Asda Car parking ticket

System

if your charge to read your post had been CLEARLY displayed and i chose to ignore it then i would expect to deal with the consequences ,END OF .
as for the "mutual " thanks if i agree with whats being said i say thanks is that not how it works ????

NovaBlack_2

Bamber19 wrote: »

£1 charge for reading any of my posts, £50 fine if you fail to pay. This rule applies to everyone, including you. I'll pass it on to a debt collecting agency, regardless of whether i could actually legally fine you or not.

ok SLIIIIGHT differences here to real life... stretching the imagination EVER SO SLIGHTLY!




A) 'IF' ASDA own the car park, i.e. IF it is THEIR land, then why cant they stipulate conditions as to who can/cannot park on their land. You do NOT OWN THIS BOARD so nobody owes you a duty of care, specifically i dont have to worry about commiting trespass against you, so bye bye to your charges.



B)If anything it would be the web hosting company i paid, and even then its VIRTUAL so there is no real measurable loss (ok ok , technically apart from the physical hard disk storage space on a server for one post)



C) people keep harping on about 'their loss was only £1....' ... was it ? Imagine you shop in a city centre car park.. and after two attempts to park there (and its full both times, which HAS happened to me) you decide to go shop somewhere else.

If it then turns out that say 5% or so of users of the car park are in fact using it to nip into town rather than asda, then effectively those users have directly caused a loss of business/incometo ASDA. so it isnt always as clear cut as.. oh they lost £1...

to extend this, without the penalty threat, i know peope who would park in a supermarket carpark for several (3-4) hours whilst they shopped in the nearby high street if it were more convenient. that can amount to a large loss of business if you think 3-4 customers each doing an hourly shop, have been turned away.



D) EVERYONE (unless you live on mars) is used to the idea of charges in carparks. its been around for YEARS .. .so ignorance is no real excuse.. (well.. aslong as they clearly signpost warnings) . The idea of charging for posting on a forum board is CLEARLY a different (probably unheard of) idea. I think youd need to clearly warn users during sign up , and posts. which you havent... as you dont own the site to manage sign ups.

As far as im concerned these charges SHOULD BE LAW. And heres why...

E) IM SICK OF GOING TO MY SUPERMARKET AND NOT BEING ABLE TO PARK... and then seeing people walkin back with high street carrier bags after ive been waiting 15 minutes. WHY do people think its ok?? i DONT understand it. WHY (and PLEASE DO GIVE ME REASONS HERE!) do you think its ok, and how do you justify this?. Do you think the supermarket SHOULD OWE YOU A DUTY OF CARE and let you use its facilities with NOTHING GIVEN IN RETURN. are you forgetting one fact... THEY ARE A BUSINESS!:rotfl:




in regard to the OP... i think the obvious solution is this. go to asda, speak to a manager show him the receipt and ticket, say you are a loyal customer and a long term one, and that youd liek to get this sorted or you will go elsewhere... im sure they will see sense as thy make more than £50 off you during a year in profit anyway!! I do appreciate that your wife DID infact shop there i really do, and i hope this mitigates/waives the charges.


However.. gotta state the obvious.. another supermarket near me (i shop around for bargains):T ... DOES charge £1 every time you park to stop exactly the problems pointed out above. i always pay it.. its common logic... i get it refunded anyway. I Mean your wife KNEW she could get charged right? i mean if you cant get it waived (and i hope you do) its still partly her OWN FAULT. sorry...

As for waiting 15 mins at customer services... i dont really believe that. more like 2 or 3. Heres an idea ... ASK PEOPLE IN THE CAR PARK FOR CHANGE FOR A FIVER,

OR ASK SOMEONE LEAVING FOR A TICKET THAT HAS TIME LEFT. PEOPLE OFTEN OFFER THESE TO ME EVEN IN REGULAR CAR PARKS WHERE IT ISNT REFUNDED!



and heres the real HOT POINT! MOST SUPERMARKETS REFUND YOU THE CAR PARKING CHARGE, SO ITS NOT THERE TO MAKE PROFIT...

THINK FOR A SECOND... WHY THEN IS IT THERE... TO STOP PEOPLE NICKING SPACES AND THEREFORE TO IMPROVE THE SHOPPING EXPERIENCE FOR THE REST OF US!

HOW CAN IT DO THIS IF PEOPLE THINK ITS OK TO NOT BUY TICKETS!!! THEY NEED TO TELL WHO THE CHEAPSKATES ARE WHO ARE USING THE CAR PARK TO SHOP ELSEWHERE, ITS THE ONLY WAY TO KNOW (AND LOGICAL!!!!)

