B&Q car park overstay charge £50 -> £80 -> £110 -> ...
James Harris
for overstaying one's welcome in a firm's car park so I'll try to
avoid going over old questions.
--- Basic info ---
Sat 10 July 2010 - parked in B&Q car park for (according to the notice
I received in the post from ParkingEye) 2 hours 56 minutes. They
apparently have time limit of 2 hours 30 minutes. I didn't notice any
signs but presume there are some and that they are clearly displayed.
My whole time was spent in the B&Q store. I know that might make me
look rather sad [:-(] but I was looking for ideas as well as products.
I'd have been there longer if their cafe had had anything I wanted!
Anyway, the point is that I used their car park solely to use their
store.
I bought a few items and, according to the times on receipt and
parking charge notice, left the car park 4 minutes after paying for
them.
--- End of basic info ---
My questions.
1. Have I entered into some form of contract with B&Q by using their
car park (to shop in their store)? The car park has no barriers. It's
just drive in and drive out. I hadn't even noticed any cameras.
2. ParkingEye ramp-up the charges: £50 if paid within 14 days (of them
sending the notice), then £80, then £110. Then they mention, "the
first of many additional charges will me made" if these payments are
not made. Is this allowable legally or is it just an attempt to panic
the vast majority of people who do not have legal experience into
paying up? I would have thought a fine should be a fixed amount and
people should at least be given longer to decide whether to accept the
fine or to take advice from a solicitor or Citizens' Advice.
3. I didn't get their first letter straight away as I was away for a
long weekend but I wrote to ParkingEye the day I opened their letter,
21 July. I explained I'd been only in the B&Q store, suggested they
check CCTV recordings, enclosed a copy of the receipt and said that if
they were not going to drop the charge they should reply quickly
enough to give me time to take advice before the charge increased.
I've had no reply but have had another warning that the charge is to
increase in 4 days (2 days from when the letter reached me, i.e.
today). This seems grossly unreasonable to me. From a legal point of
view would these timescales be considered reasonable?
4. Again on timescales I might have been on a summer holiday when the
first 14-day notice came through. Does ParkingEye's approach count as
harassment?
5. Finally, not a legal question per se but a practical one: what
points should I include in a complaint to the store manager and/or the
head office?
James
Adrian
much like they were saying:
> 1. Have I entered into some form of contract with B&Q by using their car
> park (to shop in their store)?
Yes. The terms of which are displayed in the car park.
> 2. ParkingEye ramp-up the charges: £50 if paid within 14 days (of them
> sending the notice), then £80, then £110. Then they mention, "the first
> of many additional charges will me made" if these payments are not made.
> Is this allowable legally or is it just an attempt to panic the vast
> majority of people who do not have legal experience into paying up? I
> would have thought a fine should be a fixed amount
I strongly suspect the "fine" (actually a charge) is £110, with a
discount for early payment - just like many "proper" parking fines.
> 3. I didn't get their first letter straight away as I was away for a
> long weekend but I wrote to ParkingEye the day I opened their letter, 21
> July. I explained I'd been only in the B&Q store
Ooops.
They can only write to the registered keeper, but they have no contract
with the registered keeper, only the driver. They would need to prove
that the two are the same for the contract to be enforceable. Except you
just admitted it...
Tim Jackson
> 5. Finally, not a legal question per se but a practical one: what
> points should I include in a complaint to the store manager and/or the
> head office?
That you are approaching him before you take your story to the local
newspaper, as you are sure that it is not really their policy to
penalise good customers like yourself?
It sounds to me the kind of story that a small local paper would love,
and that the local manager would hate them to run. But try to choose a
paper in which B&Q don't run regular adverts.
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
TimB
The best approach with fines from private companies such as these is
to ignore them. They won't take you to court, because losing would
destroy their whole business model.
Tim Jackson
> look rather sad [:-(] but I was looking for ideas as well as products.
> I'd have been there longer if their cafe had had anything I wanted!
> Anyway, the point is that I used their car park solely to use their
> store.
