This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
A friend of mine parked in Sainsburys where they photograph your car registration and stayed 1/2 hour over the limit. She has since received a fine with all the usual threats if she doesn't pay within so many days, can this fine be enforced or should she ignore it?
In reply to chris gooder:
Yes the fine *can* be enforced but highly unlikely and depends on the company, it is NOT the same as a council issued PCN. Tell your friend to register with Pepipoo and go through the free advice there (usually filling out a POPLA appeal if it can't be settled direct with Sainsbury's and take it from there). Loads of good advice and people there, don't pay the crooks!
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=7b5c191e4d1ec05b5db68c2db5e44cfd&...
Yes the fine *can* be enforced but highly unlikely and depends on the company, it is NOT the same as a council issued PCN. Tell your friend to register with Pepipoo and go through the free advice there (usually filling out a POPLA appeal if it can't be settled direct with Sainsbury's and take it from there). Loads of good advice and people there, don't pay the crooks!
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=7b5c191e4d1ec05b5db68c2db5e44cfd&...
3
22
25
8
4
1
In reply to chris gooder:
Go to Sainsburys and ask if they can do anything about it. The whole parking scandle is a jobsworths wet dream with no real benefit to anyone.
Go to Sainsburys and ask if they can do anything about it. The whole parking scandle is a jobsworths wet dream with no real benefit to anyone.
9
3
In reply to ByEek:
Rubbish, frankly. Parking restrictions ensure that spaces are available for genuine users when they require them.
There are shortcomings in how it is done, of course, such as dubious appeals processes. But parking restrictions are not there for a laugh - they are there for everyone's benefit, e.g. not filling supermarket car parks up with commuters from the nearby railway station.
> Go to Sainsburys and ask if they can do anything about it. The whole parking scandle is a jobsworths wet dream with no real benefit to anyone.
Rubbish, frankly. Parking restrictions ensure that spaces are available for genuine users when they require them.
There are shortcomings in how it is done, of course, such as dubious appeals processes. But parking restrictions are not there for a laugh - they are there for everyone's benefit, e.g. not filling supermarket car parks up with commuters from the nearby railway station.
28
7
In reply to chris gooder:
I think sort of hinges on if she was on if she was in Sainsburys for the entire time, or if she left it there and went shopping else where.
I think sort of hinges on if she was on if she was in Sainsburys for the entire time, or if she left it there and went shopping else where.
10
2
In reply to JoshOvki:
I think it sort of hinges on if she was in the car park for longer than the free parking time ( Always assuming that the rules are clearly displayed).
I think it sort of hinges on if she was in the car park for longer than the free parking time ( Always assuming that the rules are clearly displayed).
6
8
In reply to Neil Williams:
Lots of folk don't see it that way. I'm near a railway station and with the increased rail commuters due to the Forth Road Bridge closure, cars were being left here there and everywhere including on the pavements, partially across driveways. Lorries could not access the area - the main road was like a narrow slalom course. The Police put no waiting cones down because emergency service vehicles would have been unable to get access, left letters under wipers, and many drivers still just parked in between the cones, and in inconsiderate places.
It was such a safety issue that the local council then had to issue a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order covering the whole area, which gives full authority to issue PCNs and is also a designated tow away zone. Still the odd driver who ignored the cones (eg pushing in between the end cone and yellow double lines) and tow away signs.
I feel sorry for the commuters affected by the bridge closure, and thankfully it is likely to be only temporary, but the Council had actually provided two areas within five minutes walk for free unrestricted all day parking. To this day one of those temporary car parks has never had a car parked there whenever I have passed it. Some folk will just not walk a few minutes.
> But parking restrictions are not there for a laugh - they are there for everyone's benefit
Lots of folk don't see it that way. I'm near a railway station and with the increased rail commuters due to the Forth Road Bridge closure, cars were being left here there and everywhere including on the pavements, partially across driveways. Lorries could not access the area - the main road was like a narrow slalom course. The Police put no waiting cones down because emergency service vehicles would have been unable to get access, left letters under wipers, and many drivers still just parked in between the cones, and in inconsiderate places.
It was such a safety issue that the local council then had to issue a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order covering the whole area, which gives full authority to issue PCNs and is also a designated tow away zone. Still the odd driver who ignored the cones (eg pushing in between the end cone and yellow double lines) and tow away signs.
I feel sorry for the commuters affected by the bridge closure, and thankfully it is likely to be only temporary, but the Council had actually provided two areas within five minutes walk for free unrestricted all day parking. To this day one of those temporary car parks has never had a car parked there whenever I have passed it. Some folk will just not walk a few minutes.
