Virgin Active Solihull - legit overstay £100 charge

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

At least POPLA have a sense of humour. Acknowledged. To be determined on 1st April. Who's fooling who?

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

And capitulation. Email from VA:

[Hi Ian, I hope this finds you well today

After reviewing your case here we have decided to take the charges of your fine at Club level.
I have spoken with MET & they have confirmed

As far as the legal implications go I have raised these concerns with our Head Office who are looking into this for me.

I hope this goes some way to drawing this matter to a close with you & I wish to add my apologies for any inconvenience this has cased you

Have a great day

Must file another complaint about inappropriately cheery sign offs!

Coupon-mad

They've decided not to ask for cancellation by their agent (and surely the contract allows them cancellations?!) but VA are PAYING?!

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Coupon-mad wrote: »

They've decided not to ask for cancellation by their agent (and surely the contract allows them cancellations?!) but VA are PAYING?!

Yes, apparently Virgin have such an awful contract with MET that if they wish to get a ticket cancelled they have to pay MET.

Still, latest updates are had office are promising to give me a response (apparently including information from MET management!!!!!) so I am expecting nothing from them. TS have just assigned a case officer to this problem.

And finally this from OFT:

Dear Mr Spencer

Thank you for your email of 24 February 2014 to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) regarding your concerns about car parking registration collection systems. As I understand it, you would like the OFT to direct changes to the way car parking collection systems work.

The concerns you have raised have been logged and added to our records. The information you have provided will add to our intelligence and may prove useful to us in the future

I rather like the fact that I am inflating their IQ.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Received response from Trading Standards. Interesting that they can't intervene though they agree it is dodgy.

Dear Mr Spencer!Thank you for the additional information.!I believe that the matter you have raised with us is not just a local issue but perhaps a National one.!!I agree that it could be argued that your parking fine may not be enforceable against you for a number of reasons:You may not have a contract with MET at allThe signage in the car park does not make reference to the fact that you can increase your stay by following a procedure in the gym. (this is a terms of the ‘contract’ you are not made aware of at the time of parking)Your contract with Virgin does not mention any restriction on parking times.!Even if it is enforceable, I agree that the charge they are imposing could be excessive and unjustified for the losses they have incurred.! In a breach of any contract, the damaged party is not entitle to betterment.! They should not be put in a better position than they were before the breach occurred.!Unfortunately all of these points are of a civil nature and could only be decided on in the County Court by a district Judge.! As you are probably aware, Trading Standards have no powers in civil cases.!You have followed the course of action I would have advised by writing to MET.! I would advise you to also write to BPA with your complaint.! In many cases, parking companies do not take court action, even though they might threaten it, however I cannot guarantee that they wont.!!There are no breaches of the criminal law that Trading Standards will be investigating further.

Back to OFT then with this. Plus ammunition to get Virgin Active to review their business relationships.

Any reputable company needs to be educated that these arrangements are toxic to their customer relations.

Coupon-mad

As you are probably aware, Trading Standards have no powers in civil cases

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=63597


http://www.osbornerichardson.com/News/Trading_standards_prosecution_puts_rogue_car_clamper_behind_bars/cid-412.aspx


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10165899

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Coupon-mad wrote: »

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=63597


http://www.osbornerichardson.com/News/Trading_standards_prosecution_puts_rogue_car_clamper_behind_bars/cid-412.aspx


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10165899

My argument was that there was deliberate deception (ie criminal, especially as they rejected my detailed appeal specifically mentioning gpeol). Anyway, got a chat with VA head office next week. We will see what that brings.

Oh, and technically a win at POPLA as I've just had notification that I have won my appeal as MET inform them they have cancelled my ticket. Interestingly, MET haven't had the courtesy to tell me that so that is another complaint to BPA.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Still on the case!

Spoke to the head office customer services manager, emphasis on spoke to, the poor lady didn't really get a chance to do her justification and mitigation speech.

She got off to a bad start when she said she'd been told that the clubs terms and conditions were up to date and accurate. I pointed out (again) that clamping was illegal in England since 2012 so any term referring to it was clearly wrong and void. Tell them to look again.

I then pointed out that I had made a detailed and accurate appeal on both mitigation and legal grounds to MET and they had ignored it while claiming to have read it carefully. What I would have expected Virgin to want from its business partner is for them to have contacted Virgin to see if I was pulling a fast one, but if the details checked out, you would have expected them to have grudgingly acknowledged that my wife was rightfully there, a quick "don't do it again" and cancelled charge. I think this scenario hit home to the manager, as it was clearly what she imagined MET would do.

I then explained that I understood exactly what the aims of the car park management was there, that it was quite right that they wanted to deal with the problems. I gave 3 scenarios that were most likely and pointed out that in each case MET would not actually produce a ticket for them except when it was a customer who was entitled to be there. I pointed out that a barrier system would allow them to immediately stop non-members parking without inconveniencing members, and where members were abusing the system by parking for excessive periods of time, they would be able to block their exit and they would be able to speak to them directly, discouraging them from abusing the system and then they would get to know the persistant offenders and deal with them appropriately.

I didn't entirely convince her that MET were a bunch of scammers, but I did convince her that I was a reasonable person who was well-informed and only slightly obsessed!

I would emphasise that I believe you get more progress with honey than vinegar, and I am able to be firm without being rude. I saw the task as one of educating Virgin and sympathising with them being misled by MET rather than blaming them. It is also better to try and talk to people as emails, although necessary for an audit trail, are almost always interpreted as bad tempered and it is very difficult to have an amicable argument via email.

A further response by Friday.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Further correspondence. Basically, Virgin happy with MET and don't see the problem.

Most worrying is that they think that the signage isn't for their members, it is just for non-members. They seem to have missed the point that a member was trapped, raised their membership and legitimate usage of the car park with MET and nothing was done.

We do not have any input in what is outlined on the MET signage in the car park with reference to the parking restrictions as this is information targeted to the general public and not specifically Virgin Active members. This is why we have our separate signage and information in and around the club to ensure that members are aware of the processes and procedure to avoid them being penalised for enjoying the facilities for longer than a 4 hour duration of time.

Nicely sidesteps the fact that the signage is fundamentally flawed... and why doesn't it simply then say "Non-members not allowed."