>
>
> 5. Finally, not a legal question per se but a practical one: what
> points should I include in a complaint to the store manager and/or the
> head office?
Also stress that you are planning to spend a lot of money in the next
month or two, on a major redevelopment of your home. B&Q have a lot of
expensive kitchen and bathroom suites, don't they? It's so difficult to
choose between them and all their rivals....
Brimstone
"James Harris" <james.h...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:ca2baed5-580d-4694...@r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
You could ignore it. To forestall the pedants, it's a charge, not a fine.
(Only a court of law has the authority to levy a fine).
Don't, whatever you do, pay them any money. It'll only encourage them. A
court of law is much more likely to be on your side than theirs.
If you've already told them that you were in their store the whole time and
invited them to prove otherwise then I'd do no more. Unless they press the
matter.
Don't bother with the store manager, he does as he's told. Go to the Public
Relations (by whatever name) office at B&Q's head office and let them know
that the matter will be hitting the national and local press if it isn't
dropped.
Compile a list of publications, don't forget the likes of Private Eye and
all the consumer "DiY" magazines as well as local and national press, and
prepare a press release setting out the facts of the matter.
Look on this as an opportunity to have some fun in putting down the bully
boys.
The Todal
"Brimstone" <brim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vMidnYSqYLTcv83R...@bt.com...
A court might have difficulty finding any good reason why the charge should
not be enforced. It is essential to go back to the car park and note the
position of the warning signs and maybe take some photos. See if it is
possible to argue that the signs are not conspicuous enough and that the
crucial words are buried in the small print that nobody reads.
>
> If you've already told them that you were in their store the whole time
> and invited them to prove otherwise then I'd do no more. Unless they press
> the matter.
>
> Don't bother with the store manager, he does as he's told. Go to the
> Public Relations (by whatever name) office at B&Q's head office and let
> them know that the matter will be hitting the national and local press if
> it isn't dropped.
A quick google search reveals numerous complaints about this topic. See eg
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/BQ-39sorry39-as-shopper-wrongly.4148982.jp
>
> Compile a list of publications, don't forget the likes of Private Eye and
> all the consumer "DiY" magazines as well as local and national press, and
> prepare a press release setting out the facts of the matter.
>
> Look on this as an opportunity to have some fun in putting down the bully
> boys.
I agree you should not pay up. If they want to take it all the way to court
they will have to spend time and money going to a county court in some
godforsaken place, and they won't be awarded their solicitors' fees. The
chances are, they won't take it any further. If they do sue, it is important
to lodge a defence. At the very least, since you don't remember seeing the
signs you should argue that the terms and conditions were not brought to
your attention.
Adrian
they were saying:
> A quick google search reveals numerous complaints about this topic. See
> eg
> http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/BQ-39sorry39-as-shopper-
wrongly.4148982.jp
The big difference between that instance and this instance being that the
driver in question did not actually stay in the car park for longer than
two hours - but returned twice in one day.
Remember, the OP has already admitted to the parking management company
that he was driving, and that he did park in the car park for more than
two hours.
The Todal
Yes, I know. I didn't really make my point very clearly. The story I quoted
was just one of many which, for various reasons, criticise B&Q's car park
contractors. So the dissatisfaction is already known to B&Q and the threat
from one more customer "if you don't waive this charge I'll go to the Press"
really won't cut any ice.
Tim Jackson
> The story I quoted
> was just one of many which, for various reasons, criticise B&Q's car park
> contractors. So the dissatisfaction is already known to B&Q and the threat
> from one more customer "if you don't waive this charge I'll go to the Press"
> really won't cut any ice.
However, the story you've found also quotes a B&Q spokeswoman as saying:
"In addition to this, should a customer wish to shop with us for more
than the two hours allowed, they should contact a member of staff whilst
in store and we'll ensure they do not receive an inappropriate fine."
