Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yep, I read that and thought about trying to find out what the consideration and grace period is at Riverside but not sure I can. I know they say "You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is"  but I doubt they would disclose it to the public, maybe I should have asked in my CPR 31.14 letter? Yes, I think I can get rid of 5 minutes. I am also going to include a point about BPA CoP: 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. I think that is Deception .... They giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other!
    • Six months of conflict have also taken a heavy economic toll.View the full article
    • the Town and Country [advertisments ] Regulations 2007 are not easy to understand. Most Council planing officials don't so it's good that you found one who knows. Although he may not have been right if the rogues have not been "controlling" in the car park for that long. The time only starts when the ANPR signs go up, not how long the area has been used as a car park.   Sadly I have checked Highview out and they have been there since at least 2014 . I have looked at the BPA Code of Practice version 8 which covers 2023 and that states Re Consideration and Grace Periods 13.3 Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN. It then goes on to explain a bit more further down 13.5 You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is. 13.6 Neither a consideration period or a grace period are periods of free parking and there is no requirement for you to offer an additional allowance on top of a consideration or grace period. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________So you have  now only overstayed 5 minutes maximum since BPA quote a minimum of 10 minutes. And it may be that the Riverside does have a longer period perhaps because of the size of the car park? So it becomes even more incumbent on you to remember where the extra 5 minutes could be.  Were you travelling as a family with children or a disabled person where getting them in and out of the car would take longer. Was there difficulty finding a space, or having to queue to get out of the car park . Or anything else that could account for another 5 minutes  without having to claim the difference between the ANPR times and the actual times.
    • Regarding a driver, that HAS paid for parking but input an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number.   This is an easy mistake to make, especially if a driver has access to more than one vehicle. First of all, upon receiving an NTK/PCN it is important to check that the Notice fully complies with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 before deciding how to respond of course. The general advice is NOT to appeal to the Private Parking Company as, for example, you may identify yourself as driver and in certain circumstances that could harm your defence at a later stage. However, after following a recent thread on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that, in the case of inputting an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number, which is covered by “de minimis” it may actually HARM your defence at a later stage if you have not appealed to the PPC at the first appeal stage and explained that you DID pay for parking and CAN provide proof of parking, it was just that an incorrect VRN was input in error. Now, we all know that the BPA Code of Practice are guidelines from one bunch of charlatans for another bunch of charlatans to follow, but my thoughts are that there could be problems in court if a judge decides that a motorist has not followed these guidelines and has not made an appeal at the first appeal stage, therefore attempting to resolve the situation before it reaches court. From BPA Code of Practice: Section 17:  Keying Errors B) Major Keying Errors Examples of a major keying error could include: • Motorist entered their spouse’s car registration • Motorist entered something completely unrelated to their registration • Motorist made multiple keying errors (beyond one character being entered incorrectly) • Motorist has only entered a small part of their VRM, for example the first three digits In these instances we would expect that such errors are dealt with appropriately at the first appeal stage, especially if it can be proven that the motorist has paid for the parking event or that the motorist attempted to enter their VRM or were a legitimate user of the car park (eg a hospital patient or a patron of a restaurant). It is appreciated that in issuing a PCN in these instances, the operator will have incurred charges including but not limited to the DVLA fee and other processing costs therefore we believe that it is reasonable to seek to recover some of these costs by making a modest charge to the motorist of no more than £20 for a 14-day period from when the keying error was identified before reverting to the charge amount at the point of appeal. Now, we know that the "modest charge" is unenforceable in law, however, it would be up to the individual if they wanted to pay and make the problem go away or in fact if they wanted to contest the issue in court. If the motorist DOES appeal to the PPC explaining the error and the PPC rejects the appeal and the appeal fails, the motorist can use that in his favour at court.   Defence: "I entered the wrong VRN by mistake Judge, I explained this and I also submitted proof of payment for the relevant parking period in my appeal but the PPC wouldn't accept that"   If the motorist DOES NOT appeal to the PPC in the first instance the judge may well use that as a reason to dismiss the case in the claimant's favour because they may decide that they had the opportunity to resolve the matter at a much earlier stage in the proceedings. It is my humble opinion that a motorist, having paid and having proof of payment but entering the wrong VRN, should make an appeal at the first appeal stage in order to prevent problems at a later stage. In this instance, I think there is nothing to be gained by concealing the identity of the driver, especially if at a later stage, perhaps in court, it is said: “I (the driver) entered the wrong VRN.” Whether you agree or not, it is up to the individual to decide …. but worth thinking about. Any feedback, especially if you can prove to the contrary, gratefully received.
    • Women-only co-working spaces are part of the new hybrid working landscape, but they divide opinion.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Private parking companies and their relationship with their retail clients


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3039 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Of course the private parking industry is really just a type of extraordinary rendition.

