Private Parking Article in Today's "Times"

Fruitcake

Somerfield kicked out (I think) parking lie because of the sh1tstorm of protest by customers over the PPCs aggressive tactics, but it cost the supermarket dear as there was a very hefty contract cancellation fee that I believe ran into six figures.


There are now very few Somerfield supermarkets left. My local one is gone. I wonder why. Perhaps their shoppers never went back.

beamerguy

Fruitcake wrote: »

Somerfield kicked out (I think) parking lie because of the sh1tstorm of protest by customers over the PPCs aggressive tactics, but it cost the supermarket dear as there was a very hefty contract cancellation fee that I believe ran into six figures.


There are now very few Somerfield supermarkets left. My local one is gone. I wonder why. Perhaps their shoppers never went back.

Yes there is always that problem but in the grand scheme of things, it would be an investment to clear out the parking donkeys once and for all and then onwards and upwards.
Another good reason for supermarkets not to sign up to parking companies .... read the cancellation clause first

"Perhaps their shoppers never went back"
Another lesson for the supermarkets

bargepole

Fruitcake wrote: »

Somerfield kicked out (I think) parking lie because of the sh1tstorm of protest by customers over the PPCs aggressive tactics, but it cost the supermarket dear as there was a very hefty contract cancellation fee that I believe ran into six figures.


There are now very few Somerfield supermarkets left. My local one is gone. I wonder why. Perhaps their shoppers never went back.

This was a trial project, where Somerfield allowed PE to install cameras and signs in 17 stores in the Midlands. There were reports at many stores of customer service desks being overwhelmed with angry customers.

They cancelled the contract early, and the claim for compensation from PE eventually reached the Court of Appeal in 2012, where PE were awarded £350,000 as damages for estimated loss of revenue, even though the Judges described their letters to motorists as 'semi-literate' and that PE were guilty of 'a tort of deceit'.

Somerfield Stores were subsequently bought out by the Cooperative Group, who then decided to enter into a contract to run parking enforcement at their stores with that fine, upstanding and not at all dodgy company, Civil Enforcement Ltd., and we've all seen what a spectacular success that was ... not.

beamerguy

bargepole wrote: »

This was a trial project, where Somerfield allowed PE to install cameras and signs in 17 stores in the Midlands. There were reports at many stores of customer service desks being overwhelmed with angry customers.

They cancelled the contract early, and the claim for compensation from PE eventually reached the Court of Appeal in 2012, where PE were awarded £350,000 as damages for estimated loss of revenue, even though the Judges described their letters to motorists as 'semi-literate' and that PE were guilty of 'a tort of deceit'.

Somerfield Stores were subsequently bought out by the Cooperative Group, who then decided to enter into a contract to run parking enforcement at their stores with that fine, upstanding and not at all dodgy company, Civil Enforcement Ltd., and we've all seen what a spectacular success that was ... not.

OK, well guess the only answer is for the supermarket to allow say 6 hrs free parking and not breaking a contract.
It is up to the supermarket to decide after all, let the PPC bow out as and when they wish

Ivor_Pecheque

It wasn't actually my case, it was my wife's case, it was her car. I just spoke on her behalf.

She begged me not to let it go to court.

The judge initially suggested mediation, Parking Eye refused, but backtracked when I rebutted their evidence (with lot's of help from Pranky).

At mediation, I offered what I considered a liberal sum to cover their loss (fifteen quid).

They wanted at least a hundred quid and we refused.

We were told that we shouldn't mention mediation in Court.

Parking Eye's lawyer opened the proceedings with "It is my understanding that Mrs Ivor Pecheque wished this case to come to court today."

A blatant lie.

We were bullied, simple as that.

beamerguy

Ivor_Pecheque wrote: »

It wasn't actually my case, it was my wife's case, it was her car. I just spoke on her behalf.

She begged me not to let it go to court.

The judge initially suggested mediation, Parking Eye refused, but backtracked when I rebutted their evidence (with lot's of help from Pranky).

At mediation, I offered what I considered a liberal sum to cover their loss (fifteen quid).

They wanted at least a hundred quid and we refused.

We were told that we shouldn't mention mediation in Court.

Parking Eye's lawyer opened the proceedings with "It is my understanding that Mrs Ivor Pecheque wished this case to come to court today."

A blatant lie.

We were bullied, simple as that.

That is what Parking Eye do, hence the name Parking Lie or the "one eyed snake"

HEY, EVERYONE MUST UNDERSTAND .... Never shop with a store who employs Parking Eye to monitor the car park, far too dangerous

Your 4 wheels attract these vermin like bees to a honeypot. But, the 4 wheels belong to you so drive out of the car park and shop elsewhere

4consumerrights

beamerguy wrote: »

OK, well guess the only answer is for the supermarket to allow say 6 hrs free parking and not breaking a contract.
It is up to the supermarket to decide after all, let the PPC bow out as and when they wish

Your analysis is quite simplistic view - unfortunately for those who have engaged Parking Eye - the small print in the contract makes it far more costly to get out of the contract once signed..

which includes clauses for reducing free parking times etc...

However, 6 hours is quite a generous free parking time...
The balance is to protect the landowners interests and to attract genuine users and customers and not those who will use the car park and then go off elsewhere.

Ivor_Pecheque

Our local hospital use parking eye.

Patients and carers often have little choice in the matter.

Half_way

Parking Eyes antics at hospitals is well know, and their antics at a Hospital in Burton upon Trent in Derbyshire have been reported on by the plain language commision

ParkingEye’s unclear signs plague hospital patients and visitors (2014)

...what happens when the designers of a parking system ignore all the principles of clarity and good legibility. But was it accidental or a delibrate way of making money out of hospital patients? You can decide for yourself after going through the parking quiz included in the article.

link here
http://www.clearest.co.uk/pages/publications/articlesbyourteam/parking-language/ParkingEyes_unclear_signs_plague_hospital_patients_and_visitors

Although from what i can gather MPs Hospital chiefs, Health Secretary etc have all got their head in the sand, la la la were not listening you will have to talk to the parking eye contractors

beamerguy

4consumerrights wrote: »

Your analysis is quite simplistic view - unfortunately for those who have engaged Parking Eye - the small print in the contract makes it far more costly to get out of the contract once signed..

which includes clauses for reducing free parking times etc...

However, 6 hours is quite a generous free parking time...
The balance is to protect the landowners interests and to attract genuine users and customers and not those who will use the car park and then go off elsewhere.

Then, more fool to the supermarket for engaging in such a contract

Yes 6 hrs is very generous meaning PPC's will lose, AND the supermarket does not break the contract ... nobody has a problem with that. Most people would never shop for 6 hrs and it is an assumption that abusers will create problems, they are the few, the majority are genuine shoppers and that is no excuse.

LANDOWNERS ?? The supermarkets pay good money in rent to the landowners and the landowners should protect the supermarkets and their customers from these vermin