OK, the OP didn't contact them while he was in store (because he had no
notice of the need to do so). But coupled with the fact that B&Q did
waive the charge after the event in the different circumstances
described, it suggests that they may be willing to be flexible if he
approaches them. Being fed up of adverse publicity may be a reason why.
John Turner
"Tim Jackson" wrote
> However, the story you've found also quotes a B&Q spokeswoman as saying:
> "In addition to this, should a customer wish to shop with us for more
> than the two hours allowed, they should contact a member of staff whilst
> in store and we'll ensure they do not receive an inappropriate fine."
FFS I'd never go into B&Q (or any other store for that matter) intending to
spend in excess of 2½ hours there. It's only when you get engrossed in
something like contemplating which bathroom you might want to buy, that the
time slips away. Consequently I wouldn't even *think* to tell staff that I
might exceed their parking limit.
John.
Rad
> I bought a few items and, according to the times on receipt and parking
> charge notice, left the car park 4 minutes after paying for them.
You could either:
a) Write to your local and national news paper, write to your MP. Stand
outside B&Q's headquarters with a banner, take photo of the signs in the
car park, speak to the store manager, tell B&Q how much of a valuable
customer you are and how much money you will be spending with them, write
to Private Eye, write to every DIY magazine you can find.
or,
b) Put the ticket in the bin because the charge will never be enforced.
tim....
"Rad" <r...@rad.rad> wrote in message
news:HR14o.246780$aS3.87838@hurricane...
There is evidence to the contrary here. Sometime they DO go to court if
they think that they should win
tim
StivH
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:05:12 +0100, The Todal wrote...
> > The story I quoted
> > was just one of many which, for various reasons, criticise B&Q's car park
> > contractors. So the dissatisfaction is already known to B&Q and the threat
> > from one more customer "if you don't waive this charge I'll go to the Press"
> > really won't cut any ice.
>
> However, the story you've found also quotes a B&Q spokeswoman as saying:
> "In addition to this, should a customer wish to shop with us for more
> than the two hours allowed, they should contact a member of staff whilst
> in store and we'll ensure they do not receive an inappropriate fine."
>
> --
> Tim Jackson
> n...@timjackson.invalid
> (Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
So, B&Q consider the fines to be inappropriate, too?
Steve
Justin Credible
"tim...." <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8bd3e8...@mid.individual.net...
>
> There is evidence to the contrary here. Sometime they DO go to court if
> they think that they should win
>
> tim
>
Particularly when the "offender" has been daft enough to admit his "crime".
Steve Firth
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 02:49:30 -0700 (PDT), James Harris wrote...
> > 5. Finally, not a legal question per se but a practical one: what
> > points should I include in a complaint to the store manager and/or the
> > head office?
>
> That you are approaching him before you take your story to the local
> newspaper, as you are sure that it is not really their policy to
> penalise good customers like yourself?
>
> It sounds to me the kind of story that a small local paper would love,
> and that the local manager would hate them to run. But try to choose a
> paper in which B&Q don't run regular adverts.
I'm not sure how far you will get. A local <burger joint> was in the
press a year or so ago because a group of mothers organised a party for
one of their children at <burger joint>. They occupied <burger joint>
for a period of three hours and were all issued with parking "fines"
because <burger joint> operate a policy of two hour's parking maximum.
Despite having booked the party in advance and having staff as witnesses
to their continuous presence at the party the mothers were unable to get
the fines dropped by <burger joint>.
JMS
<tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>> or,
>> b) Put the ticket in the bin because the charge will never be enforced.
>
>There is evidence to the contrary here. Sometime they DO go to court if
>they think that they should win
>
>tim
>
>
I must admit, I have never seen a report of a case like this which has
gone to court with a private contractor - I am not implying that there
are none - but just not seen any.
I can understand that if someone leaves a car in a car park for a day
or so - then it may happen; but these run of the mill "short"
overstays are a different matter I think and probably not cost
effective for the company pursue.
Any news reports of such anyone?
Alex Heney
<tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
I haven't heard of one where it has been about an overstay (as opposed
to somewhere you are not allowed to park at all), and where the case
was actually heard in court.