15
In reply to atrendall:
Should mitigating circumstances or intentions never be considered?
Surely there is a huge difference if she spent two hours doing a monster shop and using the cafe in Sainsburys than if she bought a twix and then went to get a hair cut elsewhere.
It saddens me when people abide by rules to the word regardless and don't use them sympathetically. Rules are to serve a purpose or prevent a problem. They should be considered as a tool to stop people who are causing a problem from doing so in future. They are not infallible overlords of the universe.
It's very attractive for some to apply a 'you broke to rule' logic to everything because it requires little thinking. In my opinion however it's damaging to society (think sue culture in the US for example).
> I think it sort of hinges on if she was in the car park for longer than the free parking time ( Always assuming that the rules are clearly displayed).
Should mitigating circumstances or intentions never be considered?
Surely there is a huge difference if she spent two hours doing a monster shop and using the cafe in Sainsburys than if she bought a twix and then went to get a hair cut elsewhere.
It saddens me when people abide by rules to the word regardless and don't use them sympathetically. Rules are to serve a purpose or prevent a problem. They should be considered as a tool to stop people who are causing a problem from doing so in future. They are not infallible overlords of the universe.
It's very attractive for some to apply a 'you broke to rule' logic to everything because it requires little thinking. In my opinion however it's damaging to society (think sue culture in the US for example).
Post edited at 11:10
13
2
In reply to Neil Williams:
Rubbish, frankly. Parking restrictions ensure that spaces are available for genuine users when they require them.
disagree. I'v stopped using my local sainsburies because they charge for parking on the basis that you are then refunded if you spend over a fiver. They think they are stopping it just being used as a short stay car park. However as an actual customer it pisses me off that if I go in and they havnt got what I went in for, I am then charged for the privilege, so I now choose to shop elsewhere.
Rubbish, frankly. Parking restrictions ensure that spaces are available for genuine users when they require them.
disagree. I'v stopped using my local sainsburies because they charge for parking on the basis that you are then refunded if you spend over a fiver. They think they are stopping it just being used as a short stay car park. However as an actual customer it pisses me off that if I go in and they havnt got what I went in for, I am then charged for the privilege, so I now choose to shop elsewhere.
8
5
In reply to Climbing Pieman:
Yes, there are a lot of lazy people out there. I regularly see campaigns for more parking to be provided in Central Milton Keynes, for example. Yet every single time I have ever driven there, at various times of day and night, I have always without exception found a parking space. The people making these campaigns are just being lazy and won't walk from where the parking is to where they are going.
(If there is insufficient disabled parking, that's another issue, and in that case more should be created at the expense of spaces for those who can walk but are simply lazy)
Yes, there are a lot of lazy people out there. I regularly see campaigns for more parking to be provided in Central Milton Keynes, for example. Yet every single time I have ever driven there, at various times of day and night, I have always without exception found a parking space. The people making these campaigns are just being lazy and won't walk from where the parking is to where they are going.
(If there is insufficient disabled parking, that's another issue, and in that case more should be created at the expense of spaces for those who can walk but are simply lazy)
5
In reply to pebbles:
That is a shortcoming, and that is up to you, but they will be making that charge in order to ensure that you can park, so other shoppers do not fill the car park up.
> disagree. I'v stopped using my local sainsburies because they charge for parking on the basis that you are then refunded if you spend over a fiver. They think they are stopping it just being used as a short stay car park. However as an actual customer it pisses me off that if I go in and they havnt got what I went in for, I am then charged for the privilege, so I now choose to shop elsewhere.
That is a shortcoming, and that is up to you, but they will be making that charge in order to ensure that you can park, so other shoppers do not fill the car park up.
4
3
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
Indeed, and that would be solved by the customer services being able to extend parking when you approach them explaining why. FWIW, though, I think 3 hours covers most of those needs, rather than the 2 hours you sometimes get.
The other option is something like 2 or 3 hours free, but then £10/hour payable on exit (say). You can then stay longer if you really need to. That could be waived by customer services for those with a good reason, e.g. a receipt from the cafe and for a large shop.
> Should mitigating circumstances or intentions never be considered?
>> Surely there is a huge difference if she spent two hours doing a monster shop and using the cafe in Sainsburys than if she bought a twix and then went to get a hair cut elsewhere.
Indeed, and that would be solved by the customer services being able to extend parking when you approach them explaining why. FWIW, though, I think 3 hours covers most of those needs, rather than the 2 hours you sometimes get.
