Waitrose, BW Legal, Britannia Parking, John Lewis Legal team

NeilCr

A big congratulations from me too.

I have to say, as a Waitrose customer, I usually find them very helpful so I am not entirely surprised with the result. Although I did wonder about the repeat offending!

I echo the comments by Redx about more people going for landowner cancellation first. Polite but firm is my modus operandi...

Umkomaas

That’s one excellent result. Multiple tickets are always more difficult to achieve cancellations, but hey, whatever did it, it’s worked!

You will know plenty enough now, given your total immersion over the past 6 days, to come back and give a lift with advising others who will be receiving traumatic news from the private parking sector on any day of the week with a ‘y’ in it!

Well done. :T

BS_Newbie

Umkomaas wrote: »

That’s one excellent result. Multiple tickets are always more difficult to achieve cancellations, but hey, whatever did it, it’s worked!

You will know plenty enough now, given your total immersion over the past 6 days, to come back and give a lift with advising others who will be receiving traumatic news from the private parking sector on any day of the week with a ‘y’ in it!

Well done. :T

Thanks Umkomaas - I know you felt the waitrose email was till a bit long and perhaps a bit ranty but I think what perhaps did it I was expanding a little on the illegality of them not complying with POFA . Interestingly the RK did not want their loyalty card number in the email so it was left out but Waitrose must have searched on the RK's name (it is highly unlikely there were 2 people with same name as customers) and thats how they obtaine the RK's home phone number

as you say whatever did it. it's worked but personally I think these two little paras could have had a lot to do with it - Email sent Sunday eve, phone call made this morning - thats a fast result - 30 hours !!!!!

I have sought advice on this matter and have carried out my own research extensively and it is clear that Britannia Parking has issued these PCN’s incorrectly and illegally as they have failed to comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedom Act 8 (4) and as such they cannot hold me, the keeper, liable for the actions of the driver . I am aware of all the options open to me and I am willing to give Waitrose the chance to quash this threatened legal action and cancel all of the PCN’s once and for all before the matter gets worse for Waitrose and John Lewis. I would welcome your own view on this harassment and hope you see fit to intervene immediately to ensure that Britannia Parking cancel all the PCN’s forthwith and the proposed legal action

I would respectfully suggest that Waitrose thoroughly research the company you are associating with. In truth, Britannia Parking has a terrible online reputation and are now suing your customers over minor 'infringements' without referral to their clients. I am sure that Waitrose customers will not accept a highly respected company stooping so low that shopping with them could result in being taken to court. My family are horrified that Waitrose can allow such a notorious firm to harass customers on your behalf and by employing Britannia, Waitrose may be seen as holding their customers in contempt and on that basis, word of mouth spreads. Might I also suggest that in order to save future problems, that will lose customers, that Waitrose terminates all contracts it has with Britannia Parking from all Waitrose car parks.

BS_Newbie

So the RK rang me a little while ago and despite being cut off on the phone this morning, the lady from Waitrose had immediately tried again, left a message on the voicemail and then had emailed the RK to say they had already instructed BP to immediately cease all action for the 5 PCN's and that the RK did not need to do anything or contact BP or BW Legal. - I havent seen the email yet but we have one extremely relieved and grateful RK.

Apparently whatever this lady from Waitrose said to the RK it led the RK to believe Waitrose are being inundated with complaints about BP from customers so this will hopefully result in them severing ties with BP once and for all.

So the advice will be followed very soon that was given here earlier and the Rk is going to write to BP and demand that because of the intervention of waitrose that they immediately delete any and all data they hold on their system relating to the RK and to confirm when they have done this or the RK will make complaints to the relevant bodies about the horrendous way this company are acting.

Then a SAR will be done to BP a month or so after that to see what, if anything, they still hold on their system.

I am also contemplating contacting the local press about this matter but I don't think the RK would be happy to be named in the local rag.

I do feel very strongly that formal complaints now need to be made about BP to all of the relevant bodies that oversee and who have any clout in this industry but the RK doesnt seem so keen in case there is any comeback on them . I will tackle this one once we have all the necessary written confirmation that this action is cancelled.,

Oh and the RK has apparently suitably chastised the driver who it seems has promised never to park for longer than 90 mins in that car park as the stress has been too much for the RK !!!!:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::j:j