 

In the same way that legitimate governments which are not prepared to get involved in torture or other unsavoury practices against people who they suspect of having committed crimes, but instead have them whisked off to countries which are far less scrupulous, the big retail names such as Asda, Lidl, Aldi, Morrisons, Tesco and the rest prefer not to get their hands dirty with the business of inflicting punishments on their ordinary everyday customers for minor infractions such as overstaying five minutes or 10 minutes in a car park for whatever reason so instead they get the private parking industry to do the work for them.

 

The private parking companies are in the business of being hated. They're not bothered about their reputation. Their job is apparently to wage the proxy war on the ordinary customers of the big retail brands and at the same time to keep their big retail clients out of the picture so that the reputations and the goodwill of those big retail clients don't get dragged into the mud.

 

If you have a look at this private parking forum, you will see that the name of the retailer who owns the car park is scarcely ever mentioned – pretty well never. Everything is focused on the private parking company and of course that means that there simply doing their job rather well.

 

However, it has come to our notice that some of the retail names are starting to become a little troubled about possible damage to their reputation.

 

If the victims of private parking companies were more prepared to focus on the retail brand behind the car parking facility as well as the private parking company which is operating on their behalf, it might help to force the big retail brands to face up to the damage they are doing to the lives and the economy of the people who are falling foul of Draconian parking measures.

 

We understand that some of the retail brands are very receptive when their customers appealed to them directly to intervene in the levying of a parking fine by one of the parking management companies.

 

Names which have cropped up in various conversations have included Lidl and also Morrisons. However, it is very likely that the others also do not want trouble and we feel that if you have become the victim of some parking fine which has been levied as a result of some insignificant infraction of some alleged contractual terms and conditions, that it would be worth your while writing to the supermarket or retailer concerned – at their trading address (meaning at the car park address) with a copy also to the head office complaining about what has happened and asking for them to intervene and to have a parking fine cancelled.

 

We think that it is very important not to let the big retail brand clients benefit any more from the extraordinary rendition trick with their reputations are preserved even though at the end of the day, it is they who have decided to employ the private parking company.

 

If you have received a parking ticket then you should write to the retailer both that they local branch as well as the head office

Link to post
Share on other sites

Completely agree - all of the major retailers are now SO concerned over reputation and customer service that they will bend over backwards to create positive impressions which might gain or enhance customer loyalty. They simply cannot afford to lose more market share to discounters and are far more likely now to respond positively to complaints which are extremely simple to resolve!

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The question for me is – how did the private parking company salesman managed to persuade the retail brands that they needed to go to war with their own customers and force them to pay their money towards their parking charges instead of spending their money in the shops buying groceries and things for their children?

 

That was really quite a trick.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The original intention was probably fairly honourable. Sell car park management on the basis of maximising customer throughput and pacifying those who do complain about lack of car park spaces - still a major source of complaint, especially around disabled and parent/toddler parking. What the supermarkets failed to appreciate was the level of profit that such a service would generate for the parking companies, whose business model entirely relied on this fact.

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The original intention was probably fairly honourable.

 

I doubt that it was ever that.

 

A load of disco doormen, security guards, car radio fitters, alarm fitters looking for a new business model. Contributes nothing. Makes nobody happy, Thrives upon simple human error. Bottom feeders.

 

At least bailiff/judicial enforcement companies tend to enforce debts which put money back into the public purse somewhere along the line. The parking industry inflict punishments and take the money away from the high street, away from any kind of public good and into their own private pockets.

 

Punish the people.

 

And Lidl, Asda, Aldi, Morrisons and the rest have fallen for it and let it happen

Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt whether the bosses of each retailer would bother responding but I think that if we emailed or wrote to the CEO of each company to get their responses.

 

Compile a list of questions and see if they bite.

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

The CEO's of big retail companies dont spend their time fretting over the car parks at their stores, the parking co's go knocking on some minion's door and offer their "services" as a panacea for all of the supposed parking problems the retailer face and they get signed up without the person who acts on behalf of the retailer really understanding the problems, cures or modus operandi of the parking co but once the ink is dry the retailer is stuck with the parking co.

This means that pressure applied to the big retailers CEO's will ahve an effect even if it isnt immediate. The continual drip srip of similar letters saying that their car aprks are not being managed but just used as cash cows of the retailer's customers caues antipathy and that the writer will be looking to shop elsewhere-ANYWHERE that doesnt use this lazy and distainful approach of shepherding their resources at the expense of their customer, will eventually get through as the margins of the retailer are such that at most stores they cannot afford to lose even one customer per hour to a competitor.

They will understand the cost to them in those terms and may even seek a competitive edge if it is suggested that ridding the bane of the customer will create a loyalty of sorts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most car park "management" is fairly useless anyway, especially when the PPC just relies on ANPR. That will deal with overstaying (apart from "double dipping") but, unless there are feet on the ground, there is no way of ensuring that disabled bays are not misused or that nobody has parked sideways over three bays.

 

The only solution is pay-on-exit with a human patrolling the car park. Finally ( and the government are proposing this) PPC charges must be brought into line with council parking charges and they must not be allowed to charge any more than local authorities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...