The other option is something like 2 or 3 hours free, but then £10/hour payable on exit (say). You can then stay longer if you really need to. That could be waived by customer services for those with a good reason, e.g. a receipt from the cafe and for a large shop.
Post edited at 11:22
1
1
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
The world seems to be divided into Judge Dredd & Hamish Mcbeth.
D
The world seems to be divided into Judge Dredd & Hamish Mcbeth.
D
Post edited at 11:31
2
In reply to pebbles:
The Sainsbury's that I ocassionally use, has that system, but the first half hour is free. I often mention it as the way I think Supermarket parking should operate.
* I decided to put the apostrophe in Sainsbury's, they are a grocer after all.
The Sainsbury's that I ocassionally use, has that system, but the first half hour is free. I often mention it as the way I think Supermarket parking should operate.
* I decided to put the apostrophe in Sainsbury's, they are a grocer after all.
Post edited at 11:36
6
1
In reply to Dauphin:
Well, err, not really. Parking enforcement is necessary because otherwise lazy/penny pinching people take the mick. However, there is room for more sensible discretion of genuine cases, e.g. someone who is going to spend a long time in the supermarket. To me the best way to do this is pay[1] on exit, which is a fairer system of parking in almost every situation (but doesn't bring the huge profits organisations like).
[1] As I said above, free for 2 or 3 hours, £10/hour after that, with customer services able to waive if necessary by issuing an exit token, and those who really want to stay there can do so legitimately by simply paying that sum.
Well, err, not really. Parking enforcement is necessary because otherwise lazy/penny pinching people take the mick. However, there is room for more sensible discretion of genuine cases, e.g. someone who is going to spend a long time in the supermarket. To me the best way to do this is pay[1] on exit, which is a fairer system of parking in almost every situation (but doesn't bring the huge profits organisations like).
[1] As I said above, free for 2 or 3 hours, £10/hour after that, with customer services able to waive if necessary by issuing an exit token, and those who really want to stay there can do so legitimately by simply paying that sum.
1
4
In reply to Pesda potato:
i genuinely dont give a poo that this has at this time had 6 dislikes, probably by the same people who exceed the driving speed limit then complain when they get a fine.
Rules are there for our benefit whether you like it or not. In the past these sort of things wouldnt matter but nowadays there are so many people, so many cars, we need tighter rules to ensure fairness and allow the system to work.
i genuinely dont give a poo that this has at this time had 6 dislikes, probably by the same people who exceed the driving speed limit then complain when they get a fine.
Rules are there for our benefit whether you like it or not. In the past these sort of things wouldnt matter but nowadays there are so many people, so many cars, we need tighter rules to ensure fairness and allow the system to work.
5
11
4
1
In reply to Pesda potato:
In the past people were less likely to take the mick, as well. There was a sense of civic responsibility that is missing in many people now.
I will, as ever, use the example of the issue of those people who think it's OK to deliberately park in the Pen y Pass car park without paying. Those people directly caused enforcement to be introduced. Had they not taken the mick in that manner, it would have probably remained honesty-based, and if for instance you got there without the required change you would be able to park and pay later e.g. having obtained change from the cafe while eating there having walked up and down Snowdon. Because people did take the mick, this useful discretion was lost.
Enforcement is only needed because too many people fail to respect a landowner's reasonable requests, e.g. to only park in a supermarket car park if actually shopping there, and not to remain for an unreasonable period thereafter.
It's the same with the trains. If people paid their fare, and only didn't in exceptional circumstances (e.g. forgotten railcard or ticket), there would be absolutely no need for the draconian enforcement that goes on these days, nor for things like ticket barriers. People deliberately fare-dodging have brought this lack of discretion on all of us, and I resent it, personally.
In the past people were less likely to take the mick, as well. There was a sense of civic responsibility that is missing in many people now.
I will, as ever, use the example of the issue of those people who think it's OK to deliberately park in the Pen y Pass car park without paying. Those people directly caused enforcement to be introduced. Had they not taken the mick in that manner, it would have probably remained honesty-based, and if for instance you got there without the required change you would be able to park and pay later e.g. having obtained change from the cafe while eating there having walked up and down Snowdon. Because people did take the mick, this useful discretion was lost.
Enforcement is only needed because too many people fail to respect a landowner's reasonable requests, e.g. to only park in a supermarket car park if actually shopping there, and not to remain for an unreasonable period thereafter.
It's the same with the trains. If people paid their fare, and only didn't in exceptional circumstances (e.g. forgotten railcard or ticket), there would be absolutely no need for the draconian enforcement that goes on these days, nor for things like ticket barriers. People deliberately fare-dodging have brought this lack of discretion on all of us, and I resent it, personally.