Redx

agreed , its ridiculous that they state 90 minutes , yet a BB holder is normally allowed 3 hours on public roads etc so should be allowed a minimum of 3 hours on these private car parks as well (or longer), so its the same no matter where they park, and my local Morrisons now has ECP with a 3 hour time on site , my local ASDA doesnt specify a time (Parking Eye) , my local retail park is 4 hours (Parking Eye) - there is no commonality at all

for supermarkets , I could agree with 3 hours , but no less , especially as many have cafes and chemists and opticians and argos etc on site , as well as shopping

when you think that staples , toys r us , BHS and now Debenhams have gone under (and many more besides) , you would think that these retailers would realise the harm it does to customers, I think Matalan got rid of SMART not so long ago and JL have issued a profits warning recently too

they are a plague on society and carmageddon does not happen if you remove them or ban them from operating

there was a report on here of a hotel chain or similar that got rid of PE, PE retaliated so the poweer and cameras etc were switched off by the hotel

see those reports for a good laugh

BS_Newbie

Redx wrote: »

agreed , its ridiculous that they state 90 minutes , yet a BB holder is normally allowed 3 hours on public roads etc so should be allowed a minimum of 3 hours on these private car parks as well (or longer), so its the same no matter where they park, and my local Morrisons now has ECP with a 3 hour time on site , my local ASDA doesnt specify a time (Parking Eye) , my local retail park is 4 hours (Parking Eye) - there is no commonality at all

for supermarkets , I could agree with 3 hours , but no less , especially as many have cafes and chemists and opticians and argos etc on site , as well as shopping

when you think that staples , toys r us , BHS and now Debenhams have gone under (and many more besides) , you would think that these retailers would realise the harm it does to customers, I think Matalan got rid of SMART not so long ago and JL have issued a profits warning recently too

they are a plague on society and carmageddon does not happen if you remove them or ban them from operating

there was a report on here of a hotel chain or similar that got rid of PE, PE retaliated so the poweer and cameras etc were switched off by the hotel

see those reports for a good laugh

totally agree with everything you said there - and I didnt realise but apparently Waitrose have kept the £10 min spend sign when they replaced their signs in 2017. It seems that in a few places in the car park are smaller signs that state min £10 spend , max wait time 90 mins or a £70 charge may be applied but see T's & C's on the sign by the store entrance............

So as was commented on in one of the past threads - yo go in and your thigns you need are out of stock so you come out and then sit and fall asleep in your car or have a picnic - are they still seriously saying you have contracted with them by parking - or have you not contracted with them as they couldn't fulfil your wish to spend £10 so the contract is nullified because of this !!!!!! Totally crazy!!

Coupon-mad

BS_Newbie wrote: »

RESULT RESULT RESULT :j :j :j

I've just had a phone call from a very happy and extremely tearful RK saying that they had just taken a call on their home phone from a lovely lady from Waitrose Executive team saying they are horrified at the antics of BP and that they are instructing BP immediately to cease all action.

I asked the RK how Waitrose would have obtained their home phone number so it must be on the records from the RK's loyalty card.

Apparently the call was cut short because the phone supplier was in the street working on the phone lines when they disconnected it so I gave the RK Waitrose head office number. They have spoken to lady again and Waitrose are writing to confirm everything. My advice to the RK is to ask Waitrose to ask them to get BP to write to the RK as well confirming the same.

So the RK has asked me to pass on to everyone here a very big thank you for all the assistance that has been provided in such a short period of time. I too absolutely echo their sentiments and to just say thank you seems to be such an inadequate expression of gratitude.

i totally appreciate it was somewhat of a tsunami of information I unloaded on this amazing forum and my heartfelt apologies still stand if I upset any of you lovely people, I ask for your forgiveness. and all of you are amazing people who deserve medals for the excellent work you do to help consumers fight these awful companies.

I think this closes this chapter with a fantastic result and another victory for the ordinary person .:A:A:A:A:A

ps - I am not proud of the record I set as a newbie on this forum.

We are proud of this outcome, and of your tenacity!

:T

NeilCr

Redx wrote: »

for supermarkets , I could agree with 3 hours , but no less , especially as many have cafes and chemists and opticians and argos etc on site , as well as shopping

I do think that this an "it depends"

My local Waitrose is not that big and does not have a huge amount of parking. It has a small cafe and that's it. I live in a seaside town (5 minutes from Waitrose to the beach) and the supermarket is in the town centre. I can't remember whether it is 90 or 120 minutes free parking (Pretty sure 90) . I think that is ample as it allows people to do their shopping and nip into some of the other shops in town (it's not widely spread out).

If you go to three hours you'll get day trippers using the car park and heading off to the beach. Before nipping back to move their car. Plus, I suspect local shop, office staff, estate agents etc would park there - particularly if they were part time.

I've said before that there is a balance to be had between shoppers, workers, residents and tourists with all parking in a town like mine. Plus we are short of parking anyway.

I agree with you, though, about the big stores and out of town shopping centres. Should be three hours

BS_Newbie

So the RK has received a response from Mr Clark at the BPA (who was very informal addressing the RK by their first name ) who has been following this thread with interest it seems !!! - he has answered in the body of the email the RK sent and so I have copied it here - its worth reading his comments but in summary Mr clark states that in his opinion the signs comply with the BPA code of practice and he gives the clause that applies in their c.o.p.

