The CO-OP and CEL

trisontana

Customers of the CO-OP are being taken to court by CEL. When motorists have written to the store complaining about this they have received an astonishing reply stating that the CO-OP will pay CEL the £150 odd pounds to prevent the case actually going to court.

What a waste of money! If I was a CO-OP member I would be writing to senior management complaining about this, and the impact it will have on member's dividends.

Stroma

You got to be kidding, the thing to be getting is whether the contract allows CEL to take anyone to court

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Stroma wrote: »

You got to be kidding, the thing to be getting is whether the contract allows CEL to take anyone to court

I very much doubt it

trisontana

This is an email sent out to one customer:-

Dear XXXXX

[FONT=Arial,Sans-Serif]Thank you for contacting XXXXX regarding the correspondence you have received relating to a parking charge; he has requested that I respond on his behalf.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Sans-Serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Sans-Serif]Firstly, may I apologise for any concern this has caused you, I do appreciate this type of correspondence can be upsetting, and regret that you have received it as a consequence of using a car park at one of our Stores. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Sans-Serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Sans-Serif]Is the PCN for this charge the reference listed in your original email - XXXXXX. Please be assured that I have made arrangements for this charge to be paid directly to the debt recovery agent who is acting on behalf of the Parking Management company not the Co-operative. This should take about 10 days to fully process and will ensure that the matter is resolved fully for you, however I would caution that they may send a further letter in the interim period, if this is the case please do let me know, and if I can be of any further assistance in relation to this matter, do not hesitate to get in touch. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Sans-Serif] [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Sans-Serif]Yours sincerely[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Sans-Serif]XXXXXXXXX
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Sans-Serif]Customer Careline Team
[/FONT]

Aaron_Aadvark

But for the PCN to have any standing (we all know they don't in the vast majority of circumstances) then CEL must have been acting on behalf of the Co-op or at least the landowner if the Co-op has no rights to the car park.

esmerobbo

I suppose it depends on what is contained in the contract between CEL and the CO OP.
Maybe someone forgot to put a clause in were the CO OP could instruct CEL to cancel.

da_rule

I suppose it depends whether the car park is owned by Co-Op or is part of a shopping/industrial park and therefore owned by a third party. It is odd though, as most shops on a retail park have a way of having PCN's cancelled without having to physically pay the PPC off themselves.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

No they are all co op car parks.

Being a mutual I wonder does co.op have a members forum?

4consumerrights

I believe the CO-OP in the UK has regional groups for members - must dig out paperwork!


Co-Op facebook

https://www.facebook.com/TheCooperative


The Co-Op bank are in financial difficulties after making a number of unwise investments - received a letter this week thanking me for being considerate and a customer over their difficult trading times!

So if they are paying these unsubstantiated parking charges - which have been ruled as penalties in a recent appeal hearing, then this is having an impact on dividends paid to members.

Anyone who is a Co-Op member could raise an issue here.

patman99

Just posted on their F/B page.

HO87

The Co-Op acquired Somerfield a few years ago and Somerfield suffered a badly bloodied nosed when they attempted to kick out ParkingEye who promptly sued them. The case did ParkingEye no favours in terms of what it revealed of their internal workings (and the judges didn't hold back in what they had to say) but they did win and were awarded costs. It may well be the memory of that case that is driving the current decision even if CEL are are far smaller outfit.

In this climate CEL will be unlikely to retain their contract for very much longer. If the Co-Op ditch them then that should be sending out a substantial message to the retail world. Of course the pro-PPC nay-sayers will simply dismiss this as being a "commercial decision". It undoubtedly is (after all its made by a commercial entity) but if they cannot read the runes then they are even less commercially astute than I ever thought. Silly me.