Tesco is watching you
magwitch
as a meeting point. We were going for a day out in Cambridge together
(punting, museum-ing, whatever). We parked two of our cars in Tesco's
vast car park and set off for Cambridge in the third.
Anyway this morning, I got a letter from Tesco, perfectly addressed, to
say my car had been noticed and I'd get a fine if I did it again. That's
fair enough, because I never shop at Tesco, didn't on this occasion and
never will and was just shamelessly using their car park. Btw I got it
cleaned while I was away by a team of car cleaners, but paid cash.
What intrigued me was how, despite the data protection act, Tesco
managed to find out from my car registration number, my name and
address? I would have thought only local council, police or official
parking officers could do that.
PaulB
news:11891647...@proxy02.news.clara.net...
Been there, done that, they have permission to access the DVLA database and
act quite resonably in that the first time they don't attempt to issue a
bill for parking there for more than three hours but instead send out a
polite letter as happened to you. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me, it is
their car park after all. Same happens in other parts of the country, it's
not just Cambridge.
Paul
Tim Ward
news:11891647...@proxy02.news.clara.net...
>
> managed to find out from my car registration number, my name and
> address? I would have thought only local council, police or official
> parking officers could do that.
I think you just need a good reason, and trespass is good enough. As is
"that b****r drove into my granny on a pedestrian crossing and didn't stop",
and any number of other things.
--
Tim Ward
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
John Burnham
> What intrigued me was how, despite the data protection act, Tesco
> managed to find out from my car registration number, my name and
> address? I would have thought only local council, police or official
> parking officers could do that.
The Tesco on Newmarket Road in Cambridge has a 3 hour parking restriction.
It claims that cars are observed by their camera system and those cars
staying for more than three hours will be noted and their number plates
checked with the DVLA to obtain the details of where Tescos can send their
"fine" to. So, it looks like Tesco and the DVLA have some form of
understanding.
J
Dudley Simons
Is there a sign up saying that the car park is for the use of Tesco
customers only and or imposing a time limit on any vehicle being parked
in the car park? I would think that the sign would also have to
indicate any punitive measures to be taken agianst anyone daring to
break Tescos rules.
If there is no sign then you were not doing anything wrong and I would
be curious to know how Tesco proposed to impose a fine.
regards
Dudley
Francis Turton
> "magwitch" <a...@c.d> wrote in message
Anyone can obtain a motorist's details if the DVLA deems the request
"reasonable":
http://www.dvla.gov.uk/foi/whatisfoi.aspx
--- www.dogsticks.org ---
Kelvin Fagan
"magwitch" <a@c.d> wrote in message
news:11891647...@proxy02.news.clara.net...
The Newmarket Rd, Cambridge, branch of Tescos, has number plate recognition
plate cameras to capture
cars entering and leaving, Newmarket must have a similar system What you
will have maybe missed at the Newmarket store is a sign, like the Newmarket
Rd. branch, which advises of limited parking period.
( upto 3 hours I think) and a £70 fine to those which park longer.
Tim Fitzmaurice
> What intrigued me was how, despite the data protection act, Tesco managed to
> find out from my car registration number, my name and address? I would have
AIUI anyone can ask the DVLA to supply such details if they have reason to
know it. A standard one being I need to identify the owner of the car
because they did X wrong.
http://www.dvla.gov.uk/foi/relinfo.aspx
...has more information. Previous circumstances that has caused release of
details are cited as including...
'unauthorised parking on private land Ð to help landlords or their agents
to trace keepers who obstruct access, contravene parking restrictions or
trespass on private land' ...which I guess fits what Tesco would say they
were doing.
Tim
--
When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart
ICQ: 5178568
Francis Turton
Surely the absence of warnings doesn't negate trespass law? The onus
is on the individual to be sure they're NOT trespassing, not on the
landowner to tell them they ARE. Warning signs are just a way of
avoiding the hassle of confrontation and/or litigation.
--- www.dogsticks.org ---
Kieran Mansley
> If there is no sign then you were not doing anything wrong and I would
> be curious to know how Tesco proposed to impose a fine.
By doing exactly what they have done: sending a letter to tell them of the
issue, explain the rule, and warn that if they do it again they'll get a
fine. The letter takes the place of a sign, although I'd expect there is
also a sign as well.
Kieran
magwitch
Oh.
magwitch
>
> Is there a sign up saying that the car park is for the use of Tesco
> customers only and or imposing a time limit on any vehicle being parked
> in the car park? I would think that the sign would also have to
> indicate any punitive measures to be taken agianst anyone daring to
> break Tescos rules.
>
> If there is no sign then you were not doing anything wrong and I would
> be curious to know how Tesco proposed to impose a fine.
>
>
>
There were lots of signs/banners/posters, but didn't notice any about
how long a stay in their car park is legal.
Makes no difference to me. Tesco (and Asda as well) if you are reading
this, rest assured that I will never visit your premises again either to
shop or to park my car while I do. The antics of Shirley Porter put me
off patronising your enterprise a long time ago.
Dudley Simons
I could be wrong but AIUI the law of trespass wouldn't cover this
situation as trespass requires you to cause actual damage.
There are to the best of my knowledge no signs at the Tesco car park in
Huntingdon, which is actually a pity as the car park is often chocker
with people parking and going into the cinema and (I use the following
term in the loosest definition of the word) restaurants.
I don't recall seeing a sign at tesco Bar Hill either.
Dudley
MB_UK
> Dudley Simons wrote:
>
> > Is there a sign up saying that the car park is for the use of Tesco
> > customers only and or imposing a time limit on any vehicle being parked
> > in the car park? I would think that the sign would also have to
> > indicate any punitive measures to be taken agianst anyone daring to
> > break Tescos rules.
>
> > If there is no sign then you were not doing anything wrong and I would
> > be curious to know how Tesco proposed to impose a fine.
>
> There were lots of signs/banners/posters, but didn't notice any about
> how long a stay in their car park is legal.
I've been to the Tesco store on Newmarket Road in Cambridge quite
regularly and can advise that they do have quite a few signs providing
notification of their parking restrictions.
RealMart
> customers only and or imposing a time limit on any vehicle being parked
> in the car park? I would think that the sign would also have to
> indicate any punitive measures to be taken agianst anyone daring to
> break Tescos rules.
>
> If there is no sign then you were not doing anything wrong and I would
> be curious to know how Tesco proposed to impose a fine.
>
There's a sign giving the time limit ( three hours, I think) and the
fine/charge/fee.
A Kerr-Munslow [Mad Hatter]
> I don't recall seeing a sign at tesco Bar Hill either.
There's definitely a sign at Tesco Bar Hill. It's a bit hard to read
while driving onto site, because it's more important to be looking out
for cars and pedestrians and small children. It limits you to 3 hours
(IIRC). Given there's a lot of Tesco and various other shops (e.g. a
dry cleaner where you can spend ages queueing) I'm sure a person could
overstay their time while only frequenting the shops around the carpark.
The sign also implies it isn't a fine but a parking fee. Something like
(from rough memory) "by parking here you agree to pay..." I don't know
what they'd do if you were able to prove that you'd actually just spent
the 3 hours shopping in their shops.
AEndr
--
White Rabbit: I'm so late! I'm so very, very late!
Mad Hatter: Well no wonder you're late...Why, this clock is exactly
two days slow!