Mr Clarks response
RK 1st name
Thanks for your note.
I have read about your case with much interest on MSE.
You have given me a tight deadline in which to respond - I would normally need 14 days to conduct an investigation.
I have sought to respond to your questions below in GREEN
I hope my thoughts are helpful.
All the best
Steve Clark
Head of Business Operations
British Parking Association

From: RK
Sent: 07 April 2019 23:50
To: Steve Clark
Subject: BPA, Waitrose, Bishops Stortford Signage
Importance: High

Dear Sir,
I am the Registered Keeper of a xxxx car with number plate xxxx . I have been sent 5 letters relating to Parking Charge Notices (PCN’s) 2 from 2016 and 3 from 2018 from one of your members, Britannia Parking, at the Waitrose car park in Bishop’s Stortford, Hertfordshire (ref numbers and dates of the PCN’s are confirmed below).

Two of these PCN’s were for exactly the same time period on 20/12/16 (observed from 10:40:00 & observed to 12:35:41) and (observed from 10:40:18 & observed to 12:37:41). I was never the driver at the times these fake parking charges were issued and it is outrageous that Britannia Parking thinks it is acceptable to try to extort two lots of payment for exactly the same time period! It is also extremely disappointing that the BPA has allowed Britannia Parking to be one of their members when they employ such unacceptable practices to manage their car parks.

I appreciate your concerns about two PCNs issued for the same period and plan to investigate this matter further with Britannia. Subsequently I will not be commenting further on this aspect of the case until I have heard from them.

I have included with this email photographs that shows the signage that was present in 2016 and 2018 and as you can see, the signs in 2016 clearly display the word PENALTY which had been covered over by green tape and which seems to have been removed. You will also note that on entry to the site the signs from 2016 also show the green tape and all of the signs in the car park in 2016 had the same green tape (presumably covering the word penalty as in the sign attached with this email); on both sets of signs there are no full terms and conditions that a driver could read as they drive in.

Two points here;
A sign containing the word ‘penalty’ would certainly be a breach of our Code. However I note the attempt by Britannia to cover the offending word with some tape - this was a standard interim measure taken by operators when the BPA effectively outlawed the use of the word ‘penalty’ in the Code while replacement signs were being arranged - I support what Britannia have sought to achieve here. It’s unfortunate that some third party has sought to remove the tape, probably for their own ends.
There is no requirement for signage at the entrance to a location to contain ‘full terms and conditions’ - Please see Clause 18.2 of the Code - extract from the Clause as follows;
Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of.
The purpose of Entrance Signage is to alert visitors to the location that there are Terms & Conditions for motorists to follow - the Terms & Conditions will be found throughout the location for motorists to review.

I would be very grateful if you can please confirm if you think that your member, Britannia Parking, has provided proper signage that was clear and in full compliance as laid out in the BPA Code of Practice at the dates in 2016 & 2018 as per the PCN's and as shown on the attached pictures?

I am content that the signage pictures provided conform with our Code of Practice.

Can you also please confirm if you have audited signs and what the dates are of the audits that were carried out?

My Area Manager team have conducted 14 ‘Mystery Shop’ Audits of Waitrose locations over the last 3 year - these type of Audits are where the location is personally visited and inspected - all of the Audits have passed following review by my Operations Team.
We have a Waitrose just down the road from my office and I have reviewed the signage there on a number of occasions as part of a training exercise for new staff.
We have not conducted such an inspection of Waitrose at Bishops Stortford but I will be arranging one in the very near future, for completeness.
A review of the signage used by Britannia across their customer portfolio forms part of the Annual Audit that we have conducted with them for the last nine years that I have been with the Association.


I have been sent a letter dated 08/03/2019 from Britannia Parking informing me that they have instructed their legal department, BW Legal to commence legal action against me in the form of issuing a claim against me in the county court in respect of unpaid “debt” if full payment or a response is not received by the 11th April 2019. I would therefore appreciate a reply from you as soon as possible please.

beamerguy

The "first name" point is a bone of contention with me. It shows disrespect and a wild assumption which is very poor.

With various companies, I get asked if I mind if they call me by my first name. That is the professional way

The problem with the current CoP is that it was constructed by the BPA and because it turned out to be a "pigs ear", Sir Greg Knight's new government CoP will soon take over.

The reply from Mr Clark can only be expected as the BPA is a members club who will be scared stiff that companies like Britannia will jump ship to the IPC ??

It is for this reason that the BPA and IPC are unfit to operate as an ATA as they will be bias towards "paying" members
Only one ATA is required and that should be government run

In your case what the BPA say is completely irrelevant because what matters is that Waitrose are horrified by Britannia.
The BPA should take this onboard as it's a BPA member who Waitrose are horrified with

As far as the signs you have shown, if Mr Clark thinks these are suitable ...... we really do need a government operated ATA

I doubt many onsite visits happen ? I have seen two sites recently where signs could never form a contract, they being Parking Eye and UKPC .... clearly never seen by the BPA