ASDA confirm that they get share of all revenue got from TCP's PCNs

webby23

Anti-Asda-and-TCP wrote: »

I have just sent an email to the BBC Watchdog programme (and CC'd the ASDA CEO) regarding ASDA appearing to condone the scamming activities of PPCs and also getting revenue out of it. The email also contained all of my email correspondence with the ASDA CEO, which I have exchanged with him over the last few weeks.

lol

Well whoopy do.......

Rules are simple and there for the benefit of the rule abiding majority.

If you break them, dont come here moaning at the consequences.....

And if they are so unenforcable, why come on here moaning about where all the profits are going......??

Just rip the tickets up and forget about it and go on your chavvy little way........

webby23

Anti-Asda-and-TCP wrote: »

I have just sent an email to the BBC Watchdog programme (and CC'd the ASDA CEO) regarding ASDA appearing to condone the scamming activities of PPCs and also getting revenue out of it. The email also contained all of my email correspondence with the ASDA CEO, which I have exchanged with him over the last few weeks.

Get a life......

It would also be interesting to get Watchdogs take on the selfish morons who park in spaces reserved for others.....

Did you ask them to reply on that or.....let me guess.....you didnt ask them that question.....

trisontana

webby23 wrote: »

lol

Well whoopy do.......

Rules are simple and there for the benefit of the rule abiding majority.

If you break them, dont come here moaning at the consequences.....

And if they are so unenforcable, why come on here moaning about where all the profits are going......??

Just rip the tickets up and forget about it and go on your chavvy little way........

Although they are unenforceable ,and savvy people do ignore them, there are still a majority who believe the lies peddled by the PPCs and pay up.

So do you condone PPCs breaking the law by pretending that their paperwork has some sort of legal standing?

oldone_2

webby23 wrote: »

lol

Well whoopy do.......

Rules are simple and there for the benefit of the rule abiding majority.

If you break them, dont come here moaning at the consequences.....

And if they are so unenforcable, why come on here moaning about where all the profits are going......??

Just rip the tickets up and forget about it and go on your chavvy little way........

The problem I have with this attitude is at makes no allowance for those who are genuinely disabled, but don't have a blue badge.

To use as your sole criteria the possession of a blue badge to give disability parking is flawed,simplistic and indicates a lack of tolerance for those who have a temporary but very real disabilty.

We can all give examples of the abuse of the Blue Badge scheme - my neighbour uses her mothers when she goes shopping alone; and has never attracted the attention of a PPC.

If Webby and fellow travellers are to be believed, they find this is acceptable, even if it is at the expense of others who are entitled to park in these spaces as outined in the latest disabilty discrimination acts.

Perhaps the following should be stickied

The Blue Badge has no validity in a supermarket car park.
Absence of a Blue Badge does not indicate lack of a disability.

Coupon-mad

webby23 wrote: »

Get a life......

It would also be interesting to get Watchdogs take on the selfish morons who park in spaces reserved for others.....

Hahahahaha, 'get a life' where have I heard that before?

And you never did explain how you KNEW the guy in the Audi was breaking the made-up P&C bay rules? Presumably you checked his boot for a car-seat and then followed him into the store to be sure he wasn't collecting his wife & child/baby, right?

You really don't get it do you? In reality there is very little 'bay abuse' in Supermarkets, it is NOT a big problem. Show me an unbiased survey which shows there is abuse, a survey where they have actually bothered to politely ask those parking, if they are entitled to park there? Rather than just spy on people and jump to conclusions as in the pathetic 'Baywatch' scheme run by 'the PPCs' friend' Mobilise.

You think there is a problem because you don't understand who CAN use a disabled bay and you can't be bothered to think outside the box as to why someone may have parked in a pretend parent & child bay. You just watch them park with no child or wheelchair and you think 'selfish moron', right? You are so wrong.

None of us here condone selfish parking. We just HATE PPC protection rackets and the intimidation of people who are scared into paying up.

Anti-Asda-and-TCP

webby23 wrote: »

It would also be interesting to get Watchdogs take on the selfish morons who park in spaces reserved for others.....

Simple answer...Watchdog's advice would be to ignore all PPCs and make paper aeroplanes with all of their correspondence as they have advised already in one of their programmes. They would also advise the S/markets to use council traffic wardens that can issue enforceable fines to any motorist rather than use scamming PPCs.

HTHs.:D

vax2002

The supermarkets that do use council wardens issue ppc no different to private companies, they just push the boat a bit further, the council can only issue penalties upon land they have a regulation order to enforce, they must adopt the land to do other wise and this involves accepting responsibility and liability for what transpires upon it.
They were challenged in Leeds about issuing Penalty notices on a Morrison's car park , the arbitration panel strike out every appeal they get as the council refuse to offer any evidence, they will how ever cash the cheques of those who pay and refuse their own appeals.

Flyboy152

esmerobbo wrote: »

Anyone who is lazy, immoral, disrespectful, selfish enough to use a disabled bay, or parent and child bay when they are not entitled too, in my opinion deserves to be penalised.

The penalties need to be regulated somehow,and not left to private companies. If it was done the same way as a council PCN, I and I think most others here would not have a problem.

However it brings the same problem again you can be disabled and not have a blue badge. Now if the Supermarket make it a condition that you must have a blue badge to park in a disabled bay. It could be them breaking the law by not complying with the equality act.

The whole problem is PPC's are using the disabled bay as a way of justifying their charges. Look at UKCPS their last few court cases have been against disabled bay abuse. [Except one which they lost] They are simply using the emotional aspect of disabled bay abuse to justify their charges. Also if you think about it, if they did go to court a Judge may take a dislike to someone who abuses disabled bays.

I don't think many here believe anyone should be able to park anywhere they like. Or abuse someone else's private property. However I don't think you will find many who agree that a private company should be able enforce the situation without compulsory regulation.

But those charges mentioned so far are not exorbitant. It was mentioned they are sixty pounds about the average charge for a parking ticket. I would wish they were even higher than that to be honest, to reflect the lazy, immoral, disrespectful, selfish, behaviour of the moronic gits who treat the world with so much disrespect.

Flyboy152

trisontana wrote: »

In Scotland there is provision for councils to take over the monitoring of BB spaces on private land. This only happens if the land owner/ supermarket requests it. So far there has been minimal take-up of this scheme. Could this be becuase the PPCs and supermarkets don't want to lose their nice little earner?

I wouldn't presume that the councils do it for free, would you?

Flyboy152

trisontana wrote: »

So the best idea would be to follow the Scotland example, but take it one stage further and make it compulsory for all disabled places to be monitored by the council.

A word to our "critics". We are not pro disabled bay abusers, we are anti-PPCs and the way they try and con money out of people. There is a vast difference in that

And to withdraw the competition? Why should private landowners be held to ransom by the charges made by the council to monitor their land?