Tesco 'parking helpline' (moronic oxymoron)

biscuitdunker

Also, the sign mentioned profits going to charity, but does not mention that this will be after the PPC has had it's grubby hands on the money. How can we trust that all profits are going to charity when PPCs are involved?

peter_the_piper

Love to know just how much went to charity.

spirit

biscuitdunker wrote: »

Also, the sign mentioned profits going to charity, but does not mention that this will be after the PPC has had it's grubby hands on the money. How can we trust that all profits are going to charity when PPCs are involved?

my point exactly. Tesco have not been upfront and honest about who does or doesn't administer the invoice creation on their car parks. On that basis why would I trust them to pass on their ill-gotten gains to the charity either?

usignuolo

Tesco correspondence to a customer complaining about a UKPC run Tesco car park- quoted elsewhere:

Many of our car parks are now operated by Parking Companies, in order to ensure that all of our customers can enjoy a pleasant and safe shopping experience both in store and in the car park.

So, whose is the help line number on the sign? is it a Tesco administered central number used by all the various PCCs they have contracted to run their car parks, including UKPC and Euro whatever? If so does that mean Tesco deal deals with complaints about charges issued by these companies? How does that work?

And if they are so knowledgeable at Tesco about the law in this area why are they writing to customers telling them the vehicle's keeper is responsible for the excess charge incurred at one of their car parks, which is plain wrong, and then when this is challenged, saying they are transferring the charge to the actual driver, which they also cannot do legally.

I think Premier and Anhilator are relying too much on interpreting the law of contract in one particular area when the problem is that the parking offences and related legislation is in a complete muddle and comes under several areas, or does not, as the case may be.

Anihilator

biscuitdunker wrote: »

Also, the sign mentioned profits going to charity, but does not mention that this will be after the PPC has had it's grubby hands on the money. How can we trust that all profits are going to charity when PPCs are involved?

What do you understand profits to mean?

Tesco could pay 100% of the fees to PPC and still pass on all profits as there would be none:rolleyes:

Im not saying this is the case. I would bet the charity are more than happy at their link with tesco

Premier_2

usignuolo wrote: »

...So, whose is the help line number on the sign?...

How hard is it to phone them and ask?


Since the number is a Dundee area code, and that is also the location of [STRIKE]Euro Car Parks[/STRIKE] Tesco Customer Services as given on Euro Car Parks website, I think we already know the answer.

http://www.eurocarparks.com/appeals_payment_popup_anpr.htm
http://www.tesco.com/help/contactus/

biscuitdunker

Anihilator wrote: »

What do you understand profits to mean?

I understand what profits are, don't worry about that.

Tesco could pay 100% of the fees to PPC and still pass on all profits as there would be none:rolleyes:

Yes, and if this is the case, the sign is absolutely misleading. They are basically using their Charity of the Year to justify these awful tickets and fines.

Im not saying this is the case. I would bet the charity are more than happy at their link with tesco

It could well be the case, we have no evidence to suggest it isn't the case. I have contacted Tesco's Charity of the Year to tell them about this, because it is my belief that even though they would be grateful for all the help and assistance they're getting from Tesco, they may not be happy about being associated with these PPCs and their illegal PCNs.

Coblcris

Kirsten Callan, Tesco Customer Service Executive, wrote to a Mrs M in November (who complained about a "charge" for overstaying their time and pointing out she was not the driver in the vehicle concerned )

While I appreciate that you may not have been the driver on the day in question, I must reiterate that as the registered owner, you are responsible for any fines and charges implemented on the vehicle.



Having spoken with UKPC once more, I can confirm that they will be transferring liability to the driver on this occasion.



In this case, as UKPC are aware of who the driver was at the time, they have agreed to transfer liability to them.


etc etc


That atrocious letter should be copied to the Chief Executive and the Head Of Legal Services as clearly both of them have been remiss in the training and ongoing management of Kirsten Callan, Tesco Customer Service Executive and in the creation and implementation of of training and legal policies which should protect Tesco and so its shareholders from liability.

Such clear misrepresentation makes Tesco clearly liable under a variety of statutes in my opinion.
Due to their positions within the company it can be argued that these three people also have 'joint and several liability' which is something I would mention in the letter.

