My letter to Mike Coupe, CEO of Sainsbury's

twhitehousescat

my ex [STRIKE]boss[/STRIKE] owner got kicked out of the BPA


takes a lot of being bad to get that done to you

Computersaysno

I note that the CEOs response is pure vanilla.


They simply cut and paste the name of the store and hey presto it fits all situations.


Send a complaint about parking at the store and I'll wager you get the exact same response!!!

Snakes_Belly

When the CoP comes into force (eventually) and there is an independant appeals system in place the car park owner may have to start getting a bit more involved.

Whilst they hide behind the fact that the car park is controlled by the PPC they are the landowner and have appointed the PPC as their agents. A company should take some responsibility for this.

The_Deep

A company should take some responsibility for this.

But they are responsible in law. It is just tha so few of our clients ever explore this.

All we need is a well publicized suicide, look what it did for Mr Kyle.
did for Jeremy Kyle.

Paul_DNAP

Umkomaas wrote: »

In a number of cases, planning permission for the building of the store came with a codicil that the car park was also to be made available for those who wished to shop in other parts of the town. Often the stipulation was for 2 or even 3 hours. Reductions in the time allowance is often made by the parking operators in order to net more 'miscreants' and to maximise their profits. The fact that the store is then contravening planning permission is of no concern to the PPC - they won't let that stand in the way of their thirst for blood.

Your analysis @maman is, I'm afraid, far too simplistic.

And on that note, the Booths in my town had the car park signs refreshed by Parking Eye, and the new signs included the big bold words "For Booths Customers Only Max 2 hours" and "this car park is private land"


The town council stepped in rather quickly and reminded Booths that (a) it isn't their land and (b) part of the planning permission for the store was that they maintained it as a town car park but (c) the 2 hours max was fine, as agreed.


So parking eye had to come back with rolls of white tape to obliterate the incorrect terms from their new signs.

beamerguy

The_Deep wrote: »

A company should take some responsibility for this.

But they are responsible in law. It is just tha so few of our clients ever explore this.

All we need is a well publicized suicide, look what it did for Mr Kyle.
did for Jeremy Kyle.

And do you remember many years ago about British Gas and their aggressive debt collectors. An elderly couple killed themselves

Sadly, I feel certain that this will happen given the low life debt collectors operating in the parking scam.
We know that these debt collectors are toothless idiots but most don't

onlyfoolsandparking

Paul_DNAP wrote: »

And on that note, the Booths in my town had the car park signs refreshed by Parking Eye, and the new signs included the big bold words "For Booths Customers Only Max 2 hours" and "this car park is private land"


The town council stepped in rather quickly and reminded Booths that (a) it isn't their land and (b) part of the planning permission for the store was that they maintained it as a town car park but (c) the 2 hours max was fine, as agreed.


So parking eye had to come back with rolls of white tape to obliterate the incorrect terms from their new signs.

Couldn't have happened to a nicer set of Scammers haha.


That's how things should work! (Council stepping in and slamming these scumbags to the floor) unfortunately too many of these scammers are getting away with murder at the moment, when will it end? I don't know but I'm an optimist and I always live in hope.


@TD I don't know how you get 118,000 thanks but if you open a thread on 'how to cook a chicken' OR 'should I walk to Fat fighters or run? you could be on your way

Snakes_Belly

The_Deep wrote: »

A company should take some responsibility for this.

But they are responsible in law. It is just that so few of our clients ever explore this.

All we need is a well publicized suicide, look what it did for Mr Kyle.
did for Jeremy Kyle.

I thought that there was something called 'vicarious liability'. If the PPC's are not compliant with the Equality Act and breach the act (tort) then the landowner could be vicariously liable? I am not legally trained so I stand corrected.

Snakes_Belly

My understanding is that the Supermarkets etc, have appointed these agents and as such should have taken care in who they were appointing. If as an agent of the Supermarket the PPC was to commit a tort such as a breach of the Equality Act or harassment then the principal (supermarket) could be held vicariously liable.