-- Lewis Carroll
remove -news## to reply
Roland Perry
06:25:37 on Fri, 7 Sep 2007, RealMart <RedLe...@googlemail.com>
remarked:
>There's a sign giving the time limit ( three hours, I think) and the
>fine/charge/fee.
They would like you to think that by entering the car park there's some
sort of contract where "3 hours is free". However, contracts require a
consideration, and I'm stumped as to what consideration the member of
the public is offering (at the point of making the contract).
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
"A Kerr-Munslow [Mad Hatter]" <aendr-...@earth.li> remarked:
>I don't know what they'd do if you were able to prove that you'd
>actually just spent the 3 hours shopping in their shops.
My local co-op is threatening to introduce a similar scheme. Except they
have a "no return within 2(?) hours" clause. So if you forget something,
you can't go straight back!
--
Roland Perry
camjay
> In message <1189171537.123881.22...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, at
> 06:25:37 on Fri, 7 Sep 2007, RealMart <RedLegMe...@googlemail.com>
> remarked:
>
> >There's a sign giving the time limit ( three hours, I think) and the
> >fine/charge/fee.
>
> They would like you to think that by entering the car park there's some
> sort of contract where "3 hours is free". However, contracts require a
> consideration, and I'm stumped as to what consideration the member of
> the public is offering (at the point of making the contract).
Tesco would have to sue to get their fine money, and wouldn't get very
far IMO.
John Burnham
>
> Tesco would have to sue to get their fine money, and wouldn't get very
> far IMO.
Which is why they try and guilt trip you into paying by saying that an
unspecified amount of the "fine" will be donated to charity.
J
Francis Turton
I believe the mere act of being present on someone else's property
without permission counts as actual damage in law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_tort_law
Apart from all this, common sense says you shouldn't assume you can
park in a private car park, clearly designed to support a particular
facility, with no intention of using the facility. To be fair to
Magwitch, she didn't. But there's always someone who'll pipe up in
these debates, "It's not fair", as though other people's property were
theirs to just treat as they like. It's not people who break the law
who get my goat so much as people who break the law and then bleat
like babies when they get caught.
--- www.dogsticks.org ---
Francis Turton
>
> > I could be wrong but AIUI the law of trespass wouldn't cover this
> > situation as trespass requires you to cause actual damage.
>
> I believe the mere act of being present on someone else's property
> without permission counts as actual damage in law:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_tort_law
>
Actually, a better reference is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass_to_land
> Apart from all this, common sense says you shouldn't assume you can
> park in a private car park, clearly designed to support a particular
> facility, with no intention of using the facility. To be fair to
> Magwitch, she didn't. But there's always someone who'll pipe up in
> these debates, "It's not fair", as though other people's property were
> theirs to just treat as they like. It's not people who break the law
> who get my goat so much as people who break the law and then bleat
> like babies when they get caught.
>
> ---www.dogsticks.org---
--- www.dogsticks.org ---
Espen Koht
Francis Turton <ftu...@3glab.com> wrote:
> > >> If there is no sign then you were not doing anything wrong and I would
> > >> be curious to know how Tesco proposed to impose a fine.
> >
> > > Surely the absence of warnings doesn't negate trespass law? The onus
> > > is on the individual to be sure they're NOT trespassing, not on the
> > > landowner to tell them they ARE. Warning signs are just a way of
> > > avoiding the hassle of confrontation and/or litigation.
> >
> > > ---www.dogsticks.org---
> >
> > I could be wrong but AIUI the law of trespass wouldn't cover this
> > situation as trespass requires you to cause actual damage.
> >
>
> I believe the mere act of being present on someone else's property
> without permission counts as actual damage in law:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_tort_law
On premises open to the public you will have an implied license to
enter, and it only becomes trespass if you are asked to leave by the
owner and refuse to do so. So in this particular case the onus is on the
landowner. I guess a sign may be sufficient to establish this 'refusal',
but would indeed be necessary.
CWatters
"magwitch" <a@c.d> wrote in message
> Makes no difference to me. Tesco (and Asda as well) if you are reading
> this, rest assured that I will never visit your premises again either to
> shop or to park my car while I do. The antics of Shirley Porter put me
> off patronising your enterprise a long time ago.
I suspect the other supermarkets do the same.
Espen Koht
Francis Turton <ftu...@3glab.com> wrote:
The interesting page is: http://www.dvla.gov.uk/foi/relinfo.aspx
From the list of examples and user I suspect Tesco's use is very much in
a grey area. It would not surprise me the least if the courts ruled
against this form of use if anyone was to take it to court.
Mark Goodge
and typed:
"unauthorised parking on private land – to help landlords or
their agents to trace keepers who obstruct access, contravene
parking restrictions or trespass on private land"
That pretty much covers the use to which Tesco put the information.
Mark
--
http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"I've got too much life running through my veins going to waste"
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>In article <5kcs6oF...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Tim Ward" <t...@ipaccess.com> wrote:
>
>> I think you just need a good reason, and trespass is good enough. As is
>> "that b****r drove into my granny on a pedestrian crossing and didn't stop",
>> and any number of other things.
>
>Driving into someone is quite a bit different from 'trespass' though!
Indeed it is, but trespass is still good enough.
Francis Turton
wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 21:05:16 +0100, Espen Koht put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
> > Francis Turton <ftur...@3glab.com> wrote:
>
> >> Anyone can obtain a motorist's details if the DVLA deems the request
> >> "reasonable":
>
> >>http://www.dvla.gov.uk/foi/whatisfoi.aspx
>
> >The interesting page is:http://www.dvla.gov.uk/foi/relinfo.aspx
>
> >From the list of examples and user I suspect Tesco's use is very much in
> >a grey area. It would not surprise me the least if the courts ruled
> >against this form of use if anyone was to take it to court.
>
> their agents to trace keepers who obstruct access, contravene
> parking restrictions or trespass on private land"
>
> That pretty much covers the use to which Tesco put the information.
>
> Mark
> "I've got too much life running through my veins going to waste"
Yes. I feel there's a lot of rather silly "everything Tesco does is
evil" sentiment behind some of the comments here. Tesco may well be
the Devil's own superstore, but I see nothing wrong with what it's
doing in this instance.
--- www.dogsticks.org ---
Espen Koht
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> >From the list of examples and user I suspect Tesco's use is very much in
> >a grey area. It would not surprise me the least if the courts ruled
> >against this form of use if anyone was to take it to court.
>
> "unauthorised parking on private land – to help landlords or
> their agents to trace keepers who obstruct access, contravene
> parking restrictions or trespass on private land"
>
> That pretty much covers the use to which Tesco put the information.
That's far from obvious. Tesco has authorised you to park your car on
private land by being open to the public; there is nothing which happens
after 3 hours which materially changes those circumstances in the
context of the above provisions.
Espen Koht
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 21:06:58 +0100, Espen Koht put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
> >In article <5kcs6oF...@mid.individual.net>,
> > "Tim Ward" <t...@ipaccess.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I think you just need a good reason, and trespass is good enough. As is
> >> "that b****r drove into my granny on a pedestrian crossing and didn't
> >> stop",
> >> and any number of other things.
> >
> >Driving into someone is quite a bit different from 'trespass' though!
>
> Indeed it is, but trespass is still good enough.
From what I've been able to ascertain, trespass (civil) is not
sufficient for the police to demand your personal details, even if they
are called upon to escort you off the premises.
