ASDA are aware of TCP's scamming activities, Whyte threatagrams and BBC Watchdog

Anti-Asda-and-TCP

I have advised the ASDA CEO via email of TCP's scamming activities (including unenforceable invoices, contract law, solicitor threats, credit rating threats, court action threats, etc.).

Emails eventually responded to by their Legal director. I can't remember her name off-hand but can find it if anyone wishes.

She advised me that she (and the ADSA exec support team) wouldn't respond further to my emails unless I provided details of my friends alleged parking offence to her. I have obviously not given any details to her.

I have also forwarded the 'new' Whyte letters to the ASDA CEO and asked him to comment on them being appropriate for a supposed reputable s/market supporting such scamming activities. Not surprsingly I have had no response to date.

I have forwarded on my ems to BBC Watchdog to illustrate ASDA supporting and having knowledge of TCP's scamming activities and would urge anyone else to do likewise.

whitelabel

why not give them the details theyve requested ?

Anti-Asda-and-TCP

Simple....advice on this forum says ignore the PPCs and do not correspond with them.

My friend has also requested that I don't divulge anything.

Coblcris

Because no offence was committed.
And the details if it are irrelevant.
Time to remind Asda of Consumer regulations perhaps.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/contents/made

And that as principal they are tarred by their agent.

Of course they will be fully aware of these things even though their replies evince otherwise.
As that is so I would remind them - quite strongly.

robredz

Coblcris wrote: »

Because no offence was committed.
And the details if it are irrelevant.
Time to remind Asda of Consumer regulations perhaps.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/contents/made

And that as principal they are tarred by their agent.

Of course they will be fully aware of these things even though their replies evince otherwise.
As that is so I would remind them - quite strongly.

Seems like a plan to me

esmerobbo

Probably want your friends details so they can cancel that one and hope you go away!

HO87

I am particularly interested in ceebeeby's post from yestereday (Read the thread here) and the detail from Asda's letter - specifically this section:

ceebeeby wrote: »

I'm sorry to hear you were issued a parking ticket for parking in our disabled bays. According to government guidelines, Blue Badge holders are allowed to park anywhere that is a public right of way. This applies to the car parks that we use, but are owned by the council.

I believe Asda should be challenged to detail what "government guidelines" this is specified in because going all the way back to the Chronically Sick & Disabled Persons Act 1970 (the legislative origin of the Blue badge scheme) I can find nothing - even in the various SI's - that would vaguely allude to this. It also bears no resemblance to the government guidelines issued to BB holders themselves.

One wonders whether this line hasn't been fed to them by a PPC or the BPA along the way?

Something else within that letter could provide something of a firecracker is this, I believe:

ceebeeby wrote: »

This applies to the car parks that we use, but are owned by the council.

So, if I understand this correctly, then Asda are stating that they rent/have rights to use council-owned car parks? Do the councils know that a PPC is being used to patrol them? Is any of the revenue actually being used to support rent? This is something we definitely need to know especially if it could be shown, for example, that Parking Place Orders still existed for these same car parks.

ceebeeby wrote: »

The British Parking Association's code of conduct is followed by the companies that patrol our car parks.

This is arrant nonsense and if the Asda hierachy believe that they are paying the situation far less attention than they should. This really should be going to Watchdog. TCP continue to display signs that contain a threat to issue Penalty Charges. The fact that they were granted an extension by the BPA to rectify this I neither understand nor see why it should have been as long as it would seem.