Post edited at 12:09
8
1
In reply to Neil Williams:
Rubbish. They are a simple money making exercise and Sainsburys will get a lucrative kick back from their contractor. If ensuring availability of spaces for all in a fair and considerate manner was the aim of the game, there are numerous other systems that could be implemented. i.e. pay and display with refund for genuine customers. Alas, such schemes are not as lucrative hence they don't bother.
If it wasn't a fiddle, there wouldn't be a need for signs everywhere with 10,000 words of Ts and Cs for drivers to comply with. This is only parking we are talking about after all.
> Rubbish, frankly. Parking restrictions ensure that spaces are available for genuine users when they require them.
Rubbish. They are a simple money making exercise and Sainsburys will get a lucrative kick back from their contractor. If ensuring availability of spaces for all in a fair and considerate manner was the aim of the game, there are numerous other systems that could be implemented. i.e. pay and display with refund for genuine customers. Alas, such schemes are not as lucrative hence they don't bother.
If it wasn't a fiddle, there wouldn't be a need for signs everywhere with 10,000 words of Ts and Cs for drivers to comply with. This is only parking we are talking about after all.
3
6
1
In reply to ByEek:
Some supermarkets do implement pay and display with refunds, but I personally find it a very inconvenient approach as I have to obtain a ticket (having right change for it) and remember to cash it in. I vastly prefer a limited stay approach, though I do think 3 hours is the correct duration as a very large shop can end up taking over 2. The one thing I want rid of is "no return within" as it stops you going back for a forgotten item. Better would be "3 hours total in any 24 hour period" enforced by cameras on entry and exit.
Some supermarkets do implement pay and display with refunds, but I personally find it a very inconvenient approach as I have to obtain a ticket (having right change for it) and remember to cash it in. I vastly prefer a limited stay approach, though I do think 3 hours is the correct duration as a very large shop can end up taking over 2. The one thing I want rid of is "no return within" as it stops you going back for a forgotten item. Better would be "3 hours total in any 24 hour period" enforced by cameras on entry and exit.
2
In reply to chris gooder:
Yes the fine should be paid, but is reimbursable through the ShopLift scheme. Some try to stuff their pockets with small things, but I find the best way is to stride out confidently with a crate of beer. Make sure to smile at the security guard on the way out.
Yes the fine should be paid, but is reimbursable through the ShopLift scheme. Some try to stuff their pockets with small things, but I find the best way is to stride out confidently with a crate of beer. Make sure to smile at the security guard on the way out.
2
1
In reply to chris gooder:
If she has got a receipt that demonstrates that she genuinely spent enough to justify the length of stay it's worth asking at the store as they will often waive the fine.
If not I'd suggest paying the fine and learning the lesson for next time.
> A friend of mine parked in Sainsburys where they photograph your car registration and stayed 1/2 hour over the limit. She has since received a fine with all the usual threats if she doesn't pay within so many days, can this fine be enforced or should she ignore it?
If she has got a receipt that demonstrates that she genuinely spent enough to justify the length of stay it's worth asking at the store as they will often waive the fine.
If not I'd suggest paying the fine and learning the lesson for next time.
4
In reply to ByEek:
The ability to park when I go to the supermarket seems like a very real benefit to me!
> Go to Sainsburys and ask if they can do anything about it. The whole parking scandle is a jobsworths wet dream with no real benefit to anyone.
The ability to park when I go to the supermarket seems like a very real benefit to me!
3
In reply to chris gooder:
We have a local Sainsbury's which has a sign for parking abuse penalties. I think the shop is perfectly entitled to enforce its rules on its land how it wishes, especially if it runs the risk of losing custom because genuine shoppers cant park there due to folks parking when they arent shopping there. That's reasonable in my view.
Fining someone because they were longer than the two hours spending a small fortune in that shop is ridiculous and may have the adverse effect and the ticket should be waived. A quick call to the local manager with a copy of the receipt should suffice I would think.
On the other hand, the thing which boils my blood in my local store is the f*ckwits who use the disabled and parent+child spaces who dont have a badge or a child. I think the fines should be quadrupled for these inconsiderate wankers and enforce with some gusto.
We have a local Sainsbury's which has a sign for parking abuse penalties. I think the shop is perfectly entitled to enforce its rules on its land how it wishes, especially if it runs the risk of losing custom because genuine shoppers cant park there due to folks parking when they arent shopping there. That's reasonable in my view.
Fining someone because they were longer than the two hours spending a small fortune in that shop is ridiculous and may have the adverse effect and the ticket should be waived. A quick call to the local manager with a copy of the receipt should suffice I would think.