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>In article <73f3e3hmsvc149nsa...@news.markshouse.net>,
There are usually signs giving a maximum stay, and parking is also
usually provided specifically for customers and visitors to the shop.
Mark
--
http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"Let's see colours that have never been seen"
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>In article <95f3e3ln3i0shmqcr...@news.markshouse.net>,
> Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 21:06:58 +0100, Espen Koht put finger to keyboard
>> and typed:
>>
>> >In article <5kcs6oF...@mid.individual.net>,
>> > "Tim Ward" <t...@ipaccess.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I think you just need a good reason, and trespass is good enough. As is
>> >> "that b****r drove into my granny on a pedestrian crossing and didn't
>> >> stop",
>> >> and any number of other things.
>> >
>> >Driving into someone is quite a bit different from 'trespass' though!
>>
>> Indeed it is, but trespass is still good enough.
>
>From what I've been able to ascertain, trespass (civil) is not
>sufficient for the police to demand your personal details, even if they
>are called upon to escort you off the premises.
No, but it is sufficient reason for the DVLA to release ownership
details of a trespassing vehicle.
Mark
--
http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"I don't care if Monday's blue"
The Natural Philosopher
> On Sep 7, 5:20 pm, Francis Turton <ftur...@3glab.com> wrote:
>
>>> I could be wrong but AIUI the law of trespass wouldn't cover this
>>> situation as trespass requires you to cause actual damage.
>> I believe the mere act of being present on someone else's property
>> without permission counts as actual damage in law:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_tort_law
>>
>
> Actually, a better reference is
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass_to_land
>
I is NOT IIRC the same in the UK.,.
The Natural Philosopher
Espen Koht
Francis Turton <ftu...@3glab.com> wrote:
Interesting interpretation, I read it as the "DVLA".
Espen Koht
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> >From what I've been able to ascertain, trespass (civil) is not
> >sufficient for the police to demand your personal details, even if they
> >are called upon to escort you off the premises.
>
> No, but it is sufficient reason for the DVLA to release ownership
> details of a trespassing vehicle.
That's assuming 'trespassing' has actually occurred. I suspect that's
yet to be test in court.
magwitch
when you leave, you present your Waitrose shopping bill at the booth,
which should be for over a certain amount (forget how much) and that's it.
We generally do the weekly shop, walk down to the town, do more shopping
or have a meal, go back to the car and that's it. Works out nicely.
magwitch
Don't think you read my post properly. The Tesco was in Newmarket. Not
Newmarket Road, Cambridge.
Maybe they have similar signs in the Newmarket one, they just aren't
very prominent, we certainly didn't notice any. If you want to prove
your point I suggest you come over here and check.
Toby Douglass
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:32:44 +0100, magwitch wrote:
>
> > What intrigued me was how, despite the data protection act, Tesco
> > managed to find out from my car registration number, my name and
> > address? I would have thought only local council, police or official
> > parking officers could do that.
>
> It claims that cars are observed by their camera system and those cars
> staying for more than three hours will be noted and their number plates
> checked with the DVLA to obtain the details of where Tescos can send their
> "fine" to. So, it looks like Tesco and the DVLA have some form of
> understanding.
It seems what this amounts to is direct State support in the enforcement
of the policies of a private company. In this case, those policies are
entirely reasonable. What happens if they are not? will the State
always decide not to provide support in such cases? who decides? what
appeal process exists? remember that it is the tax you and I provide
which pays for these State owned capabilities now being put in service
of a private company in the enforcement of *its* rules regarding *our*
behaviour.
Toby Douglass
> The Newmarket Rd, Cambridge, branch of Tescos, has number plate recognition
> plate cameras to capture
> cars entering and leaving, Newmarket must have a similar system What you
> will have maybe missed at the Newmarket store is a sign, like the Newmarket
> Rd. branch, which advises of limited parking period.
> ( upto 3 hours I think) and a £70 fine to those which park longer.
Jesus - IMO, that fine is deeply excessive.
Roland Perry
07:54:47 on Sat, 8 Sep 2007, Toby Douglass
<toby.d...@youknowwhattodo.summerblue.net> remarked:
>> The Tesco on Newmarket Road in Cambridge has a 3 hour parking restriction.
>> It claims that cars are observed by their camera system and those cars
>> staying for more than three hours will be noted and their number plates
>> checked with the DVLA to obtain the details of where Tescos can send their
>> "fine" to. So, it looks like Tesco and the DVLA have some form of
>> understanding.
>
>It seems what this amounts to is direct State support in the enforcement
>of the policies of a private company. In this case, those policies are
>entirely reasonable. What happens if they are not? will the State
>always decide not to provide support in such cases? who decides? what
>appeal process exists? remember that it is the tax you and I provide
>which pays for these State owned capabilities now being put in service
>of a private company in the enforcement of *its* rules regarding *our*
>behaviour.
The DVLA charges for this service, but it's true - there does seem to be
an imbalance between a large company's apparent ability to get this
information on the nod, and you and I getting the same information if
(for example) a driver forced our cycle off the road.
However, it is very likely that there's a protocol in place between
Tesco and the DVLA, describing the terms under which this has been
agreed. perhaps you could get a copy by FOI?
--
Roland Perry
Paul Rudin
> It seems what this amounts to is direct State support in the enforcement
> of the policies of a private company. In this case, those policies are
> entirely reasonable. What happens if they are not? will the State
> always decide not to provide support in such cases? who decides? what
> appeal process exists? remember that it is the tax you and I provide
> which pays for these State owned capabilities now being put in service
> of a private company in the enforcement of *its* rules regarding *our*
> behaviour.
It's nothing particular to Tesco - it applies to any privately owned
land. If you don't like the conditions they impose on the use of
their land then don't use it...
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>In article <bvh3e3h2v24h9ilkm...@news.markshouse.net>,
In the case of Tesco et al, trespass isn't the grounds they use to
justify release of the information. Their reason for getting hold of
it is in order to trace drivers who "contravene parking restrictions",
in the words of the DVLA website.
Mark
--
http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"Every whisper, every waking hour"
Brian Watson
"Dave {Reply Address in.Sig}" <noone$$@llondel.org> wrote in message
news:2718754.h...@robinton.llondel.org...
> I've wondered what games you can play if you know where the number-plate
> cameras are - drive in, cover the number plates and drive out again.
> They'll have a record of you driving in but not out. Go somewhere
> verifiable for a while, go back to the car park about six hours later,
> cover the plates, drive in, uncover them, drive out. Then they think your
> car has been there six hours even though you've got proof that it was
> elsewhere. Or for plan B, just don't go back, so they think you're still
> there (could be fun when they search the car park looking for the car).
The Tesco next to Ely station employs the terminally-bewildered to walk up
and down the rows checking numbers.
My guess is that they only find you if you stay in the same parking place
beyond their 3 hours (I'm pretty sure there is a sign there) and only then
do they rely on CCTV for supporting evidence.
Tesco's are evil (as I may have mentioned here before from time to time<g>)
and deserve to roast in Hell, in my opinion.
--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."
Brian Watson
"John Burnham" <jo...@jaka.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.09.07....@jaka.demon.co.uk...
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 07:16:11 -0700, camjay wrote:
>>
>> Tesco would have to sue to get their fine money, and wouldn't get very
>> far IMO.
