Supermarket carpark fines

halibut2209

Nope, no thoughts at all. It's pointless debating with someone who refuses to acknowledge the other person's POV.

arcon5

halibut2209 wrote: »

Nope, no thoughts at all. It's pointless debating with someone who refuses to acknowledge the other person's POV.

this isn't a debate about these companies, its a discussion about supermarket carparks and contract law.

I don't refuse the acknowledge other peoples POV, many of the points made in the other board regarding their bully-boy tactics & their methods are valid points, but it's constantly discarded the fact the whole situation has arison in the first place in most cases because the motorist has completely discarded the rules.

It's about time people realised that private property cannot be used as you like! Not just in supermarket carparks, but for other affected places suchas office blocks.
It's also about time land owners had more rights.

But all that's irrelevant, i'm looking for peoples thoughts, expertise on whether land owners could find a way to LEGALLY charge customers who wish to use their land for purposes they are not designed for but still providing a service for.

As a sidenote though, looking around these boards, seems these enforcement companies have actually brought proceedings against a couple of people..... despite many saying its never gone to court.

halibut2209

"It's about time people realised that private property cannot be used as you like"

We don't say that. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

arcon5

halibut2209 wrote: »

"It's about time people realised that private property cannot be used as you like"

We don't say that. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

I didn't say you did. People do though seem to think they can use it as they like without consequences, and more and more people are learning to ignore these fines.
And supported by the fact they are rarely challenged with why the fine was incurred in the first place.

unholyangel

arcon5 wrote: »

Thats because people are unable to comprehend the fact that the underlying problem is infact motorists not respecting the rules the landowners setout and seem to think the blame wholely lies with the enforcement company, who are infact (in the majority of cases) only acting because the motorist has not adhered to the rules.

Id say this relates more so to contract law and feel this board would be more appropriate. There are members that visit this board that seem to have a fair knowledge of contract law and would be able to add value to the question.

So do you care to share any thoughts you may have on the topic? Or even justify your sweeping statement that the opinions are inaccurate?

If they're offering a service then by all means let them......let the claims for damage to cars commence since technically the cars would be damaged while in their "service"

Plus, same rules would apply...if i were in breach they would only be able to claim for quantifiable loss and any "penalty" would have to be a genuine pre-estimate of their losses or it would remain unenforceable. The only loss they would justifiably be able to prove (imo) is the loss of a parking space for a customer.......who wouldnt have had to pay for the space anyway so loss is still nil.

wealdroam

arcon5 wrote: »

People do though seem to think they can use it as they like without consequences, and more and more people are learning to ignore these fines.
And supported by the fact they are rarely challenged with why the fine was incurred in the first place.

More improper uses of the word 'fine'.

It is about time people realised that the only 'compensation' that the landowner is entitled to is damages caused.
A couple of examples...

• if you take the last space in a carpark that usually charges £1 per hour and don't pay, then the landowner is entitled to recover that lost £1 from you (assuming you leave within the hour). The landowner is allowed to recover his costs in retrieving that £1, but he is not allowed to charge penalties.
• if you park in a field of corn, the landowner can go after you for the cost of the damage caused. He cannot expect to get the money from the registered keeper, nor does the registered keeper have to 'shop' the driver.

But you know all this anyway.

unholyangel

arcon5 wrote: »

this isn't a debate about these companies, its a discussion about supermarket carparks and contract law.

I don't refuse the acknowledge other peoples POV, many of the points made in the other board regarding their bully-boy tactics & their methods are valid points, but it's constantly discarded the fact the whole situation has arison in the first place in most cases because the motorist has completely discarded the rules.

It's about time people realised that private property cannot be used as you like! Not just in supermarket carparks, but for other affected places suchas office blocks.
It's also about time land owners had more rights.

But all that's irrelevant, i'm looking for peoples thoughts, expertise on whether land owners could find a way to LEGALLY charge customers who wish to use their land for purposes they are not designed for but still providing a service for.

As a sidenote though, looking around these boards, seems these enforcement companies have actually brought proceedings against a couple of people..... despite many saying its never gone to court.

The sign you originally posted in regards to was at the entrance of a car park yes? Forgive me if i'm maybe being a bit simple here but car parks are designed to park your car in yes? Therefore they are being used in line with their intended use. Just perhaps not by the intended drivers.

somethingcorporate

halibut2209 wrote: »

arcon doesn't get on well there. That's probably why he's coming here to get inaccurate opinions, rather than ones from those who actually know what they are talking about*

*that's a general statement, not talking about anyone here in particular

No harm in debating it though - I think it's a valid discussion point.

If you're happy to prove it right or wrong then please do!

My opinion is 100% accurate as my opinion - it may not be 100% correct, but it is 100% accurate

scheming_gypsy

arcon5 wrote: »

Thats because people are unable to comprehend the fact that the underlying problem is infact motorists not respecting the rules the landowners setout and seem to think the blame wholely lies with the enforcement company, who are infact (in the majority of cases) only acting because the motorist has not adhered to the rules.

so which rules did the land owner set out? i'm pretty sure they didn't set the rule that you pay £40 if you over stay your parking. The rule they set out would be that people can park for free for up to x hours

arcon5

unholyangel wrote: »

The sign you originally posted in regards to was at the entrance of a car park yes? Forgive me if i'm maybe being a bit simple here but car parks are designed to park your car in yes? Therefore they are being used in line with their intended use. Just perhaps not by the intended drivers.

It's intended for their customers to use to park their car for upto 2 hours whilst they shop with the business. It's not there just for anybody to park their car