But there probably have been a few. Magistrates don't always get it
right.
There are *some* places where the wording of the signs is such that
they might legitimately succeed - Tesco spring to mind here.
Others - and B&Q are definitely one have no chance if the court
actually apply the law correctly.
To have any chance at all, the wording has to be such that it appears
to be a contractual fee, rather than any sort of penalty. Even then,
the court have to accept that the wording is accurate, and it *is* a
contractual fee rather than a penalty clause.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I'm easy to please as long as I get my way.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Mike Ross
Doesn't mean that <burger joint> actually managed to get a penny of these
so-called fines. Piss off that many people in such a ridiculous way and it's
more likely to get torched than paid.
They're screwed in any case:
Game over.
Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
Michael Swift
<matt....@btopenworld.com> writes
>Particularly when the "offender" has been daft enough to admit his
>"crime".
We've had chavy type people complaining in our local paper how they've
been 'fined' for over staying at a Burger King, or McD's, I suppose
their 15 minutes of fame override them being so thick as to admit they
were driving the car.
Mike
--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange
Michael Swift
<m...@privacy.net> writes
>Others - and B&Q are definitely one have no chance if the court actually
>apply the law correctly.
We have a large trading estate where B&Q are one businesses of many, I'm
sure they would have a problem if I parked outside their store then went
to another on the complex, should I play musical parking places to visit
Argos a couple of shops away, the centre of the park is one massive car
park.
BruceB
"JMS" <jmsmi...@live.co.uk > wrote in message
news:pdp356pubsqpmcnd0...@4ax.com...
>
> I must admit, I have never seen a report of a case like this which has
> gone to court with a private contractor - I am not implying that there
> are none - but just not seen any.
>
> I can understand that if someone leaves a car in a car park for a day
> or so - then it may happen; but these run of the mill "short"
> overstays are a different matter I think and probably not cost
> effective for the company pursue.
>
> Any news reports of such anyone?
Regularly tested in the small claims court. Companies seem reluctant to go
there , but here are a couple of examples that went the parking company's
way:
http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news/15246/parking-penalty-just-judge-rules
http://www.shropshirestar.com/latest/2010/04/07/court-told-of-signs-in-parking-wrangle
Regards
Bruce
Norman Wells
>> There is evidence to the contrary here. Sometime they DO go to
>> court if they think that they should win
>>
>
> I haven't heard of one where it has been about an overstay (as opposed
> to somewhere you are not allowed to park at all), and where the case
> was actually heard in court.
>
> But there probably have been a few. Magistrates don't always get it
> right.
They wouldn't have if they heard the case at all. It's a civil matter, not
a criminal one.
Ian Jackson
<n...@nul.com> writes
notices. I have no idea whether this is true or not but, these days, it
is unwise to expect there NOT to be such notices, and these should be
sought out and checked every time you use the car park. You never know.
The conditions might have been sneakily changed since the last time you
were there.
However, it does seem that parking notices tend to be mounted well out
of the natural line of vision. They are usually 10 to 12 feet up, on
poles. I'm not surprised that some shoppers miss them (I often do,
unless I go looking for them). To avoid all doubt, the law should
require the entrance to all of these car parks to have displayed an 'in
your face' notice which simply states something like "Parking
Restrictions In Force - See Notices". It would then be up to the driver
to find a notice, and read the terms and conditions. Whether these are
'fair' is a different matter.
--
Ian
The Todal
"BruceB" <n...@nul.com> wrote in message
news:i2u01q$c98$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Lovely. There's a lesson here. By the way, google for MacDonalds car parks
and you'll find even more complaints about penalties for overstaying.
"Speaking after the hearing, Mr Perkins said: "This is a landmark hearing.
Internet sites have always said these are unenforceable penalties. The judge
clearly stated a contract was entered into, although the defendant never
admitted to being the driver. I would warn people from going on these
internet sites. If you have a legal question, see a solicitor." "
The Todal
"Norman Wells" <stib...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:Xyv4o.4402$MT5.1798@hurricane...
