Aldi Facebook Page Kicking Off after Parking Eye LBAs

bazster

Umkomaas wrote: »

However, if they do receive this then they are lying in saying they receive no income from the parking charges from PE.

Technically they wouldn't be lying, the charges do all go straight into ParkingEye's pocket. Of course, that doesn't mean that ParkingEye aren't paying for the privilege of having their cameras there, and I doubt their customers and the media would be too concerned about a technicality should such a hugely damaging revelation come to light.

Would certainly explain Aldi's pig-headedness over the whole thing.

Umkomaas

bazster wrote: »

Technically they wouldn't be lying, the charges do all go straight into ParkingEye's pocket. Of course, that doesn't mean that ParkingEye aren't paying for the privilege of having their cameras there, and I doubt their customers and the media would be too concerned about a technicality should such a hugely damaging revelation come to light.

Would certainly explain Aldi's pig-headedness over the whole thing.

The question is being asked on the Aldi FB page right now.

This week it as been revealed in Court that Parking Eye pay a land owner £1,000 a week for the right to 'manage' their car park (which means issue scam tickets and 'fines' to the customers). On this FB page Aldi has declared that Aldi received nothing from PE. Would they care to repeat that categorical statement once again in the light of what was revealed in Court?
Tick ... Tock ...

I guess there are only 2 answers.

1. Yes, PE do pay us for the opportunity to manage our car parks (pillage our customers), and we've been withholding that information, or

2. No, PE don't pay us for the opportunity to manage our car parks (pillage our customers), and they've screwed us as well!

Coupon-mad

Or (3) Parking Eye have made the Chelmsford 'super case' car park a noticeably different business model (from what date, we ask?) so that if they lose the case they can say 'yep but that one's unique/different from all the other ones so the decision only affects that car park...'.

bod1467

Coupon-mad wrote: »

(from what date, we ask?)

That's actually a very good point. I hope someone from the defendants' team asks this question today.

bargepole

bod1467 wrote: »

That's actually a very good point. I hope someone from the defendants' team asks this question today.

I don't believe the payment of £1,000 or otherwise has as much significance as people are attaching to it.

The key point in this case, identified by the Judge, is whether the £85 parking charge constitutes a penalty, and if so, whether it can be commercially justified.

This should become clearer when the PP blogs the second half of the hearing, which he was able to record sitting at the back of the court while I was busy shuffling papers and handing them to Mr Foster.

I believe the Judge did also note at one point that the two hour limit was 'carefully calculated' by PE to maximise the likelihood of motorists overstaying and incurring a parking charge.

bod1467

I suspect people (like me) are thinking PE may have recently started making this payment in order to aid their "commercial justification" for their PCN charge in light of this mega-case.

bazster

bod1467 wrote: »

I suspect people (like me) are thinking PE may have recently started making this payment in order to aid their "commercial justification" for their PCN charge in light of this mega-case.

That would be yet another example of half-baked PPC circular logic.

They pay £1,000 per week for the right to issue parking charges, which they have to issue because they pay £1,000 per week for the right to issue them.

Can't believe any judge would be stupid enough to fall for that.

trubster

bargepole wrote: »

This should become clearer when the PP blogs the second half of the hearing, which he was able to record sitting at the back of the court while I was busy shuffling papers and handing them to Mr Foster.

Isn't that illegal?

bod1467

Depends whether "record" means taped or written. Written notes are fine as far as I am aware, otherwise court reporters would never be able to file a story.

bargepole

bod1467 wrote: »

Depends whether "record" means taped or written. Written notes are fine as far as I am aware, otherwise court reporters would never be able to file a story.

He was writing it all down, sorry for not making that clear.

If he had been recording it on some kind of device, and caught doing so, he would now be sampling the canteen food at Cambridge police station.