I would also copy the letter to Tesco's Chief Financial Officer for fiduciary reasons although the CEO is probably enough for those reasons.

I would address the letter to these as 'Personal' and keep the content in line with that.
Personal liability has a way of getting people's attention.
I would make very sure that the letter offered the three individuals the "opportunity to remedy the situation at this stage" and to ask them what they propose to do.
If you are unsure of how to keep it strictly personal this may take some research however.

bargepole

Anihilator wrote: »

They are not scamming people Biscuitdunker? If you believe they are explain how.

And Illegal parking tickets? Can you back this with facts. PPC's are not illegal en masse although many are. Its also worth noting a lot of the get outs are technicalities and often fraudulent.

All Private Parking tickets are a scam, and here's the explanation:

(NB - without getting into whether it's Tesco, Euro Car Parks, or UKPC issuing the tickets, it makes not a jot of difference, they're all private companies and aren't entitled to "fine" anyone or impose "penalty charges" for breaches of contract)

1. The signs state that "you", meaning the driver, agree to the charges. They also say that "your" details will be obtained from the DVLA. But the DVLA only hold details of the registered keeper, not who was driving in Tesco's car park at 11.34am last Tuesday, so that's a load of codswallop.

2. The tickets, and subsequent letters, are deliberately designed in most cases to resemble official Council documents, thereby misleading many recipients into believing they carry the same official weight. This is potentially a breach of the Fraud Act.

3. The threatening letters often say (and this appears to be the view of Tesco's so-called legal department) that the registered keeper is legally responsible for payment of the charge. Again, completely untrue and potentially fraudulent.

4. Assuming that the identity of the driver can be established by the PPC, there is the question of the implied contract. Can the £70 charge for staying over 2 hours be considered a contractual term, or is it in fact an unlawful penalty misrepresented as part of a contract? You could ask three judges and get four different opinions, but if the PPCs genuinely believed they were acting lawfully, they would have fought one of these cases to the Court of Appeal, and established a binding precedent by now. But they haven't. So it probably isn't.

Anihilator

1. The signs state that "you", meaning the driver, agree to the charges. They also say that "your" details will be obtained from the DVLA. But the DVLA only hold details of the registered keeper, not who was driving in Tesco's car park at 11.34am last Tuesday, so that's a load of codswallop.

Don't see how this is a scam? Its maybe not fully accurate but the DVLA will provide them with car details and its a reasonable situation to suggest in most cases this will be the driver.

2. The tickets, and subsequent letters, are deliberately designed in most cases to resemble official Council documents, thereby misleading many recipients into believing they carry the same official weight. This is potentially a breach of the Fraud Act.

No it isnt. You can guarentee they are excellently worded to give an impression without stating. That isnt fraud.

3. The threatening letters often say (and this appears to be the view of Tesco's so-called legal department) that the registered keeper is legally responsible for payment of the charge. Again, completely untrue and potentially fraudulent.

Where it exactly? Cant say I have ever seen this.

4. Assuming that the identity of the driver can be established by the PPC, there is the question of the implied contract. Can the £70 charge for staying over 2 hours be considered a contractual term, or is it in fact an unlawful penalty misrepresented as part of a contract? You could ask three judges and get four different opinions, but if the PPCs genuinely believed they were acting lawfully, they would have fought one of these cases to the Court of Appeal, and established a binding precedent by now. But they haven't. So it probably isn't

Or maybe they decide enough people pay them to make it profitablel. I have no doubt that if a PPC can prove who the driver is, that the signs were seen and that there was little or no doubt a fine would be upheld. It would probably cost a lot of money to do that though and hence it isnt worth it. The majority of these companies are relatively small scale with little resources. Its also worth stating that small claims courts arent binding precedent hence it would probably take years to do this and I cant imagine anyone if they thought it was going to courts of appeal etc potentially at there expense would fight it any further especially as the court costs would unlikely be covered by legal aid or legal policies on home insurance.


I would also add I suspect if anyone ever stops the PPC's making money then it will be similar to bank charges and they will all take the approach of barriers and the end to free car parking for customers. If a large number of supermarkets did this then the consumer would be effectively over a barrel, especially the vulnerable who dont have the option of walking from off site parking.