>
> Which is why they try and guilt trip you into paying by saying that an
> unspecified amount of the "fine" will be donated to charity.
They do?
This would be the Dame Shirley Porter Is Innocent, Honest Guv charity, I
presume?
Brian Watson
"Francis Turton" <ftu...@3glab.com> wrote in message
news:1189200616....@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> Yes. I feel there's a lot of rather silly "everything Tesco does is
> evil" sentiment behind some of the comments here.
Though I dispute the word "silly", you are correct in my case. I despise
their business practices in every particular.
> Tesco may well be
> the Devil's own superstore, but I see nothing wrong with what it's
> doing in this instance.
Making threats in a grey area of law seems pretty grimy to me, and typical.
Brian Watson
"Espen Koht" <eh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:ehk20-B01B8C....@nntp-serv.cam.ac.uk...
Them too.
Brian Watson
"Toby Douglass" <toby.d...@youknowwhattodo.summerblue.net> wrote in
message news:MPG.214c670d3...@news.cable.ntlworld.com...
Golly, no! It's just another example of Tesco giving you choice...
mumble ... mumble ... evil bastards ... mumble ...
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>kj...@phy.cam.ac.uk wrote:
Not necessarily - it depends on what it's compared with.
You are, by law, allowed to use reasonable force to remove a
trespasser, or their property, from your property. A vehicle parked on
your property without any form of permission, explicit or implied, is
trespassing and you would, therefore, be justified in simply towing it
off your property and leaving it on the street - even if that damages
the car in the process. And, if parking is permitted for a certain
length of time, but explicitly limited to that time, then a vehicle
which remains beyond that time becomes a trespasser once that period
has passed (because there is also a well-established principle in law
that permission to enter or remain on private property can be
withdrawn, even if previously granted either expressly or implicitly,
and trespass occurs immediately that permission is withdrawn if the
person or property is not immediately removed). So, in theory, Tesco
et al have the right to check for cars that have been there for too
long, and any that are found to have overstayed the permitted time can
simply be towed off the premises and left on the road outside - where
the owner will then probably get a parking ticket from the police or
local authority, as well as being finacially responsible for fixing
any damage that occurred to the car while it was being towed out of
the car park. This would obviously not be a particularly pleasant
experience for the owner of the vehicle.
However... In practice, the courts have held that a company which
provides parking space for its customers would be acting unreasonably
in towing away overstaying vehicles, because the law also gives them
access to another remedy which is more proportionate to the offence -
that is, the power to levy a charge on overstaying vehicles, and the
ability to obtain ownership details from the DVLA in order to enfoce
such a charge. There's another legal principle here, which can broadly
be expressed in the cliche "don't use a sledgehammer to crack a nut" -
if there is more than one possible way of enforcing your rights, then
the law would normally require you to use the one which has the least
cost both to you and the offender. In the case of a car which
overstays in a supermarket car park, then the remedy of least cost is
to issue an overstay charge, having obtained the ownership details
from the DVLA. It's the remedy of least cost to the property owner,
because the charge can be set at a level which covers all the
administration costs of issuing and collecting it as well as obtaining
the owner's details, and it's the remedy of least cost to the vehicle
owner as the charge will be less than the probably cost of repairing
any damage to the vehicle caused by it being towed away or the cost of
paying any other fines resulting from it being left on a public road.
£70 is not, therefore, particularly excessive under such circumstances
- particularly if the alternative was to have your car forcibly
removed from the premises.
Mark
--
Blog: http://Mark.Goodge.co.uk Photos: http://www.goodge.co.uk
"When your thoughts are too expensive to ever want to keep"
Frederick Williams
> "that b****r drove into my granny on a pedestrian crossing and didn't stop",
A well-nourished granny, armed with a stout walking stick, ought to be
able to fend of a 4-by-4 as big as a house. If your granny isn't up to
standard, get her a twelve-bore shotgun in place of the walking stick.
--
Remove "antispam" and ".invalid" for e-mail address.
"He that giveth to the poor lendeth to the Lord, and shall be repaid,"
said Mrs Fairchild, hastily slipping a shilling into the poor woman's
hand.
Grumpy
> On Tuesday I met up with my two sisters and their kids using Newmarket
> as a meeting point. We were going for a day out in Cambridge together
> (punting, museum-ing, whatever). We parked two of our cars in Tesco's
> vast car park and set off for Cambridge in the third.
>
> Anyway this morning, I got a letter from Tesco, perfectly addressed,
> to say my car had been noticed and I'd get a fine if I did it again.
> That's fair enough, because I never shop at Tesco, didn't on this
> occasion and never will and was just shamelessly using their car park.
> Btw I got it cleaned while I was away by a team of car cleaners, but
> paid cash.
>
> What intrigued me was how, despite the data protection act, Tesco
> managed to find out from my car registration number, my name and
> address? I would have thought only local council, police or official
> parking officers could do that.
The Newmarket Road site is a test bed for covert surveillance equipment
Tesco might eventually place in all their stores. Try picking up an
expensive bottle of scotch, then replace it on the shelf, go to checkout
with your basket.trolley whatever.
Toby Douglass
> > Jesus - IMO, that fine is deeply excessive.
>
> Golly, no! It's just another example of Tesco giving you choice...
Yes and no. Tesco are free to charge whatever fine they like. I don't
have a problem with that - I'm free not to park in their car park.
But what I *deeply* dislike is that I am *involuntarily* contributing
funding towards the infrastructure that enables them to enforce their
fine.
I don't like their fine, I would be influenced not to shop there because
of it, BUT I am *forced* to contribute to that system which makes that
fine possible. That is wrong.
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>WACC...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> "Toby Douglass" <toby.d...@youknowwhattodo.summerblue.net> wrote in
>
>> > Jesus - IMO, that fine is deeply excessive.
>>
>> Golly, no! It's just another example of Tesco giving you choice...
>
>Yes and no. Tesco are free to charge whatever fine they like. I don't
>have a problem with that - I'm free not to park in their car park.
>
>But what I *deeply* dislike is that I am *involuntarily* contributing
>funding towards the infrastructure that enables them to enforce their
>fine.
In what way? If you don't shop there, you're not contributing anything
towards their infrastructure.
Mark
--
Blog: http://Mark.Goodge.co.uk Photos: http://www.goodge.co.uk
"You gotta live with your dreams, don't make them so hard"
Roland Perry
11:13:06 on Sat, 8 Sep 2007, Toby Douglass
<toby.d...@youknowwhattodo.summerblue.net> remarked:
>But what I *deeply* dislike is that I am *involuntarily* contributing
>funding towards the infrastructure that enables them to enforce their
>fine.
I didn't think you had a car, so don't pay car licence fees to DVLC.
>I don't like their fine, I would be influenced not to shop there because
>of it, BUT I am *forced* to contribute to that system which makes that
>fine possible. That is wrong.
And even if you did, have you any reason to suppose the scheme isn't
self-financing?
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
12:36:58 on Sat, 8 Sep 2007, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>But what I *deeply* dislike is that I am *involuntarily* contributing
>>funding towards the infrastructure that enables them to enforce their
>>fine.
>
>In what way? If you don't shop there, you're not contributing anything
>towards their infrastructure.
And even if he did, people who only ever walk to a shop rarely complain
about the cost of providing parking for those who drive.
