Aldi Facebook Page Kicking Off after Parking Eye LBAs

2e0arr

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Parent and Child spaces should be painted out and changed to disabled bays and then no total idiot parents would actually believe they had some sort of right to a special space. It's the supermarkets' fault that dimwits don't know there's a difference in the legal right of a disabled bay and the gimmick of a 'P&C' space. How small-minded is the mad person who took that photo of the P&C space.

Does a parking bay for the disabled have any legal standing on the private land of a supermarket car park please ?

Stroma

2e0arr wrote: »

Does a parking bay for the disabled have any legal standing on the private land of a supermarket car park please ?

No parking bay has any legal standing on private land. But it doesn't mean that the supermarkets or any other service provider can escape their obligations under the Equality Act, they must provide provisions so it doesn't discriminate against people with protected characteristics.

trisontana

Stroma wrote: »

No parking bay has any legal standing on private land. But it doesn't mean that the supermarkets or any other service provider can escape their obligations under the Equality Act, they must provide provisions so it doesn't discriminate against people with protected characteristics.

And, of course, Parking Eye's "management" system that just uses entry/exit cameras is useless for monitoring misuse of disabled bays.

peter_the_piper

There would be little need for p&c bays if they lined the park better, its lined to get the most people in and not for the convenience of drivers.

bargepole

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Same thing used to happen to me when I collected my late mother at Tesco, in her wheelchair. Pathetic small minded brainless idiots.

I don't know what is worse, those who think you have to have a Blue Badge at Supermarkets to use a disabled bay (just because the signs wrongly say so) or those who think that they have a right to parent & child bay and, if they are full, they are dumb enough to use a disabled bay.

Don't beat about the bush, C-M, say what you mean.

I'd actually take a different approach. I would still have P&C bays, but I would position those at the furthest point away from the store entrance, while keeping the disabled bays nearest the entrance.

This would send the messages that 1) we have a problem with child obesity in this country, and you need to get your chubby little darlings to exercise more; and 2) these spaces are completely unrelated to disabled bays, and no you can't use those if all the P&C spaces are full.

Guys_Dad

bargepole wrote: »

Don't beat about the bush, C-M, say what you mean.

I'd actually take a different approach. I would still have P&C bays, but I would position those at the furthest point away from the store entrance, while keeping the disabled bays nearest the entrance.

This would send the messages that 1) we have a problem with child obesity in this country, and you need to get your chubby little darlings to exercise more; and 2) these spaces are completely unrelated to disabled bays, and no you can't use those if all the P&C spaces are full.

And they become less attractive to people who want to use them.

There should also be signs for mothers who are driving large, wide family SUV's and need more space to park and open the doors and usually take up 2 spaces.

The signs should point to another car park so the rest of us can find a space and get on with our business of the day!!!!

2e0arr

trisontana wrote: »

And, of course, Parking Eye's "management" system that just uses entry/exit cameras is useless for monitoring misuse of disabled bays.

I understand that a subject access request costing you no more than £10 , means you can request a legible copy of all data which includes cctv.

A recent request of mine to a supermarket resulted in what the assistant store manager told me of him spending hours and hours editting the legible copy.

It ended amicably when the supermarket sent me £50.

I suggest that should you find yourself in a situation with this parking company that you "lift the bar" and use your right in law for a subject acces request to focuss the mind of the super market and the parking company on the cost to them in time and money.

Guys_Dad

2e0arr wrote: »

I understand that a subject access request costing you no more than £10 , means you can request a legible copy of all data which includes cctv.

A recent request of mine to a supermarket resulted in what the assistant store manager told me of him spending hours and hours editting the legible copy.

It ended amicably when the supermarket sent me £50.

I suggest that should you find yourself in a situation with this parking company that you "lift the bar" and use your right in law for a subject acces request to focuss the mind of the super market and the parking company on the cost to them in time and money.

That could be an interesting one, but may have difficulty. PE will send you as a matter of course pictures of you entering and leaving the car park. That's their case.

They can claim that this is all the evidence they have and that supplying you with anything else such as a continuous film or computer file identifying other vehicles impinges on their rights.

Car park monitoring film from observation cameras is another matter however and I can see that being a pain for a supermarket and being of use to the public when a car may have been broken into. That's worth the £10.

HO87

2e0arr wrote: »

I understand that a subject access request costing you no more than £10 , means you can request a legible copy of all data which includes cctv.

A recent request of mine to a supermarket resulted in what the assistant store manager told me of him spending hours and hours editting the legible copy.

It ended amicably when the supermarket sent me £50.

I suggest that should you find yourself in a situation with this parking company that you "lift the bar" and use your right in law for a subject acces request to focuss the mind of the super market and the parking company on the cost to them in time and money.

If you are going to "flag up" your own case - and potentially increase the chance of your receiving the unwanted attentions of PE's legal department why pay for the privilege? Given that the normal protections of the DPA (that is - broadly - that data must not be divulged) do not apply in cases where someone is seeking to defend themselves or assert their legal rights courtesy of s.35 why not simply require it of them in advance of any legal action? You don't have to make a SAR or pay £10.

2e0arr

Guys_Dad wrote: »

That could be an interesting one, but may have difficulty. PE will send you as a matter of course pictures of you entering and leaving the car park. That's their case..

Yes they could well do that but thats what they choose to send under their normal custom and practice. So they send a still picture form a video camera ? for a subject access request they would have to send a legible copy of the CCTV not what they choose to send.

A question who owns the cctv PE or the supermarket ? I hope the supermarket.

Guys_Dad wrote: »

They can claim that this is all the evidence they have and that supplying you with anything else such as a continuous film or computer file identifying other vehicles impinges on their rights.

You may think that but the law says they have to send you a legible copy of all data.this includes payments in the past letters emails involving you.
They may have to edit and remove other people mentioned in the emails and this must include internal emails in which you are the subject.

If you have spoken to them on the phone which was recorded they have to send you a legible copy which may not be a recording but a text transcript (very more expensive than an audio recording), a legible copy. The same applies to CCTV. To comply any CCTV in the form of a legible copy they may have to be edited it to remove the identification of other people on the CCTV at their cost and their time not yours apart from your £10 maximum fee under the Law.
If you initiate a Subject access request chances are the back office staff will not be managing it. Chances are the company legal team will be guiding this process to ensure things don't go wrong. If the company don't have an in house legal team they would be advise to engage a suitably trained in the law person. Again this would rack up the cost.

Now compare their costs against your ten pounds.

On top of all these costs they have to be able to prove they have sent these item to you and On advice from their own legal team they would probably send the by next day special delivery another expense.