MSE news: The £95 parking ticket for taking too long to spend

Jakg

Whats even more odd is that most of these carparks have exemptions the retailers can use in special cases just like this - obviously the staff don't get fined every day...

Basically - someone forgot to fill the form in...

JJ7

I'll definitely think twice before spending my money at Homebase now.

bluffer

it would have taken a lot of bottle but perhaps he should have let it run to court and then defend it.

i know the law and common sense sometimes run contrary to each other but surely in front on a magistrate he would have won?

sarahg1969

bluffer wrote: »

...surely in front on a magistrate he would have won?

No, because it would never have got before a magistrate.

The company would have to issue county court proceedings, and the matter would proceed through the small claims track and be heard by a judge.

Mature-Student

Our out of town Sainsbury's has just employed a well known firm of 'parking enforcers' to vet those parking in disabled and parent and child spaces. I totally agree with the disabled space abuse, it is very prevalent at our local store.

I also agree with the p&c checking, but not the way they are doing it. The signs say p&c spaces are for those with a child under 12 years of age! And according to the security guard at Sainsbury's, he thinks that they check by seeing if there is a child seat in the car. 12 is too old IMHO. And what about mum's with young babies who take them into the store in their car seat.

The other thing I'm objecting to is Sainsbury's advertising of this. The strapline is 'Fine if you're entitled, £50 fine if you're not'. So it's not even the parking enforcers using scare tactics, it's the supermarkets themselves as well. Oh, and fyi, Sainsbury's are also claiming that half of the money collected through fines will be donated to charity. And how's that going to make you feel better as a new mum trying to prove you had your child with you but in their seat?

bargepole

Mature-Student wrote: »

The other thing I'm objecting to is Sainsbury's advertising of this. The strapline is 'Fine if you're entitled, £50 fine if you're not'. So it's not even the parking enforcers using scare tactics, it's the supermarkets themselves as well. Oh, and fyi, Sainsbury's are also claiming that half of the money collected through fines will be donated to charity. And how's that going to make you feel better as a new mum trying to prove you had your child with you but in their seat?

Sainsbury's, or any other supermarket, have no ability to fine anyone, and they know it. Asda HQ admitted this in a letter they recently sent me.

Parent & Child spaces have no standing whatsoever in law, which is why you don't see them in Council car parks.

You don't have to "prove" anything, they would have to prove in court that their tickets are legal and enforceable. Recently I parked in a p&c space with my 26 year old son in the car and told their yellow-jacketed monkey to go forth and multiply.

Debt_Free_Chick

How does the relationship between the retailer(s) and the parking police work? And the landowner?

Most retailers are commercial tenants, so they don't own land. I imagine they don't give a t0$$ whether anyone parks in the car park in contravention of the T&Cs. Although, given that they are paying the landowner to rent the land, perhaps they do and employ the parking police to "protect" the land they've rented

If not the retailer, then presumably the landowner employs the parking police

Either way, I can't see why they bother. In particular, on Retail Parks there's usually nothing else to do except visit the stores on the Park, so there's no other reason to be there - so why bother having T&Cs and then paying a company to police enforcement The only motive has to be collection of money, of course, and I'd be interested to know who keeps the revenue. The parking police company - yes .... but does a percentage go back to the retailer or the landowner?

One other potential flaw with the T&Cs .... often, parking is free for "Customers". If I visit a store/retail park, browse and end up not buying, surely I'm not a "customer". I would then be in contravention of the T&Cs (assuming it restricts use of the car park to "customers") and should be "fined". Go on then .... I dare you!

Currently sitting on two of these demands. On each occasion I bought and displayed a valid ticket at a Southeastern Railway Station, but the "police" were too lazy to stand close enough to the vehicle to see the ticket. Awaiting the parking company's next move with immense interest and curiosity

trisontana

Of course they are not "police", they are just private citizens who have no more power than you or I in the matter of giving people parking "fines".

Debt_Free_Chick

Hence I used the term "police" rather than Police

As in ..... "food police", "green police", "policital correctness police" .... etc

And "customer" when I hadn't bought anything and therefore could not possibly be a Customer

Spartacus_Mills

MSE_Martin wrote: »

A fine is defined by the dictionary is "a sum of money imposed as a penalty for an offense or dereliction". And that's exactly what happened here.

Your point is of course that these LEGALLLY are not fines, but this isn't a legal document, its a short news story aiming to get the story across quickly. The facts these fines have no legal basis, doesn't stop them being referable too as fines in common parlance.

The entire point of the piece is the fine was outrageous and lacked any authority, but that' doesn't stop it being what's referred to as a fine. Even the person who got the ticket says in it, "Also, the fact they lay out their letters to make them look like official fines in order to dupe susceptible, law-abiding people should be stopped."

In journalism when you write, you try and not repeat words, its clumsy style and stops people reading and thus synonyms are important, the use of the term fine is perfectly correct and appropriate in the piece - its an emotive word and used to heighten the sense of injustice.

Equally you could say the use of

"His crime?"

is legally incorrect, there was no crime this is a civil contractual dispute and not criminal, but again it is common parlance and a perfectly legitimate way to write a story of this type.

The article explains clearly,

"Many tickets issued by private firms are unenforceable and in many cases should be ignored, as explained in the Private Parking Ticket guide. "

As for it being a missed opportunity, don't worry this is a small news piece, when we go large it will be with the big main guide. It's been on the site six months, but never in the weekly email yet (due to scheduling) but it will soon and will be very prominent.

Please don't get too bogged down in the terminology and focus on the story.

(FORGIVE TYPOS USING SPEECH DICTATION FOR RSI)

The article also says the shop waived the charge which is also disingenuous. There was no charge to waive.