On the other hand, the thing which boils my blood in my local store is the f*ckwits who use the disabled and parent+child spaces who dont have a badge or a child. I think the fines should be quadrupled for these inconsiderate wankers and enforce with some gusto.
3
1
In reply to ByEek:
If the majority of the users of the carpark are legitimate Sainsburys customers, its hardly likely to be very lucrative, is it ? unless of course there are actually loads of carpark users who are doing so because they think they can get away with some free parking - in which case how else do you solve the problem other than by charging ?
> Rubbish. They are a simple money making exercise and Sainsburys will get a lucrative kick back from their contractor.
If the majority of the users of the carpark are legitimate Sainsburys customers, its hardly likely to be very lucrative, is it ? unless of course there are actually loads of carpark users who are doing so because they think they can get away with some free parking - in which case how else do you solve the problem other than by charging ?
5
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Yeah, agreed on disabled/parent and child spaces. People who park in these when not entitled to do so, even for a short time, are incredibly selfish. I'd be happy for it to be a criminal offence with a proper fine and points on the licence to do this, particularly in the case of disabled spaces.
Yeah, agreed on disabled/parent and child spaces. People who park in these when not entitled to do so, even for a short time, are incredibly selfish. I'd be happy for it to be a criminal offence with a proper fine and points on the licence to do this, particularly in the case of disabled spaces.
Post edited at 13:47
3
1
In reply to GrahamD:
You would think wouldn't you. I believe Parking Eye, friend of Aldi turnover in the region of £25 million a year. Not bad going for doing f**k all but issue ransom tickets.
I don't have a problem with regulation. I do have a problem with the extortionate value of the fines. £100 (which is not uncommon) to go over by a few minutes is taking the p1ss. Can you imagine the outrage if it cost £10 for a plastic carrier bag rather than 5p? Yet this is precisely what the parking companies are allowed to do.
> If the majority of the users of the carpark are legitimate Sainsburys customers, its hardly likely to be very lucrative, is it ?
You would think wouldn't you. I believe Parking Eye, friend of Aldi turnover in the region of £25 million a year. Not bad going for doing f**k all but issue ransom tickets.
I don't have a problem with regulation. I do have a problem with the extortionate value of the fines. £100 (which is not uncommon) to go over by a few minutes is taking the p1ss. Can you imagine the outrage if it cost £10 for a plastic carrier bag rather than 5p? Yet this is precisely what the parking companies are allowed to do.
2
2
In reply to Neil Williams:
I agree with your sentiments but life is too short. It is like the people who appear to happy to wait for you to get 2 kids, their toys, snacks, pram, shopping and more besides into the car simply because you have a space that is 20 yards closer to the shop / stairs than the empty one just down the way. If a car park is busy we make a point of driving as far from the shop for less hassle.
> I'd be happy for it to be a criminal offence with a proper fine and points on the licence to do this, particularly in the case of disabled spaces.
I agree with your sentiments but life is too short. It is like the people who appear to happy to wait for you to get 2 kids, their toys, snacks, pram, shopping and more besides into the car simply because you have a space that is 20 yards closer to the shop / stairs than the empty one just down the way. If a car park is busy we make a point of driving as far from the shop for less hassle.
Post edited at 14:10
1
In reply to ByEek:
I don't think a lot of people think very much when they enter car parks. They're just on some kind of pre-learned auto pilot.
It goes to explain a lot.
In my local Sainsburys people park on the zebra crossing right outside to go to the cash tills. Even if there is a vacant space on the other side of the road.
I don't think a lot of people think very much when they enter car parks. They're just on some kind of pre-learned auto pilot.
It goes to explain a lot.
In my local Sainsburys people park on the zebra crossing right outside to go to the cash tills. Even if there is a vacant space on the other side of the road.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
That would make some people's heads explode.
> Yes but it's the Sainsbury family so should it be Sainsburys'?
That would make some people's heads explode.
1
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Perhaps. I used to work for a company that designs car parks for supermarkets. If our local Sainsburys is anything to go by the company that do their car parks are hopeless because they have decided to run all traffic in and out of the car park past the main entrance to the store. As a result, pedestrians run a gauntlet, and drivers are forever getting gridlocked by pedestrians crossing the road.
> In my local Sainsburys people park on the zebra crossing right outside to go to the cash tills. Even if there is a vacant space on the other side of the road.