--
Roland Perry
Toby Douglass
> <toby.d...@youknowwhattodo.summerblue.net> remarked:
> >But what I *deeply* dislike is that I am *involuntarily* contributing
> >funding towards the infrastructure that enables them to enforce their
> >fine.
>
> I didn't think you had a car, so don't pay car licence fees to DVLC.
Why does it have to be wrong for *ME* to be wrong?
> >I don't like their fine, I would be influenced not to shop there because
> >of it, BUT I am *forced* to contribute to that system which makes that
> >fine possible. That is wrong.
>
> And even if you did, have you any reason to suppose the scheme isn't
> self-financing?
Well, let's imagine it is; that means we are required by law to register
our details with the DVLA, which then pays for its existence by passing
those details onto companies who buy that information.
AFAICT, that describes a State issued monopoly, granted to the DVLA, on
car information. I imagine the people running it are very pleased with
their situation!
Toby Douglass
> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 11:13:06 GMT, Toby Douglass put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
> >But what I *deeply* dislike is that I am *involuntarily* contributing
> >funding towards the infrastructure that enables them to enforce their
> >fine.
> In what way? If you don't shop there, you're not contributing anything
> towards their infrastructure.
I mean the money we pay which goes to the DVLA.
Toby Douglass
A friend of mine told me a story recently.
She was on holiday, and the weather was awful. She phoned home and had
a chat with her mother, and her mother said, in an incomprehending tone
of voice, "but the weather here is fine."
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 11:13:06 GMT, Toby Douglass put finger to keyboard
>> and typed:
>
>> >But what I *deeply* dislike is that I am *involuntarily* contributing
>> >funding towards the infrastructure that enables them to enforce their
>> >fine.
>
>> In what way? If you don't shop there, you're not contributing anything
>> towards their infrastructure.
>
>I mean the money we pay which goes to the DVLA.
In what way is that contributing to Tesco being able to issue penalty
charges?
The supply of information from the DVLA is not subsidised - those who
request it have to pay for it. The cost of obtaining it is one of the
factors in determining the level at which penalty charges are set.
Mark
--
http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"Yes, I know the truth, how 'bout you?"
Roland Perry
11:55:51 on Sat, 8 Sep 2007, Toby Douglass
<toby.d...@youknowwhattodo.summerblue.net> remarked:
>> And even if you did, have you any reason to suppose the scheme isn't
>> self-financing?
>
>Well, let's imagine it is; that means we are required by law to register
>our details with the DVLA, which then pays for its existence by passing
>those details onto companies who buy that information.
No, people like Tesco have to pay to get the information. And therefore
it may be the case that the disclosure element of DVLC's work is
self-financing.
--
Roland Perry
Toby Douglass
> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 11:57:51 GMT, Toby Douglass put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
> >I mean the money we pay which goes to the DVLA.
> In what way is that contributing to Tesco being able to issue penalty
> charges?
The information Tesco get from the DVLA is necessary for Tesco to track
down who owns a given car. The DVLA must exist for Tesco to be able to
do this. I may for example deeply object to Tescos behaviour; this is
fine, they can do what they like, but I don't have to shop there. But I
cannot cease paying for the DVLA - which is the service Tesco must have
to be able to fine in this way. In other words, I cannot stop
contributing to Tesco's ability to behave in this way. If I don't like
what they're doing, I should be able to have *nothing* to do with it.
Certainly I shouldn't be in a situation where I'm obliged to indirectly
pay for it to exist!
> The supply of information from the DVLA is not subsidised - those who
> request it have to pay for it. The cost of obtaining it is one of the
> factors in determining the level at which penalty charges are set.
The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is an Executive Agency of the
Department for Transport. I understand it is funded from taxation. It
may be that it charges companies for its services, but that in fact
makes no difference, since companies get their money from their
customers, which in the end comes back to the general population.
In fact, having the DVLA charge companies for their services is *wrong*,
because it unfairly distributes the costs of running the DVLA. Services
should be paid for by those who use them. Why should people who happen
to shop at Tesco pay particularly more for running a State car registry?
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 11:57:51 GMT, Toby Douglass put finger to keyboard
>> and typed:
>
>> >I mean the money we pay which goes to the DVLA.
>
>> In what way is that contributing to Tesco being able to issue penalty
>> charges?
>
>The information Tesco get from the DVLA is necessary for Tesco to track
>down who owns a given car. The DVLA must exist for Tesco to be able to
>do this.
Yes, but it must also exist for many other purposes. Do you object to
all of them, as well?
> I may for example deeply object to Tescos behaviour; this is
>fine, they can do what they like, but I don't have to shop there. But I
>cannot cease paying for the DVLA - which is the service Tesco must have
>to be able to fine in this way. In other words, I cannot stop
>contributing to Tesco's ability to behave in this way. If I don't like
>what they're doing, I should be able to have *nothing* to do with it.
>Certainly I shouldn't be in a situation where I'm obliged to indirectly
>pay for it to exist!
I don't like what racists do. Does that mean I should be able to avoid
contributing towards the provision of any public service which might
be used by racists?
>> The supply of information from the DVLA is not subsidised - those who
>> request it have to pay for it. The cost of obtaining it is one of the
>> factors in determining the level at which penalty charges are set.
>
>The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is an Executive Agency of the
>Department for Transport. I understand it is funded from taxation. It
>may be that it charges companies for its services, but that in fact
>makes no difference, since companies get their money from their
>customers, which in the end comes back to the general population.
But if you're not one of their customers, then you're not contributing
to that particular aspect of the DVLS's work.
>In fact, having the DVLA charge companies for their services is *wrong*,
>because it unfairly distributes the costs of running the DVLA. Services
>should be paid for by those who use them.
Which is what's happening. The data release service of the DVLA is
paid for by the organisations which want to acquire the data.
> Why should people who happen
>to shop at Tesco pay particularly more for running a State car registry?
They're not. Why do you think they are?
Mark
--
http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"Illusion never changed into something real"
Roland Perry
13:29:04 on Sat, 8 Sep 2007, Toby Douglass
<toby.d...@youknowwhattodo.summerblue.net> remarked:
>Why should people who happen to shop at Tesco pay particularly more for
>running a State car registry?
Why should they pay for any car park at all?
--
Roland Perry
Espen Koht
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> In the case of Tesco et al, trespass isn't the grounds they use to
> justify release of the information. Their reason for getting hold of
> it is in order to trace drivers who "contravene parking restrictions",
> in the words of the DVLA website.
Those words are in the context of 'unauthorised parking on private
land', so even if the DVLA's interpretation is correct, I would still
like to know if it has been tested in court.
Brian L Johnson
> The Newmarket Rd, Cambridge, branch of Tescos, has number plate
> recognition plate cameras to capture cars entering and leaving,
<snip>
> ( upto 3 hours I think) and a £70 fine to those which park longer.
B & Q do exactly the same thing (and enforce it) in Lincoln.
--
-blj-
Richard Meredith
eh...@cam.ac.uk (Espen Koht) wrote:
> *From:* Espen Koht <eh...@cam.ac.uk>
> *Date:* Sat, 08 Sep 2007 18:32:47 +0100
It's not unauthorised parking, it's collecting an unpaid parking charge.
You can park for up to 3 hours for free, or pay £70 if you want to stay
longer. Seems simple enough to me.
