So...

matttye

bazster wrote: »

Oh what's the point? If you are here simply to parade your clever-dickery and tell us how perfect you are then into my ignore list you go.

That wasn't my intention. Just trying to bring a bit of perspective here.

zerog

Why didn't Beavis get Staples to cancel his ticket?

Many years ago, I overstayed due to a retailer's fault, but had seen the signs on entry. While I did not necessarily accept any contract and whichever PPC it was may not have had any landowner authority, I figured that I should ask the manager about parking anyway.

He said not to worry (I should have got that in writing), but I got a ticket. The manager remembered what he said and got it cancelled.

This was before I learned that even if I ignored the ticket nothing could happen. (before the 2012 Act)

nigelbb

zerog wrote: »

Why didn't Beavis get Staples to cancel his ticket?

Because he took the old pre-POFA advice of simply ignoring the ticket until he received court papers. Don't forget that it's not Staples' car park either as this is a retail park with multiple outlets. It's actually PE's car park as they pay £1000/week for a fishing licence to harvest overstaying motorists. They have to be issuing up to twenty 'fines' a week before they even start making a profit.

bazster

zerog wrote: »

Why didn't Beavis get Staples to cancel his ticket?

I dare say if he'd known what was to ensue he'd have tried, but whether he'd have been successful is another matter: it's not Staples' car park, and ParkingEye pays the landowner £1,000 per week for the privilege of milking it. Given that the relationship between retail customers of the site's tenants (e.g. Staples) and the landowner is very much at arm's length, yet the landowner has a direct and very lucrative arrangement with PE, you can see how it's not in the landowner's interest to cancel tickets or give his tenants the authority to do so.

All the retail outlets on the site were visited by a volunteer who asked the manager (where available) what he though about ParkingEye. The vast majority said they are a pain in the butt that is costing them business. Just goes to show how little the landowner cares about what his tenants think or want.

Coupon-mad

zerog wrote: »

Why didn't Beavis get Staples to cancel his ticket?

Many years ago, I overstayed due to a retailer's fault, but had seen the signs on entry. While I did not necessarily accept any contract and whichever PPC it was may not have had any landowner authority, I figured that I should ask the manager about parking anyway.

He said not to worry (I should have got that in writing), but I got a ticket. The manager remembered what he said and got it cancelled.

This was before I learned that even if I ignored the ticket nothing could happen. (before the 2012 Act)

Because he believed old advice from 3 or 4 years ago and the 'PCN' looked like junk mail.

For obvious reasons Parking Eye do not tell drivers that retailer complaints are an option (not everyone makes the connection to the retailers themselves or would think they can cancel them). Nor did the signs tell Barry that he was probably able to claim an exemption all along if he'd shown his receipt and 'appealed'. Not that I suspect he'd actually read the signs because no-one does because they are high up and unremarkable (deliberately so) but when it comes to showing them as 'evidence' in court cases and at POPLA they show the zoomed in version and an aerial shot showing 'look there are lots'. Barry was honourable and did not try to say there were no signs (because they did exist) but it does not follow that he knew the terms and thought Staples delaying him could cause this.

Nothing like the same as the real situation at retail parks where NO-ONE reads the signs because they are in general, deliberately not prominent and do not meet the 'red hand rule' (not that the Supreme Court Judges - except Lord Toulson - appear to have taken anything like that on board but they are literally a law unto themselves).

They said something daft like 'drivers could hardly fail to see the signs'!! Utter codswallop of course, how do they know that, did they do a site visit and survey drivers? Nope. NO-ONE reads those signs in a free car park (different in pay and display, if obvious by the machine) and that's what PE bank on, as well as people being delayed like Barry was, and the fact they are mimicking real parking tickets and Joe Public doesn't know the difference.


Barry might like to sue Staples or the landowner...considerable loss & distress caused by them...

Herzlos

I was wondering if Barry could claim for his money back from Staples, since it was their machine failure that led to the ticket. I assume he's paid the hundred odd quid now and moved on? Any idea how much PE spent on it's side of proceedings?

matttye wrote: »

Barry, as far as I'm aware, never said he didn't know what the rules were or how long he had.

I don't recall him saying he did know, either. He just focused on the GPEOL as his defence and this is where it led us.

I'd assume that if he knew about the limit, he'd have said something to Staples about what to do - come back later or have them talk to PE?

As said, Staples have no actual power to cancel the ticket - neither the landlord or PE have any incentive to do so.

DCodd

matttye wrote: »

I'm not saying I'm perfect. I just think this is one of those things that's a mountain made out of a mole hill. It's not hard to park and not get a ticket. It can be done with very little effort or thought.

The image doctoring scandal is awful but only affects a few people. The majority of people have in some way made a mistake with regards how long they stay or whatever.

mattye, I'm sure you know that your posting history is available to anyone who wants to look. Everyone makes mistakes, don't we, some, people get away with it, others have to seek advice.

Coupon-mad

DCodd wrote: »

mattye, I'm sure you know that your posting history is available to anyone who wants to look. Everyone makes mistakes, don't we, some, people get away with it, others have to seek advice.

Good spot! Didn't take long to find it...

hahahahahahahahaha!!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5051991

:T

bazster

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Good spot! Didn't take long to find it...

hahahahahahahahaha!!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5051991

:T

:rotfl:

Geez, and to think that I of all people gave advice to someone who read the signage, knew what the terms were and still by his own admission broke them!

Seems that no-one's perfect after all. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, eh, matttye?

Half_way

With regards to the staples machine, Im surprised more hasn't been made of this, the retailers must know about parking eye, and if staples didn't inform Barry, our take action to help him, could staples have any liability? something along the lines of duty of care to the public, negligence and so on?


if staples had acted correctly and either had a working machine, or made sure that parking eye wouldn't persecute Barry, this whole saga wouldn't have happened.