SO.. BUY A TICKET.. IF GETS REFUNDED ANYWAY, WHATS THE PROBLEM! IF YOU DONT HAVE CHANGE, GET SOME OR COME BACK ANOTHER TIME!

Bamber19

You can't just start adding what ifs and extra levels of unforseeable financial damage caused by these actions, and that's not just my opinion but there is legal basis to it. The law is clear on the matter, that unforseeable damages cannot be claimed for unless(and this is also subjectibe) these possible damages are included in the terms of the contract or contemplated by both at the point of formation.

The leading cases involving in one, a company replacing a broken boiler for a laundry (Victoria Laundry Ltd v Newman Indus ltd) but taking so long to do so that the laundry lost out on a lucrative contract to wash military uniforms. The Laundy was able to seek damages for damages that arise directly from the breach of contract but this could not stretch to the financial loss as a result of losing out on this lucrative contract.

The other case (Scottish power plc v Britoil limited) involves a power company providing a generator and extra power lines to the builders of an aquaduct. The builders required that the power be continous such is the requirement of a continual cement flow when building an aquaduct but as they failed to bring this to the attention of the power company the power company could not be held liable for the costs of having to destroy and rebuild parts of the aquaduct.

Both situations are analogous with the (ridiculous) suggestion you've made about the wife of the OP using a car parking space costing the business of another person. In any event I fail to see the significance when she was actually using the store and there is no requirement about time spent in store/ amount spent so by your logic hundreds of people could be costing the supermarket money. Someone spending £50 who takes the space of someone who would have spent £75 is after all costing the company £25 but common sense says the company has no right to sue for the difference.

In addition, the post i made and chose to charge you £1 to read is my intellectual property, a right in which is a real right and as enforceable against the world as a right in property.

Edit: Why on Earth are you talking about a duty of care? I see no need for you to throw in an unrelated legal term from the area of Tort/Delict when i'm talking about contractual obligations

Bamber19

CHRISSYG wrote: »

if your charge to read your post had been CLEARLY displayed and i chose to ignore it then i would expect to deal with the consequences ,END OF .
as for the "mutual " thanks if i agree with whats being said i say thanks is that not how it works ????

Even if the resulting fine charge was unlawful? If everyone thought like that this site would probably only have 20 members as no-one would be interested in reclaiming bank charges (which let's face it is why the majority of people have heard of it) they'd just shrug shoulders and say "it's a fair Kop" (whatever that means, I think it fits though)

As for the thanks, it wasn't actually me who was commenting on that but in any case, to me, the thanks button should be used for helpful posts that actually deserve a thanks. Someone agreeing with my thinking in a debate shouldn't be thanked by me. Most of the posts that have been thanked have not been helpful they've just offered an opinion.

NovaBlack_2

i talk about tort and duty of care because trespass is a tort. look it up. not the only one with a legal background are you.

and as for my 'ridiculous' suggestions. i wasnt referring to it from a legal point of view. i was saying it from a moral one. everyone knows its wrong to park in a space in a car park if you arent shopping there. Really. it isnt difficult if you think about it. and as for the MORALITY of a PRIVATE car park CHECKING YOU HAVE USED IT VALIDLY (its wrong to say they CHARGE YOU FOR USING IT BECAUSE 99% REFUND YOU) i think it is a morally correct choice. i mean if i owned some private land id be entiteld to say 'KEEP OUT COMPLETELY' and itd be enforced. so why not say 'YOU CAN USE ME , BUT ONLY IF YOU SHOP HERE'. its simple.

and EVERYONE KNOWS (its a fact) that parking in a space could cost that company business. its not rocket science. i was describing the MORAL justification of having a policy to not let every tom !!!!!! n harry park there. Are you SERIOUSLY saying that you cant conceive of a situation where somebody using a space IMMORALLY could cost them?

as for the OP i SAID IF YOU READ MY POST PROPERLY that she can probably get her cash back by simply talking to the manager and that i saw the point that she did shop there.

i appreciate her situation is mitigated somewhat.. but still... it really isnt a complicated process... park car.. buy ticket.. shop.. get refunded.

If you dont have change you have a CHOICE to come back when you do. dont make out like she is a 100% innocent victim. she IS PARTLY TO BLAME.

I mean what... is it ok for me to go into macdonalds (morally) buy some food, then say sorry i dont have the cash right now ill come back in a month with it? ( i know legally there is some funny case law here :P but im talking morally)



but logically how does that apply to the real world.. your saying we CANNOT LOGICALLY JUSTIFY having a parking fine system in place. seriously how ELSE are they supposed to tell if some1 has parked there to use the shop or not???

if EVERY person just has to say well i paid 50p for item X then every town center user would simply go to town for 4 hours, come back n buy say a penny sweet then claim they shouldnt have a fine.