Richard Meredith
toby.d...@youknowwhattodo.summerblue.net (Toby Douglass) wrote:
> I don't like their fine, I would be influenced not to shop there
> because of it, BUT I am *forced* to contribute to that system which
> makes that fine possible. That is wrong.
If someone kept parking on *your* land in direct contravention of your
wishes, you might be rather glad that the State was there to help you to
stop them doing it. It's only "wrong" because you don't need that
particular service.
Maybe you don't think you should pay taxes to keep the police, fire
brigade or ambulance service in existence, simply because you didn't
happen to need them last week. OTOH when you *do* need one or more of 'em
you'll be rather glad that they're here, ready to help you.
Richard Meredith
toby.d...@youknowwhattodo.summerblue.net (Toby Douglass) wrote:
> It seems what this amounts to is direct State support in the
> enforcement of the policies of a private company. In this case,
> those policies are entirely reasonable. What happens if they are
> not? will the State always decide not to provide support in such
> cases? who decides? what appeal process exists? remember that it
> is the tax you and I provide which pays for these State owned
> capabilities now being put in service of a private company in the
> enforcement of *its* rules regarding *our* behaviour.
That's what the State does when it's being senible: provides facilities
which only it can provide to aid individuals and corporations protect
their rights.
If there is a dispute bettwn individuals or corporations, the civil
courts exist in order to resolve them. Another state-provided service.
Would you really prefer an anarchy where ou could only protect your
rights or interests by being bigger, tougher and meaner (or richer) than
those seeking to take them away from you? If you're going to be honest
about it and think it through, I rather think you wouldn't.
Espen Koht
rmer...@cix.co.uk (Richard Meredith) wrote:
That's the simple part. You owe them money. How that allows them access
to DVLA records is much less clear. The information and examples on
their web site doesn't appear to cover such a scenario.
Tim Ward
news:memo.2007090...@rmeredith.compulink.co.uk...
>
> Maybe you don't think you should pay taxes to keep the police, fire
> brigade or ambulance service in existence, simply because you didn't
> happen to need them last week.
You *know* he thinks that. Or haven't you been reading his posts?
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
Richard Meredith
eh...@cam.ac.uk (Espen Koht) wrote:
> *From:* Espen Koht <eh...@cam.ac.uk>
> *Date:* Sat, 08 Sep 2007 20:56:29 +0100
How about:
"drive-offs – to help trace keepers of vehicles that drive off without
paying for goods/services. Circumstances could include incidents of
failing to pay for petrol or repairs for a vehicle."
It might not explicitly refer to an unpaid parking charge, but the quoted
situations are clearly only examples and not an exhaustive list. Failing
to pay for parking provided as a service for users of the store is
clearly an example of a drive-off.
Note that one of the types of company that request information from the
DVLA is car park enforcement companies.
Richard Meredith
Ward) wrote:
> *From:* "Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk>
> *Date:* Sat, 8 Sep 2007 21:14:19 +0100
>
> "Richard Meredith" <rmer...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:memo.2007090...@rmeredith.compulink.co.uk...
> >
> > Maybe you don't think you should pay taxes to keep the police, fire
> > brigade or ambulance service in existence, simply because you didn't
> > happen to need them last week.
>
> You *know* he thinks that. Or haven't you been reading his posts?
Yeah, I suppose so. I keep forgetting quite how bizarre a place Tobyworld
is.
Toby Douglass
> In message <MPG.214c9e916...@news.cable.ntlworld.com>, at
> 11:55:51 on Sat, 8 Sep 2007, Toby Douglass
> <toby.d...@youknowwhattodo.summerblue.net> remarked:
> >> And even if you did, have you any reason to suppose the scheme isn't
> >> self-financing?
> >
> >Well, let's imagine it is; that means we are required by law to register
> >our details with the DVLA, which then pays for its existence by passing
> >those details onto companies who buy that information.
What you've written next, I don't understand.
*You* posited that the scheme is self-financing. So I said - okay,
let's imagine it is, therefore the DVLA pays for its existence by
selling that information to companies.
And you've just said:
> No, people like Tesco have to pay to get the information.
Which is exactly what I've just written, as a description of what you
posited.
So what do you mean?
> And therefore
> it may be the case that the disclosure element of DVLC's work is
> self-financing.
I'm not sure it's reasonable to notionally separate out components of
function in this way; how could the DVLA *have* a disclosure element if
the main database isn't paid for in the first place?
It seems rather tenuous to me to argue things are okay, because the tax
paid only goes to paying for the building and the maintaince of the
database, so you're not *really* being forced to contribute to the
system Tesco are using which you object to because the part of the cost
which is represented by actually giving the data to Tesco is paid for by
Tesco.
Either way, I suspect it's wrong for the DVLA to charge for its
services. It means that the customers of the companies who use that
information are paying more than their fair share of the costs of
running a State mandated service. That's wrong. Why should people who
happen to use Tesco pay more to run the DVLA than anyone else?
Brian Watson
"Richard Meredith" <rmer...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.2007090...@rmeredith.compulink.co.uk...
> toby.d...@youknowwhattodo.summerblue.net (Toby Douglass) wrote:
>
>> I don't like their fine, I would be influenced not to shop there
>> because of it, BUT I am *forced* to contribute to that system which
>> makes that fine possible. That is wrong.
>
> If someone kept parking on *your* land in direct contravention of your
> wishes, you might be rather glad that the State was there to help you to
> stop them doing it. It's only "wrong" because you don't need that
> particular service.
I wonder if DVLA would be prepared to release such ownership information to
an individual who had just had his car scratched by another motorist?
Just supposing the police were not prepared to take it further, for example?
--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."
Brian Watson
"Richard Meredith" <rmer...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.2007090...@rmeredith.compulink.co.uk...
> That's what the State does when it's being senible: provides facilities
> which only it can provide to aid individuals and corporations protect
> their rights.
>
> If there is a dispute bettwn individuals or corporations, the civil
> courts exist in order to resolve them. Another state-provided service.
>
> Would you really prefer an anarchy where ou could only protect your
> rights or interests by being bigger, tougher and meaner (or richer) than
> those seeking to take them away from you? If you're going to be honest
> about it and think it through, I rather think you wouldn't.
I am interested to know whether the DVLA *is* prepared to divulge this sort
of information to individuals who show "good cause."
Brian Watson
"Brian L Johnson" <no.e...@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:op.tycj0gto0v1caa@thedell...
...and several shops (PC World, for example) try to insist on name and
address details (by postcode and street number) when one buys stuff from
them.
The staff generally look quite surprised when I politely decline, so I
presume most people give that info on request.
Toby Douglass
> ...and several shops (PC World, for example) try to insist on name and
> address details (by postcode and street number) when one buys stuff from
> them.
>
> The staff generally look quite surprised when I politely decline, so I
> presume most people give that info on request.
I think it's so direct and unexpected a question and we're all polite so
it's hard for people in their surprise to instantly act as they would
later wish.
Toby Douglass
> In article <MPG.214c94881...@news.cable.ntlworld.com>,
> toby.d...@youknowwhattodo.summerblue.net (Toby Douglass) wrote:
>
> > I don't like their fine, I would be influenced not to shop there
> > because of it, BUT I am *forced* to contribute to that system which
> > makes that fine possible. That is wrong.
>
> If someone kept parking on *your* land in direct contravention of your
> wishes, you might be rather glad that the State was there to help you to
> stop them doing it. It's only "wrong" because you don't need that
> particular service.
