A situation that intrigues (and bothers) me

Umkomaas

As I've told you previously - I don't answer to you; I post what I like, when I like. With which part of that message are you having difficulty?

And, as I've also said previously - toddle off!

NotBothered

pogofish wrote: »

Another off-topic, thread hijack from this one!

Not a hijack - just another demonstration by some regulars (and I know some of you are quite sensible and nice) of how aggressive you are to anybody who asks a simple enough question. Its like the hackles go up as soon as anybody even intimates that a motorist might actually be in the wrong, and that a land-owner might just be trying to earn a living. Yes - he has invited people to park there, but he has also made it VERY clear with the signage that this invitation is extended to customers only.

Yes I know there are a million ways that the retailer could/should pay lots of money for barriers and the like (which wouldnt stop the abuse by the way, just add fuel to the fire when an angry shop-keeper refused to raise the barrier for someone who bought a ten-pence chew because that now makes him a customer)

I have said, time and time again that the charges are excessive, but if you followed the rules, you probably wouldnt have to worry about that too much. And now you can all go off on a tangent about how they pick on the infirm, the disabled, the elderly and the generally stupid! By all means fight THOSE causes, leave those who are actually the CAUSE of the problem to fight their own battles!

Half_way

As far as clamping signs go, while it goes against the various PPC trade !!! codes of practices, in itself theres nothing wrong with having signs up.
For example if the Chinese take away has erected its own signs stating "Customer car park only unathorised vehicles may be clamped, release fee £75 ( or whatever ) " and thats as far as it went then I dont see a problem as long as no clamping took place and the signage had planing permission ( if required )
A vast majority of people still think that clamping is still legal, and an empty threat sign is significantly better than a PPC infesting the car park like a parasite.

As for parking on land for customers only, if the car park was open then the only charges you could expect to pay would be for any damages caused by entering that car park, if no damage was done then no fee is due.
If cars parking on the car park when the buisness is closed is a problem, then perhaps the buisness shold look into securing it

esmerobbo

One thing for certain if the Chinese takeaway employed a PPC they would lose more customers then the odd rogue parking would cost them.

They are not there to look after them, only themselves.