Perhaps. I used to work for a company that designs car parks for supermarkets. If our local Sainsburys is anything to go by the company that do their car parks are hopeless because they have decided to run all traffic in and out of the car park past the main entrance to the store. As a result, pedestrians run a gauntlet, and drivers are forever getting gridlocked by pedestrians crossing the road.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
That is to be fair a factor of poor design - why not have say 3-4 spaces directly outside the cashpoints which are for max 5 minutes stay?
That is to be fair a factor of poor design - why not have say 3-4 spaces directly outside the cashpoints which are for max 5 minutes stay?
In reply to Neil Williams:
Selfish, but not much can be done in reality on private land as it stands meantime. There is no need to hold a blue badge at all if disabled, no need to register disability, etc, but with EU rules/planning permissions/etc., retailers must make reasonable provision for disabled customers. Unlike on road, council run parking etc, where there is a link to blue badge, there is not on private parking (unless it's changed recently!). You would need to change EU and UK legislation from what I remember, and can't see that happening anytime soon!
As to what is a parent or child definition ... ,
> Yeah, agreed on disabled/parent and child spaces. People who park in these when not entitled to do so, even for a short time, are incredibly selfish. I'd be happy for it to be a criminal offence with a proper fine and points on the licence to do this, particularly in the case of disabled spaces.
Selfish, but not much can be done in reality on private land as it stands meantime. There is no need to hold a blue badge at all if disabled, no need to register disability, etc, but with EU rules/planning permissions/etc., retailers must make reasonable provision for disabled customers. Unlike on road, council run parking etc, where there is a link to blue badge, there is not on private parking (unless it's changed recently!). You would need to change EU and UK legislation from what I remember, and can't see that happening anytime soon!
As to what is a parent or child definition ... ,
Post edited at 15:08
In reply to Pesda potato:
I believe the appropriate forum protocol for responses like this is;
' Shots Fired '
> or she could pay the fine and follow the rules next time?
I believe the appropriate forum protocol for responses like this is;
' Shots Fired '
1
In reply to Climbing Pieman:
Seems easy enough to define - the car contains two or more people, at least one of whom is under a specified age (I'd suggest about 8), or (possibly) the car contains a pregnant woman.
Hard to enforce, but easy to define.
> As to what is a parent or child definition ... ,
Seems easy enough to define - the car contains two or more people, at least one of whom is under a specified age (I'd suggest about 8), or (possibly) the car contains a pregnant woman.
Hard to enforce, but easy to define.
In reply to Neil Williams:
I can't see how that would be enforceable.
How about people park in a space and use the zebra crossing provided to cross the road. It would take less than 30secs longer.
> That is to be fair a factor of poor design - why not have say 3-4 spaces directly outside the cashpoints which are for max 5 minutes stay?
I can't see how that would be enforceable.
How about people park in a space and use the zebra crossing provided to cross the road. It would take less than 30secs longer.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Or that
One way to enforce it would be to ask all the people queueing at the cashpoint which was their car, and to ticket any that remain.
Or that
One way to enforce it would be to ask all the people queueing at the cashpoint which was their car, and to ticket any that remain.
1
In reply to Neil Williams:
Because people like ByEek will park in them for 3 hours and then moan about the fascist money making scheme when they get the letter.
> That is to be fair a factor of poor design - why not have say 3-4 spaces directly outside the cashpoints which are for max 5 minutes stay?
Because people like ByEek will park in them for 3 hours and then moan about the fascist money making scheme when they get the letter.
2
In reply to cap'nChino:
"Popcorn opened" would also do.
> I believe the appropriate forum protocol for responses like this is;
> ' Shots Fired '
"Popcorn opened" would also do.
In reply to Pesda potato:
A child for the purposes of a commercial agreement (as per a car park) is whatever the car park owner defines it as, provided it is made clear.
For instance, a child on trains is 15 or under. On buses it varies - in some places it's 17 or under, in some places it's 12 or under, in some places (e.g. Megabus, if I recall rightly) no discount is offered. In others it is only offered at certain times, e.g. no child fares after 9pm.
The legal definition of a child is of no relevance.
A child for the purposes of a commercial agreement (as per a car park) is whatever the car park owner defines it as, provided it is made clear.
For instance, a child on trains is 15 or under. On buses it varies - in some places it's 17 or under, in some places it's 12 or under, in some places (e.g. Megabus, if I recall rightly) no discount is offered. In others it is only offered at certain times, e.g. no child fares after 9pm.
The legal definition of a child is of no relevance.
Post edited at 15:51
1
In reply to chris fox:
To be honest it was 3 1/2 hours with the limit being 3 hours. She had shopped elsewhere for 2 hours then ended up shopping in Sainsbury's and having lunch in the café.