I objected because the fine is IMO excessive and because we are
involuntarily paying for the service Tesco are using even if we object
to it.
I don't object to what Tesco is doing per se.
It's quite interesting to me now, that I notice now people are looking
at what I write and considering it in terms of their idea of what my
entirely selfish requirements would be. I don't see people immediately
thinking in terms of the principles of the situation, which are the ONLY
terms I am thinking in.
For example, Roland wondered why I cared about this problem, since I
don't own a car; and you here have argued that if *I* had a problem with
trepass, I'd be very grateful for the DVLA (when in fact I have no
objection at all to what is actually being done).
> Maybe you don't think you should pay taxes to keep the police, fire
> brigade or ambulance service in existence, simply because you didn't
> happen to need them last week.
Ironic you should say this, given that Roland wondered why *I* was
concerned since *I* didn't pay the tax which goes to the DVLA!
> OTOH when you *do* need one or more of 'em
> you'll be rather glad that they're here, ready to help you.
I could be wrong, but I think you're making the mistake of taking the
current situation, adding *one* aspect of the posited future situation,
and then saying "look, it doesn't work". (In this case; I have said
such services should not be paid through taxes. If we take that single
statement and apply it to the current situation, we end up with no such
services, since they are not paid for, as their current funding is
through tax; this appears to be the situation you are asserting I am
arguing in favour of).
If I wasn't paying taxes for those services, I'd be paying insurance
premiums for them. Hopefully paying less and for a better service, but
paying all the same. It can be no other way. There is no such thing as
a free lunch and I need those services as much as the next man.
I confess myself puzzled - nay, astounded - how anyone could think that
my thought in these matters so shallow that I would imagine I didn't
need such things and furthermore that it was upon that basis that I
argued *in general* that taxes should not be paid for them.
Toby Douglass
> > Maybe you don't think you should pay taxes to keep the police, fire
> > brigade or ambulance service in existence, simply because you didn't
> > happen to need them last week.
> You *know* he thinks that. Or haven't you been reading his posts?
Tim, why do you think this?
I may be wrong, but I think you have become emotionally invested in this
matter. You are saying things which have *absolutely nothing to do with
what I have said or what I think*. You have, IMHO, removed yourself
from reality. You're arguing against something which exists purely in
your head. You can no longer see to see.
Take this post as an example. All those services need to exist and be
available to all. The issue is how they are funded. You argue it
should be funded directly from taxation. I argue taxation should be
converted into vouchers, which should be distributed, and people they
buy the service from the particular provider they prefer, as this has a
number of advantages; for example, giving people the discretion to buy a
better level of service if they wish, by adding their own money into the
pot. This approach is beginning to be used with regard to education - I
believe in Chilè education vouchers have been a great success.
The different is not the source of money, which remains taxation as
these services must be provided to all, but the method by which that
money reaches its destination.
Given the fairly minimal difference in view here, I fail to see why you
are reacting as you are. I may be wrong, but I think the explanation is
that you do not understand my views and have become emotionally invested
in fighting against a well-misunderstood version of my views.
Toby Douglass
> In article <5kge4rF...@mid.individual.net>, t...@brettward.co.uk (Tim
> Ward) wrote:
> > *From:* "Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk>
> > > Maybe you don't think you should pay taxes to keep the police, fire
> > > brigade or ambulance service in existence, simply because you didn't
> > > happen to need them last week.
> >
> > You *know* he thinks that. Or haven't you been reading his posts?
> Yeah, I suppose so. I keep forgetting quite how bizarre a place Tobyworld
> is.
I would rather be merely bizarre in Tobyworld than damn rude in public.
You two should be ashamed.
Espen Koht
> > That's the simple part. You owe them money. How that allows them
> > access to DVLA records is much less clear. The information and
> > examples on their web site doesn't appear to cover such a scenario.
>
> How about:
>
> "drive-offs – to help trace keepers of vehicles that drive off without
> paying for goods/services. Circumstances could include incidents of
> failing to pay for petrol or repairs for a vehicle."
That's not quite the same though. I would imagine in the circumstances
above the incidents are treated as matter of theft.
magwitch
>
> It might not explicitly refer to an unpaid parking charge, but the quoted
> situations are clearly only examples and not an exhaustive list. Failing
> to pay for parking provided as a service for users of the store is
> clearly an example of a drive-off.
So in Richard-world, parking illegally is the same as theft? Hope you
never become a magistrate.
Brian Watson
"magwitch" <a@c.d> wrote in message
news:11893351...@proxy00.news.clara.net...
> So in Richard-world, parking illegally is the same as theft? Hope you
> never become a magistrate.
They are both illegal, AIUI.
Brian Watson
"Toby Douglass" <toby.d...@youknowwhattodo.summerblue.net> wrote in
message news:MPG.214dd6bb3...@news.cable.ntlworld.com...
I think you are right, and so that's how they get away with it.
Presumably they also share the information on their database information
with "approved business partners" (ie, anyone who'll pay for it) so one
moment caught on the back foot of courtesy and you are spammed for life.
magwitch
> "magwitch" <a@c.d> wrote in message
> news:11893351...@proxy00.news.clara.net...
>
>> So in Richard-world, parking illegally is the same as theft? Hope you
>> never become a magistrate.
>
> They are both illegal, AIUI.
>
True but one is covered by Criminal law and the other by civil law. The
law discriminates (or used to).
By your yardstick if I parked my car blocking the entrance to a busy A&E
at a hospital it would be the same as if I left it slightly over a white
line on a parking bay, both illegal.
Roland Perry
09:10:27 on Sun, 9 Sep 2007, Toby Douglass
<toby.d...@youknowwhattodo.summerblue.net> remarked:
>*You* posited that the scheme is self-financing. So I said - okay,
>let's imagine it is, therefore the DVLA pays for its existence by
>selling that information to companies.
>
>And you've just said:
>
>> No, people like Tesco have to pay to get the information.
>
>Which is exactly what I've just written, as a description of what you
>posited.
>
>So what do you mean?
I mean that [the extra bother of disclosing to private organisations] is
quite likely financed by people like Tesco paying for the information.
>> And therefore it may be the case that the disclosure element of
>>DVLC's work is self-financing.
>
>I'm not sure it's reasonable to notionally separate out components of
>function in this way; how could the DVLA *have* a disclosure element if
>the main database isn't paid for in the first place?
The main database and disclosure mechanisms have to exist because it's
used by the police and other public authorities.
>Either way, I suspect it's wrong for the DVLA to charge for its
>services. It means that the customers of the companies who use that
>information are paying more than their fair share of the costs of
>running a State mandated service. That's wrong. Why should people who
>happen to use Tesco pay more to run the DVLA than anyone else?
Because it means that Tesco can have a smaller car park (not cluttered
by rogue cars) for any given store, which saves Tesco money and (if you
believe in this bit of the market economy) so less cost is passed onto
Tesco customers.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
10:23:54 on Sun, 9 Sep 2007, Toby Douglass
<toby.d...@youknowwhattodo.summerblue.net> remarked:
>For example, Roland wondered why I cared about this problem, since I
>don't own a car;
That was also to do with the fact that as a non car-owner, the provision
of a car park space at all is presumably adding to the price you pay for
things at Tesco. Although no car park means a lot fewer customers, so
maybe that means prices go up too!
