Parking eye won cambridge case

Stroma

Bantex wrote: »

And if you decide to buy a Mars bar and go off to the station (which would charge to park) and leave your car at the retailers for the rest of the day whilst you go to work. Hence the reason for time limits and other conditions.

But that happens very seldom, you appear to think that everyone is doing such things, when if you look at the majority of posts here they are for people shopping and spending money, sometimes large amounts of money.

If you take the people posting here as a sample, I think you'll find that outside the forum its probably reflected out there that most of the 2.2m people ticketed are genuine people using the facilities of wherever they parked.

Bantex_2

Stroma wrote: »

But that happens very seldom, you appear to think that everyone is doing such things, when if you look at the majority of posts here they are for people shopping and spending money, sometimes large amounts of money.

If you take the people posting here as a sample, I think you'll find that outside the forum its probably reflected out there that most of the 2.2m people ticketed are genuine people using the facilities of wherever they parked.

Agreed, but if there were no "controls" many more would just take mick and use the carparks as a free resource. Trouble is that nobody has come up with a more cost effective method than parking companies to date.

The idea that there is no cost to providing parking is just mistaken.

Stroma

But don't you think that parking companies are taking the mick? Nobody on here thinks that there should be no controls at all, and I would contend that people are not using car parks in an abusive way , most are shoppers!

As for a cost effective way of control, can you tell me how receiving a letter sometimes months after the event that actually controls anything? The only thing it serves are people will not go there again, thus alienating people.

And these retailers are being offered something for nothing, that is an accountants dream! As you can't really quantify people not visiting a shop when you are talking of national chains. But I'll add you get nothing for nothing, somebody has to pay somewhere in this case it's the shopper.

I ask this of retailers, where would you prefer your customers money, in your tills or in a third party company harassing your clients in the car park?

Bantex_2

Stroma wrote: »

I ask this of retailers, where would you prefer your customers money, in your tills or in a third party company harassing your clients in the car park?

Or as in the case of a place I used to help run, "customers" were using our car park to shop at the competition who were able to undercut us partly due to the fact that we were paying for the parking which they were getting for free.

There are two sides to this.

bazster

Bantex wrote: »

And if you decide to buy a Mars bar and go off to the station (which would charge to park) and leave your car at the retailers for the rest of the day whilst you go to work. Hence the reason for time limits and other conditions.

Make you mind up, are you arguing about who pays for the car park or a bunch of other stuff?

Rhetorical question BTW, I know full well you are just arguing for the sake it.

bazster

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

Playing devils advocate a bit, but also from experience, you shouldn't go into the costa in Tesco's with a bag of donuts from the store, and try to make a cup of coffee last for more than 3hrs, and use the free internet, just because you've mixed up the times you're meeting someone. They don't like that, and do actually ask you to move on when they become full, and the people who just bought coffee can't sit down. They glare at you a bit before as well. And bang the cup when they take it away. But as you say, you can then sit in the car at least.

I never go into Tesco or Costa.

See, if the fact that you are liable to get fleeced, or get sh|t service, or get carp products, is crystal clear to you then you can go elsewhere. Like I say, ripping people off in car parks only works because most don't know it's happening - until it's too late.

bazster

bargepole wrote: »

You only have to read the VCS v HMRC Appeal judgment, and in particular the bit about offering to sell you Buckingham Palace for £1 being a valid contract, to realise how out of touch some of the higher echelons of the Judiciary are.

He really was talking out of his backside there.

Contracting to sell something you don't own on the basis that you will be able to acquire it and deliver it before you find yourself in breach of contract is all very well, but contracting to sell something you don't own and you know full well you will never own and can never deliver is deceit i.e. tortious.

Stroma

Bantex wrote: »

Or as in the case of a place I used to help run, "customers" were using our car park to shop at the competition who were able to undercut us partly due to the fact that we were paying for the parking which they were getting for free.

There are two sides to this.

Yes there are two sides to it, in your scenario were the competition actively encouraging people to park where they did? If not how can they be blamed for it? By the way Aldi tries doing the same thing, parking for Aldi customers only, flying in the face of the fact that their planning permission was for people using other shops as well.

pvt

Bantex wrote: »

That is not true. Detering overstaying is not the same as eradicating it.

I'm struggling to think of any commercial business that is built on a model where the more successful it is the less revenue, and presumably profit, it makes.

nobbysn*ts

pvt wrote: »

I'm struggling to think of any commercial business that is built on a model where the more successful it is the less revenue, and presumably profit, it makes.

Budget airlines? They have to make a lot of their profits from people missing flights, having oversize baggage on the day, hand luggage that finishes up needed to be checked into the hold, etc, as opposed to the few pennies it costs for the tickets. Insurance companies? They lose on premiums, but make their money from the extras they claw back during claims, even from themselves via sister companies.