After she's read all your replies I think I'll leave it with her.
Thank you to everyone for your views
To be honest it was 3 1/2 hours with the limit being 3 hours. She had shopped elsewhere for 2 hours then ended up shopping in Sainsbury's and having lunch in the café.
After she's read all your replies I think I'll leave it with her.
Thank you to everyone for your views
4
In reply to DancingOnRock:
No.
I worked for them in their heyday, from 1982, when it was owned by the family, and was Sainsbury's, until the family sold their majority shares and it became Sainsburys. I left in 2007 when I turned up at a meeting and they unceremoniously gave me my cards for being too old and unable to manage the outrageous amount of commitment retailers expect from their management.
The Sainsbury's days were Good Old Days.......*nostalgic sigh*
> Yes but it's the Sainsbury family so should it be Sainsburys'?
No.
I worked for them in their heyday, from 1982, when it was owned by the family, and was Sainsbury's, until the family sold their majority shares and it became Sainsburys. I left in 2007 when I turned up at a meeting and they unceremoniously gave me my cards for being too old and unable to manage the outrageous amount of commitment retailers expect from their management.
The Sainsbury's days were Good Old Days.......*nostalgic sigh*
In reply to chris gooder:
You have to be careful at Lidle, I think it is 90 mins and they have a man keeping tabs on you, her indoors takes ages and I sit in the car ready to move out as she always take's an age to read all the labels, point is she spends a lot of money, why should she have to leave before she is finished shopping, no one wins, especially Lidle!
Because of this sitting in the car, I see people come in, park in the special parking spots for wheelchairs etc, most are fit and just lazy and cant be arsed to walk 20 mtrs, no one says a word about it.
So I can see the argument, but a bit of common sense like having a receipt for your shopping to prove that you were in the store should be all that's needed.
Or is that to easy?
You have to be careful at Lidle, I think it is 90 mins and they have a man keeping tabs on you, her indoors takes ages and I sit in the car ready to move out as she always take's an age to read all the labels, point is she spends a lot of money, why should she have to leave before she is finished shopping, no one wins, especially Lidle!
Because of this sitting in the car, I see people come in, park in the special parking spots for wheelchairs etc, most are fit and just lazy and cant be arsed to walk 20 mtrs, no one says a word about it.
So I can see the argument, but a bit of common sense like having a receipt for your shopping to prove that you were in the store should be all that's needed.
Or is that to easy?
In reply to Stu Tyrrell:
You really sit in the car for 90 mins whenever your wife goes shopping at Lidls? Not sure if that deserves an award or sectioning.
You really sit in the car for 90 mins whenever your wife goes shopping at Lidls? Not sure if that deserves an award or sectioning.
4
1
In reply to Willi Crater:
Shhh, I cant stand the looking at all the labels, when I go in, I just wiz round and get what I want.
Keeps everyone happy!
OK - sectioning.
Shhh, I cant stand the looking at all the labels, when I go in, I just wiz round and get what I want.
Keeps everyone happy!
OK - sectioning.
Post edited at 20:44
1
3
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
I agree to an extent with this, as blind compliance with pointless rules is a big bugbear of mine. However, never underestimate the propensity of a section of the Great British public to mercilessly exploit the slightest leeway. Let a disabled old lady off with 5 minutes extra and there'll be a ranting, spitting, swearing troglodyte demanding 5 extra hours because he knows his f***ing rights and you're discriminating against him and that's against the Geneva convention and shit.
> It saddens me when people abide by rules to the word regardless and don't use them sympathetically. Rules are to serve a purpose or prevent a problem. They should be considered as a tool to stop people who are causing a problem from doing so in future. They are not infallible overlords of the universe.
I agree to an extent with this, as blind compliance with pointless rules is a big bugbear of mine. However, never underestimate the propensity of a section of the Great British public to mercilessly exploit the slightest leeway. Let a disabled old lady off with 5 minutes extra and there'll be a ranting, spitting, swearing troglodyte demanding 5 extra hours because he knows his f***ing rights and you're discriminating against him and that's against the Geneva convention and shit.
4
In reply to Ridge:
Quite. All this overzealous enforcement exists only because there's a market for it, and there is only a market for it because people take the mick.
We could all work together to kill the lot of it if we just stopped parking against the rules for a couple of months.
But continue it will, because it is profitable.
Neil
Quite. All this overzealous enforcement exists only because there's a market for it, and there is only a market for it because people take the mick.
We could all work together to kill the lot of it if we just stopped parking against the rules for a couple of months.
But continue it will, because it is profitable.