--
Roland Perry
Tom E
> Given the fairly minimal difference in view here, I fail to see
> why you are reacting as you are. I may be wrong, but I think the
> explanation is that you do not understand my views and have become
> emotionally invested in fighting against a well-misunderstood
> version of my views.
As far as I understand it, Toby, it's the vehemence with which you
reiterate your views which elicits many different emotional
reactions from people.
Tom
Pies
> "magwitch" <a@c.d> wrote in message
>> On Tuesday I met up with my two sisters and their kids using Newmarket
>> as a meeting point. We were going for a day out in Cambridge together
>> (punting, museum-ing, whatever). We parked two of our cars in Tesco's
>> vast car park and set off for Cambridge in the third.
>>
>> Anyway this morning, I got a letter from Tesco, perfectly addressed,
>> to say my car had been noticed and I'd get a fine if I did it again.
>> That's fair enough, because I never shop at Tesco, didn't on this
>> occasion and never will and was just shamelessly using their car park.
>> Btw I got it cleaned while I was away by a team of car cleaners, but
>> paid cash.
>>
>> What intrigued me was how, despite the data protection act, Tesco
>> managed to find out from my car registration number, my name and
>> address? I would have thought only local council, police or official
>> parking officers could do that.
>
> The Newmarket Road site is a test bed for covert surveillance equipment
> Tesco might eventually place in all their stores. Try picking up an
> expensive bottle of scotch, then replace it on the shelf, go to checkout
> with your basket.trolley whatever.
And what happens? Or did you have your tinfoil hat on that day?
Pies
Pies
> t...@brettward.co.uk wrote:
>> "Richard Meredith" <rmer...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
>
>>> Maybe you don't think you should pay taxes to keep the police, fire
>>> brigade or ambulance service in existence, simply because you didn't
>>> happen to need them last week.
>
> I may be wrong, but I think you have become emotionally invested in this
> matter. You are saying things which have *absolutely nothing to do with
> what I have said or what I think*. You have, IMHO, removed yourself
> from reality. You're arguing against something which exists purely in
> your head. You can no longer see to see.
>
> Take this post as an example. All those services need to exist and be
> available to all. The issue is how they are funded. You argue it
> should be funded directly from taxation. I argue taxation should be
> converted into vouchers, which should be distributed, and people they
> buy the service from the particular provider they prefer, as this has a
> number of advantages; for example, giving people the discretion to buy a
> better level of service if they wish, by adding their own money into the
> pot.
And how exactly would that work with the services mentioned? Would you
have competing ambulance services, all racing to the scene of an
accident? How would an unconscious casualty be expected to "pay" for the
ambulance service without choosing? Would you have private police forces
all competing for your vouchers?
Rot.
Brian L Johnson
The only way that you can avoid 'giving' your car's registration number to
B & Q Lincoln is to stop outside the car park and stick a piece of paper
over your number-plate.
Apparently, offensive lettering on said piece of paper is optional. <g>
--
-blj-
Brian Watson
"magwitch" <a@c.d> wrote in message
In that both are illegal, yes. But "illegal" is obviously not the only
parameter by which they can be compared.
Richard Meredith
wrote:
> *From:* magwitch <a@c.d>
> *Date:* Sun, 09 Sep 2007 11:53:09 +0100
Failing to pay an advertised parking charge *is* quite clearly theft.
The act of parking in a supermarket car park is not illegal: that's what
it's provided for. Staying over 3 hours isn't illegal either, though it
might well be a civil tort if there's a "No parking over 3 hours" sign up
to warn you of the restriction.
If there's a sign up saying "parking over 3 hours will cost you £70" then
it's not any sort of offence at all - but driving off without paying the
advertised fee most certainly would be a criminal matter if the car park
operator chose to press charges - it's no different to driving out of a
self service petrol station without paying: by putting the petrol in the
tank you have agreed to pay for it, and by parking in a carpark you have
agreed to pay any parking fees. OTOH if you paid the money in the store
before you left you would not have committed any offence at all, civil or
otherwise - the criminal offence isn't the amount of time you've parked,
it's not paying the advertised charge.
Richard Meredith
toby.d...@youknowwhattodo.summerblue.net (Toby Douglass) wrote:
> think the explanation is
> that you do not understand my views
I think the explanation is that we understand the views you are
expressing very well and can see that they only lead one way, and that's
towards anarchy: human beings do not work like machines, inexorably
driven by a single economic theory.
If your views do have any greater subtlety, then you've not expressed
them very well.
Richard Meredith
toby.d...@youknowwhattodo.summerblue.net (Toby Douglass) wrote:
> For example, Roland wondered why I cared about this problem, since I
> don't own a car; and you here have argued that if *I* had a problem
> with trepass, I'd be very grateful for the DVLA (when in fact I have
> no objection at all to what is actually being done).
You might have a rather different opinion if it was *your* land that was
constantly being parked on against your wishes. Even if you don't happen
to care about what happens to Tesco.
> > OTOH when you *do* need one or more of 'em
> > you'll be rather glad that they're here, ready to help you.
>
> I could be wrong, but I think you're making the mistake of taking the
> current situation, adding *one* aspect of the posited future
> situation, and then saying "look, it doesn't work". (In this case; I
> have said such services should not be paid through taxes. If we take
> that single statement and apply it to the current situation, we end
> up with no such services, since they are not paid for, as their
> current funding is through tax; this appears to be the situation you
> are asserting I am arguing in favour of).
Then how should such services be paid for?
> If I wasn't paying taxes for those services, I'd be paying insurance
> premiums for them. Hopefully paying less and for a better service,
> but paying all the same. It can be no other way. There is no such
> thing as a free lunch and I need those services as much as the next
> man.
The government runs DVLA for all sorts of its own reasons. In order to do
this the DVLA needs, and maintains, an authoritative database on vehicle
ownership.
If a third party wished to provide similar services it would have to have
a similar database, and without the legal powers to collect the necessary
information it would have the greatest difficulty in maintaining its
reliability; and the cost of collecting that data would have to be passed
on to the user of the data. In short, the idea that you'd be paying less
for a superior service is risible: you'd end up paying vastly more for an
inferior one, while still paying for the cost of maintaining the one the
Government has to maintain for its own needs.
Richard Meredith
toby.d...@youknowwhattodo.summerblue.net (Toby Douglass) wrote:
> *From:* Toby Douglass <toby.d...@youknowwhattodo.summerblue.net>
> *Date:* Sun, 09 Sep 2007 10:35:13 GMT
Why? You're constantly advocating this dreamworld of yours, and to me
(and I think to most people in here) it seems to derive from some
half-understood ideology totally unadulterated with any of the
appreciation of reality that practical political philosophies are
underpinned by. It's to moderate centre-right politics what Kim Jong Il
is to moderate centre-left ones.
Roland Perry
19:28:00 on Sun, 9 Sep 2007, Richard Meredith <rmer...@cix.co.uk>
remarked:
>If there's a sign up saying "parking over 3 hours will cost you £70" then
>it's not any sort of offence at all - but driving off without paying the
>advertised fee most certainly would be a criminal matter if the car park
>operator chose to press charges
I'm afraid it wouldn't, as you could argue that you were going to pay
later.
Hence *specific* offences for TWOCing a car or "Driving away" without
paying for petrol.
--
Roland Perry