Where does this stop? what happens to the 'i went in for item X but you didnt stock it'. does that equate to proof they used the supermarket.. no.

its REALLY not that much of an ordeal to buy a p*ssing ticket! its a QUID AND YOU GET IT REFUNDED!

your making out like they need D6 hour DNA TESTING or something to verify valid users.

goshdarnit

I just came on here to answer the original posters question. To remind you, that question was

Simiont wrote: »

can they make me pay the fine ?:p

The answer to that is NO, they can't.

I have never stated any opinions on rights or wrongs, I just took if from the legal side of things. Now, that seems to have upset people who hold opinions about rights or wrongs of car parking. Thats just tough but why attack me for that?

Its sometimes like dealing with a bunch of squabbling children round here, ganging up on anyone who holds an opinion that differs from there pre-conceived ideas. If you ever ask anyone to back up there opinions with facts then they get all nasty and attack you.

I had one poster who said she "felt sorry for my employer", why, because I stated, rightly, that ebay is not an auction in the legal sense of the word. I mean, get a grip on reality here. Silly cow still hasn't apologised to me to this day, even though her stance was 'it was an auction and the OP should be grateful to lose a lot of money'.

Same instance here, people are stating the OP should hand over money that he has no legal reason to. Wheres the moneysaving in that, and whats the LEGAL reason for them to do so.

NovaBlack wrote: »

i wasnt referring to it from a legal point of view. i was saying it from a moral one.

Morals are good, but are outweighted by the laws of this land, and thats what we are looking at to help the OP. Morally some people beleive we should still be giving a tithe, others beleive that we should give a percentage of our salary in donations to charities. Neither idea holds up well in court.

Bamber19

yes it's a tort but why did you think that relevant when it couldn't be more clear that my angle was one of Contractual obligations with respect to intellectual property. You can't trespass on a website, the closest to this would be unlawful acces to a computer under the Computer Misuse act which would be a criminal case. "Not the only one with a legal backround?" I think on this thread i might be.
I can only apologise for looking at things from a legal point of view when we're talking in a legal context and not jumping back and forth between legal and moral(although many legal theorists would say there should be some correlation) without being clear what mode i'm in.

I'm not saying we can't logically Justify a parking fine system, (I at the very least see the original £1 charge as fair) I'm saying we can't legally do it in these situations. A breach of contract doesn't allow for punitive charges. I'm sorry but i'm not going to make a post saying "this should, that should..." whilst i sit knowing that the law says otherwise.

I'm not even talking about a system of verifying valid users, I missed my DNA testing suggestion also, I msut type so fast sometimes that I don't even know what I've said. I'm saying that if one cannot make a charge legally then no amount of "but they should be able to" or "just pay up" can make any difference. Write to your MP, maybe they can pass a bill to change over 100 years of common law to allow unfair charges to be legal.

Also, dependant upon what part of the country you live in, you might find that your sign on your private land saying "Keep out completely" would be redundant as the Land Reform Act gives rights of access to the public to land including private land. It's my belief that this one only applies to Scotland so you're probably safe but at least you can say you've learned something today.

The bottom line here is that the OP came here looking for advice on whether ASDA could do this or not, It's clear he wants an answer from a legal point of view so morals shouldn't come into it at all.

goshdarnit

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=391727&postcount=17


"Using the Thanks Button

If you think a post has been helpful, you can click the thanks button at the bottom-right of that post."

CHRISSYG wrote: »

as for the "mutual " thanks if i agree with whats being said i say thanks is that not how it works ????

CHRISSYG wrote: »

ooh tell it to someone who cares! im not the one facing a £50 fine for stupidity.

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CHRISSYG For This Useful Post: Show me >>
bookemdano (Yesterday), marleyboy (Yesterday), NovaBlack (Today)



So taking your initial statement, the following people don't care about this thread:- bookemdano, marleyboy and NovaBlack

Very interesting.

uktim29

Bamber19 wrote: »

When a contract is broken the law seeks to(where possible) put the parties in the position they would have been in, had the contractual obligations actually been performed, I believe that's £1 to ASDA.

So basically theres no point in paying for parking again?

I think the fine is meant to act as a deterrent. If all you ever had to do was pay the original cost of the ticket if you didn't park no-one would bother paying for parking again, they'd just see if they could get away with it.

Why should it only be the council who can stop people taking the !!!! and parking where they like & when they like. Asda just wants to help it's shoppers (the ones who can also read signs about charges about 99.99% of people) so they can actually park.

daisy_doughnut_2

even though everyone seems to be using long words to make your post look better you still look like you belong in a childs playground

the op asked a question that only needed a simple yes or no

not for his thread to be hijacked an turned in to a political/moral/ethical/contractual...ect debate