ParkingEye v Beavis at the Supreme Court: What’s Happening This Week

bazster

rdr wrote: »

I think that the carmaggenon story is credible for Chelmsford Riverside and to argue that no parking management is needed is counter productive.

It may be credible but that doesn't make it true. No-one has produced any evidence for it. The carmageddon theory has been propounded several times now in court but because no evidence has been adduced the courts should've disregarded it.

As the Consumer Association's QC told the law lords yesterday when they hinted at it: "we are into vagueness now, and un-evidenced vagueness at that".

One of the persons helping Barry Beavis with his defence went there and spoke to as many shop managers as he could find. All but one who expressed an opinion said that PE is hurting their business and they wished they would bu99er off.

rdr

bazster wrote: »

It may be credible but that doesn't make it true. No-one has produced any evidence for it. The carmageddon theory has been propounded several times now in court but because no evidence has been adduced the courts should've disregarded it.

As the Consumer Association's QC told the law lords yesterday when they hinted at it: "we are into vagueness now, and un-evidenced vagueness at that".

One of the persons helping Barry Beavis with his defence went there and spoke to as many shop managers as he could find. All but one who expressed an opinion said that PE is hurting their business and they wished they would bu99er off.

I was trying to make the point that the issue of whether you need parking control at all and whether the existing one is fair, legal and in the interest of the retailers need to be kept separate.

I live another 10 minutes walk out of the city centre than riverside and our streets were chocked with commuter parking until restictions were put in place, I really don't think that saying that the retailers wouldn't be damaged by uncontroled is sensible and maintaining it undermines the crediblity of your other, perfectly vaid, auguements.

carandbike

rdr wrote: »

I think that the carmaggenon story is credible for Chelmsford Riverside and to argue that no parking management is needed is counter productive. This does not mean that the current system is in the interest of the retailers or is fair and legal.

It is easy to see many credible ways to spend more than 2 hours on the retail park, contributing to the retailers' turnover, that are fustrated by the car parking system . Therefore the two hour limit is not a comercial benefit to the retailers.

I agree and from what I was told by the retailers at Riverside, they would too, that the two hour limit was detrimental to their businesses not an enhancement. I haven't watched much of the case, but I doubt that it has been mentioned that there appears to be hidden get outs of paying a charge such as a retailer using what was described to me as "a direct line to" Parking scum, where a phone call was all that was needed to white list a reg number. No mention of genuine customers and time extensions on their signs.

I do not agree that it would be inevitable that the car park would be full of commuters either. There are many car parks closer to the station that are not full during the day currently. I worked for ten years at Chelmsford Station and the current arrangements commuters have were something I never heard a complaint about. There are many other local stations with no direct parking and the world still turns. Even if Riverside was four hours free parking it would be no use to commuters. How about five hours at the weekend, still no use to them. You may get people walking into the town, but in this case the Carmaggedon scenario seems to be about commuters.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/search/coval+lane+chelmsford+car+park/@51.735425,0.4671528,312m/data=!3m1!1e3

Click on the link, have a look at the close by car parks. Fairly busy I'd agree, but still available spaces. Not a scientific way to bolster my assertion but better than just saying the whole of Chelmsford will melt down if Riverside got it's act together and offered a fair solution. By the way, a second station in Chelmsford is proposed to be built in the next few years so even fewer commuters at the main station.

Iceweasel

What's happening today then?

bazster

Iceweasel wrote: »

What's happening today then?

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

carandbike

bazster wrote: »

One of the persons helping Barry Beavis with his defence went there and spoke to as many shop managers as he could find. All but one who expressed an opinion said that PE is hurting their business and they wished they would bu99er off.

I wonder if that was the manager of Home Bargains, where I had spent £60 and the whole of my overstay and more, who was totally unhelpful and dismissive.
(Thankfully the area manager was more helpful )

rdr

I do not agree that it would be inevitable that the car park would be full of commuters either. There are many car parks closer to the station that are not full during the day currently. I worked for ten years at Chelmsford Station and the current arrangements commuters have were something I never heard a complaint about. There are many other local stations with no direct parking and the world still turns. Even if Riverside was four hours free parking it would be no use to commuters. How about five hours at the weekend, still no use to them. You may get people walking into the town, but in this case the Carmaggedon scenario seems to be about commuters.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/search/coval+lane+chelmsford+car+park/@51.735425,0.4671528,312m/data=!3m1!1e3

Click on the link, have a look at the close by car parks. Fairly busy I'd agree, but still available spaces. Not a scientific way to bolster my assertion but better than just saying the whole of Chelmsford will melt down if Riverside got it's act together and offered a fair solution. By the way, a second station in Chelmsford is proposed to be built in the next few years so even fewer commuters at the main station.

Yes but Riverside is "free" and they are not.
I'm not sure what we are argueing about, we agree that:

• the current system damages the retailers and is savagely penal to people who make small mistakes.
• More free time and less savage charges would be better for the retailers and customers, while still preventing carmaggedon.
• The only way in which the charges are "commercially justified" is that they enable PE and the land owner to profit from a warped bussiness model.
• That the business model is too warped for this justification to be valid.

The only thing we are arguing about is the likelyhood of carmaggedon in a totally uncontrolled carpark, I think the lure of the free would cause commuters to park there rather than the paid car parks, this negates your arguement that there is enough (paid) parking.
Regardless of what would actually happen I think the point has enough traction to make it counterproductive to argue.

bargepole

carandbike wrote: »

I wonder if that was the manager of Home Bargains, where I had spent £60 and the whole of my overstay and more, who was totally unhelpful and dismissive.
(Thankfully the area manager was more helpful )

I was the person who interviewed the managers at the various retailers.


The duty manager at Home Bargains said she had experienced numerous instances of customers abandoning trolleys mid-shop, because their time was almost up. Other customers, when they received a notice through the post, had informed her they wouldn't be patronising that shop any longer.


The lady at Matalan said that she could spend all day getting parking charges cancelled (which apparently they can do for genuine customers who produce a receipt), but now she refers them all to Savills.


Ironically, the only outlet in favour of the PE regime was Staples, which is where BB was trying to get his flyers printed, and their machine broke down causing the overstay in the first place.

carandbike

Ah the manager I spoke to at HB was male and has been there for years. Staples manager wasn't in when I visited, but the person in charge offered to call PE there and then to get it cancelled! I hadn't even bought anything from Staples on the day of the charge as they had no stock.

trisontana

bargepole wrote: »

Ironically, the only outlet in favour of the PE regime was Staples, which is where BB was trying to get his flyers printed, and their machine broke down causing the overstay in the first place.

That puts a lie to those pro-Parking Eye people who say that Barry deliberately and knowingly overstayed.