Tesco 'parking helpline' (moronic oxymoron)

trisontana

Anihilator wrote: »

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.

But the car-parks are not owned by the PPCs they are owned by the supermarkets. But I imagine all the money from these charges go to the PPC and not the supermarket.

Don't forget that these charges are supposed to be a deterrent to illicit parking, not a money-raising exercise. So a barrier would be an excellent idea. A fee could be charged, but it would be refunded if you use the shop or store. So you keep the non-customers out, but provide plenty of parking for legitimate customers. And it would put the PPC scammers out of business. because you would not need them. So all that talk of the "vulnerable" is meaningless.

Anihilator

trisontana wrote: »

But the car-parks are not owned by the PPCs they are owned by the supermarkets. But I imagine all the money from these charges go to the PPC and not the supermarket.

Don't forget that these charges are supposed to be a deterrent to illicit parking, not a money-raising exercise. So a barrier would be an excellent idea. A fee could be charged, but it would be refunded if you use the shop or store. So you keep the non-customers out, but provide plenty of parking for legitimate customers. And it would put the PPC scammers out of business. because you would not need them. So all that talk of the "vulnerable" is meaningless.

Or you decide its too much hassle being responsible for it all and decide everyone should pay and sell the contract to a PPC to do with no bother about refunding customers as they will in all likiehood be left with no choice but to pay.

I would suggest every customer paying a £1 an hour or whatever is more profitablee than one or two paying £30

Paradigm

Anihilator wrote: »

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.

Have a look at this & play "spot the dodgy wording" Kind of wrecks your argument don't you think?

Paradigm

Now an official one, can anyone see any similarity in layout? Not an attempt to deceive surely?

muckybutt

just for premier : the picture of the sign you posted ? that sign is also erected at 3 of my local tesco's 2 of them enforced by ukpc and the other one by central ticketing.....tesco DO NOT DO THEIR OWN TICKETING end of !

muckybutt

Paradigm wrote: »

Have a look at this & play "spot the dodgy wording" Kind of wrecks your argument don't you think?

Hmmm quite clearly a breach of Fraud act:
(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b)intends, by making the representation—
(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2)A representation is false if—
(a)it is untrue or misleading, and
(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
(3)“Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—
(a)the person making the representation, or
(b)any other person.
(4)A representation may be express or implied.
(5)For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).

trisontana

Anihilator wrote: »

Or you decide its too much hassle being responsible for it all and decide everyone should pay and sell the contract to a PPC to do with no bother about refunding customers as they will in all likiehood be left with no choice but to pay.

I would suggest every customer paying a £1 an hour or whatever is more profitablee than one or two paying £30

That's how the supermarkets operated in the Essex town where I used to live. Both Tesco and Sainsbury's directly employed people to sit in a nice warm booth to check tickets (issued by a P & D machine) and receipts when the shoppers left the car-park. This seemed to work OK, with no sign of PPCs and their exorbitant charges.

Paradigm

muckybutt wrote: »

Hmmm quite clearly a breach of Fraud act:
(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b)intends, by making the representation—
(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2)A representation is false if—
(a)it is untrue or misleading, and
(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
(3)“Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—
(a)the person making the representation, or
(b)any other person.
(4)A representation may be express or implied.
(5)For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).

Well that just about sums it up but I was looking for the rather more obvious & concise "2 words" that, along with the layout, might (wrongly & illegally) convince Joe Public that he should pay!

bargepole

Anihilator wrote: »

... 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.....

The big players, such as NCP, Excel, APCOA and Euro certainly aren't small, last time I looked Simon Renshaw-Smith of Excel was at the boat show looking at £1m yachts.

The whole point of going to the Court of Appeal would be for the PPC to get the binding precedent that they can't get in the County Court (small claims). You would think, given all their resources, that Excel would have done that in the Hetherington-Jakeman case (google it). After all, she admitted she was driving, the signs were clear, but the Judge threw it out because of Excel's unreasonable charges, and because their letters set out to "frighten and intimidate".

The whole PPC scam has been well and truly exposed, not just on here, but on just about every other forum on the internet. The game is up, the profits are drying up.

molerat

Anihilator wrote: »

..................... no doubt a fine would be upheld. .................

Have I missed a change in the law, are they able to impose fines now. I thought it was only the courts that could that !! :rolleyes:

I don't think that anyone on these forums deny Tesco, Asda etc the right to manage their car parks to prevent their misuse, it is the illegal manipulative deceitful and threatening way in which the ppc's contracted by them operate which is the problem. Correct car park control is relatively simple but far less cost effective than employing these robbers.