Neil
1
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
You don't have to follow rules mindlessly.
All you have to do is not break them. Anyone would think you're being hard done by. No one is being forced to park in the car park for exactly 2hours then being fined because they went over a couple of minutes.
> Should mitigating circumstances or intentions never be considered?
> Surely there is a huge difference if she spent two hours doing a monster shop and using the cafe in Sainsburys than if she bought a twix and then went to get a hair cut elsewhere.
> It saddens me when people abide by rules to the word regardless and don't use them sympathetically. Rules are to serve a purpose or prevent a problem. They should be considered as a tool to stop people who are causing a problem from doing so in future. They are not infallible overlords of the universe.
> It's very attractive for some to apply a 'you broke to rule' logic to everything because it requires little thinking. In my opinion however it's damaging to society (think sue culture in the US for example).
You don't have to follow rules mindlessly.
All you have to do is not break them. Anyone would think you're being hard done by. No one is being forced to park in the car park for exactly 2hours then being fined because they went over a couple of minutes.
Post edited at 10:52
2
2
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Further to that - if the parking restrictions at Supermarket X means you can't do your full shop and eat in their cafe, don't. Either do it all at another one, or do just the shop and not bother with the cafe. Then write to them and tell them why.
If enough people did...
Further to that - if the parking restrictions at Supermarket X means you can't do your full shop and eat in their cafe, don't. Either do it all at another one, or do just the shop and not bother with the cafe. Then write to them and tell them why.
If enough people did...
3
In reply to chris gooder:
The rules vary from Scotland and England as I understand it.
I believe you can safely ignore the fines in Scotland if the parking company is registered in England.
At least that was the advice given to me when I got a fine sent to me.
The rules vary from Scotland and England as I understand it.
I believe you can safely ignore the fines in Scotland if the parking company is registered in England.
At least that was the advice given to me when I got a fine sent to me.
In reply to The New NickB:
I think that by following the rules of grocers apostrophe's you should take it out.
I think that by following the rules of grocers apostrophe's you should take it out.
In reply to chris gooder:
The parking fine cannot be enforced. After falling into the same trap myself (I was genuinely shopping at the supermarket).
If you don't pay, you will get a series of letters which get more and more sinister and threatening. All the companies can do is take you to the small claims court which will cost them considerably more than the fine. My understanding, though I stand to be corrected is that none have yet been taken to court.
They do back off after some time.
The parking fine cannot be enforced. After falling into the same trap myself (I was genuinely shopping at the supermarket).
If you don't pay, you will get a series of letters which get more and more sinister and threatening. All the companies can do is take you to the small claims court which will cost them considerably more than the fine. My understanding, though I stand to be corrected is that none have yet been taken to court.
They do back off after some time.
1
In reply to Bloodfire:
Your understanding is incorrect. Parking Eye in particular are quite litigious, and have been successful on a number of occasions.
I'm afraid the advice to simply ignore it is no longer any good.
> My understanding, though I stand to be corrected is that none have yet been taken to court.
Your understanding is incorrect. Parking Eye in particular are quite litigious, and have been successful on a number of occasions.
I'm afraid the advice to simply ignore it is no longer any good.
In reply to Bloodfire:
Loads have been taken to court, including the recent supreme court ruling that said that parking charges of c£100 are reasonable and not excessive. As Neil says the advice to ignore it is well out of date and likely to be quite expensive.
Loads have been taken to court, including the recent supreme court ruling that said that parking charges of c£100 are reasonable and not excessive. As Neil says the advice to ignore it is well out of date and likely to be quite expensive.
1
In reply to chris gooder:
Play the old pregnancy card,Maybe your pregnant friend had to sit down in the cafe as she felt unwell wink,wink.
Play the old pregnancy card,Maybe your pregnant friend had to sit down in the cafe as she felt unwell wink,wink.
In reply to Neil Williams:
I can do a shop for a family of 4 in 45mins. Maybe an hour tops. That gives me another hour to eat in the cafe. I'm sure they've thought about how long you'd need.
Although I'm not sure I'd sit in their cafe for an hour with my ice lollies all defrosting in the trolley.
> Further to that - if the parking restrictions at Supermarket X means you can't do your full shop and eat in their cafe, don't. Either do it all at another one, or do just the shop and not bother with the cafe. Then write to them and tell them why.
> If enough people did...
I can do a shop for a family of 4 in 45mins. Maybe an hour tops. That gives me another hour to eat in the cafe. I'm sure they've thought about how long you'd need.
Although I'm not sure I'd sit in their cafe for an hour with my ice lollies all defrosting in the trolley.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...