine in an Asda car park because she was breastfeeding her baby.

Rosie Hayes, 34, was shocked to receive the charge after spending more than £150 on food, petrol, homewares and baby items.

After struggling to find anywhere to breastfeed daughter Ella, two months, she resorted to doing so in the passenger seat of her car.

This meant she overstayed the car park’s three hour limit by 26 minutes – but after appealing the fine and explaining the situation, she was still told to pay up.

A spokesman for Smart Parking said: "The car park at the marina is very busy, so is only available for Asda customers who receive 3 hours of free parking.

" At the car park there are 24 signs that clearly highlight its terms and conditions of use."

"In the case of Ms Hayes she overstayed the free parking period, so correctly received a charge.

 

" However, as an act of goodwill we have now decided to cancel her charge.”

 

A spokesman for Asda said: "We're sorry for any upset caused and the charge has been cancelled."

 

She appealed to Smart with the same mitigating circumstance and they told her to pay.

 

 

A complaint to the principle who hired the [problem] gets the charge cancelled....

 

 

http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2015-09-23/mother-fined-70-because-she-stayed-in-asda-car-park-after-doing-her-shopping-to-breastfeed-baby-daughter/?ref=yfp

Link to post
Share on other sites

GRRRR! 'Act of goodwill' NO! Bad publicity and the fact these tickets are a con is why they cancelled it.

 

Any company with common sense would cancel these charges but of course, some of the parking industry has none.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its disgraceful, but I kind of agree with the Parking Comp...

Now before you go at me with Razors, You overstay 3 hours etc then I think that a penalty is due.

 

BUT.... for what its worth, she shoukdnt be penalized for something like that.

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Its disgraceful, but I kind of agree with the Parking Comp...

Now before you go at me with Razors, You overstay 3 hours etc then I think that a penaltyis due.

 

BUT.... for what its worth, she shoukdnt be penalizedfor something like that.

 

And what law allows that then?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I meant if you abuse staying over it :) You deserve it :p

 

However thats just my opinion...

 

Quite true as the charge is mostly generated by anpr these days, but they should actually read the appeals and make a common sense decision.

"Should"... What a wonderful word!

Link to post
Share on other sites

but the 3 hour limit is an arbitrary time set by the parking co, not the store. If the problem was really parking spaces being occupied then there are better solutions than a camera systemthat only acts after the event and doesnt differentiate between someone in this situation and a commuter parking all day and I dont just mean the time spent there..

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very rare I disagree with you fkofilee but on this occasion, I do.

 

Most Asdas have a baby changing facility but there is nowhere for mum to sit comfortably to breast feed properly and it is fairly unhygienic at the best of times so where does she d do so to protect her modesty. Not every woman wants to feed in public.

 

I must admit that spending 3 hours in Asda is strange but then I am a man and I never browse. I get what I want and get out.

 

I do know however how long it takes to feed new borns. My youngest two were breast fed (not by me!) and my ex had to set aside at least an hour per feed. As they get older, it gets easier to feed quicker. The parking company should have excercised common sense but of course, all they care about is the bottom line.

 

In my opinion, they should have cancelled the ticket but then we know they are a bunch of tits anyway.

 

 

:bolt:

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites
Its disgraceful, but I kind of agree with the Parking Comp...

Now before you go at me with Razors, You overstay 3 hours etc then I think that a penalty is due.

 

BUT.... for what its worth, she shoukdnt be penalized for something like that.

quote "Penalty is due ???. what penalty?.

we have no problem with a charge being made !,it's the amount that's in despute.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember that a lot of large stores also have full sized cafes in them.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Remember that a lot of large stores also have full sized cafes in them.

 

OK, I'm lost. What's that got to do with anything?

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well a new mother with a baby in tow will probably want to take the weight off her feet after doing the weekly shop. Even though there is nothing stopping her she decided to feed the baby in the car rather than the cafeteria

 

Typical male point of view, and i thought both parents shared parental responsiblity now equally?

 

Obviously not, gone are the days when the little women stayed at home, cooked the old mans dinner and looked after the home and kids

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well a new mother with a baby in tow will probably want to take the weight off her feet after doing the weekly shop. Even though there is nothing stopping her she decided to feed the baby in the car rather than the cafeteria

 

Nope, still lost. It matters not where the mother chose to feed the baby. The feed would have taken exactly the same amount of time to complete, and therefore the vehicle would have still been 26 minutes "late" leaving the car park. (And that's "late" according only to Not So Smart Parking, not anyone with an ounce of common sense or compassion)

 

Perhaps the mother also felt that her car would give her slightly more privacy than a (potentially) crowded cafeteria. Not every mother (who breastfeeds) wants to get her boobs out in public for some to stare at.

 

 

Typical male point of view, and i thought both parents shared parental responsiblity now equally?

 

Difficult for any male to take an active role in breastfeeding a baby though, wouldn't you say?

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fathers do the weekly shop with the baby, it is not unique that responsibility for just the female of the species

 

And what is wrong with a woman getting her boobs out in public to feed a baby??

 

That is her choice and should never be made to feel uncomfortable

 

It is a natural bodily function and a protected characterictic under the Equality Act, not unless you are content on contravening those protected characteristics

 

A private companies own terms and conditions do not take precedent over statutory duty

Edited by obiter dictum
Link to post
Share on other sites
Fathers do the weekly shop with the baby, it is not unique that responsibility for just the female of the species

 

And what is wrong with a woman getting her boobs out in public to feed a baby??

 

That is her choice and should never be made to feel uncomfortable

 

It is a natural bodily function and a protected characterictic under the Equality Act, not unless you are content on contravening those protected characteristics

 

A private companies own terms and conditions do not take precedent over statutory duty

 

 

Easy tiger.

 

I'd suggest that you read my post again. Properly this time.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oxymoron

 

In what way? I have not, at all, attempted to juxtapose the position. It is you that is reading between the lines and jumping to your own, incorrect, conclusion about what I have said.

 

 

I'll try to make it a little clearer for you.

 

THE MOTHER CHOSE to feed the baby in her car. That was her choice and she made it for whatever reason.

 

As far as (Not So) Smart Parking are concerned, it would matter not where THE MOTHER CHOSE to feed the baby, the act of feeding would have taken the same amount of time regardless to its location, so the cafe, car or sat on the "Thomas the Tank Engine" ride outside the door would have made no difference to the amount of time that it took.

 

For the record, I think that (Not So) Smart Parking are a bunch of money grabbing morons that only see the bottom line and don't care a jot about the reasons for an overstay in one of "their" carparks, and that the charge has rightly been cancelled, although only after approaching the principle it would seem.

 

 

 

Please don't try to read between the lines and attempt to put words into my mouth. If I require your assistance in making my meaning clear, I shall ask you for it.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...