Exactly so. It would go to the county court, probably the small claims
track. The costs that would be awarded would not include solicitors' fees.
So if the car park administrators choose to take people to court, they may
make a financial loss even if they win - they would be awarded the penalty
charge plus limited costs plus court fees. It would be worth it, for them,
to prove to the public that the charges are enforceable.
As far as I can see, the only possible defence to an action would be to
demonstrate that the warning signs were not sufficiently prominent.
Norman Wells
Or not admit you were the driver, letting them prove it, if they can.
The Peeler
wrote:
Much the same applies to medical diagnoses gleaned from the Internet.
Mike Ross
And (as I already posted elsewhere in the thread), here's a more recent case
that went precisely the other way, for what seem very good reasons to me:
"In a decision that will be welcomed by many aggrieved drivers, a judge has
ruled that the demands for hundreds of pounds in penalties which a parking
company sent to one woman driver were illegal because they were too high.
The court was told they were intended to "frighten or intimidate" her rather
than compensate the firm for any lost income.
The case is expected to have far-reaching implications for private parking
firms."
"And the woman's solicitor, Martin Lee, said: "In future, companies that charge
these sorts of sums will have them struck out unless they can prove that they
are a proper account of any financial loss."
Ste
> "BruceB" <n...@nul.com> wrote in message
>
> news:i2u01q$c98$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:pdp356pubsqpmcnd0...@4ax.com...
>
> >> I must admit, I have never seen a report of a case like this which has
> >> gone to court with a private contractor - I am not implying that there
> >> are none - but just not seen any.
>
> >> I can understand that if someone leaves a car in a car park for a day
> >> or so - then it may happen; but these run of the mill "short"
> >> overstays are a different matter I think and probably not cost
> >> effective for the company pursue.
>
> >> Any news reports of such anyone?
>
> > Regularly tested in the small claims court. Companies seem reluctant to
> > go
> > there , but here are a couple of examples that went the parking company's
> > way:
> >http://www.shropshirestar.com/latest/2010/04/07/court-told-of-signs-i...
>
> Lovely. There's a lesson here. By the way, google for MacDonalds car parks
> and you'll find even more complaints about penalties for overstaying.
>
> "Speaking after the hearing, Mr Perkins said: "This is a landmark hearing.
> Internet sites have always said these are unenforceable penalties. The judge
> clearly stated a contract was entered into, although the defendant never
> admitted to being the driver. I would warn people from going on these
> internet sites. If you have a legal question, see a solicitor." "
For the benefit of our group, no one reputable here has ever said that
these charges are unenforcable. In fact, we had an extensive
discussion not so long ago, about whether the registered keeper is
presumed to be the driver or not.
Mike Ross
I'm certainly saying that *excessive* or unreasonable charges ARE unenforceable,
and a court has said the same.
tim....
"Mike Ross" <mi...@corestore.org> wrote in message
news:leg556l0md58vd2h4...@4ax.com...
How is 2008 more recent than 2010?
tim
The Todal
It's a tricky argument to run, though. It's only fifty quid if you pay
within 14 days and it is entirely understandable that it then escalates to a
higher figure (to make it more worthwhile them suing and to defray their
expenses in doing so) if the customer delays in making payment.
From memory, and I might be wrong, fifty quid is the sort of figure that the
council would charge you if you exceeded your time in a council car park.
So it doesn't seem an unreasonable figure if charged by a private car park
contractor.
If they summons you, I suppose you could offer them the fifty quid but you'd
also have to pay the court fee. In short, your best hope is that they have
so many people owing them money that they'll pick on someone else to sue and
forget about you. Which doesn't give you a good night's sleep at all.
tim....
But that's the general rule and has nothing to do with car parking
enforcement.
And, back to parking enforcement, FWIW a charge of about 60 pounds has been
shown to be "reasonable" under such rules.
tim
Mike Harrison
Well known cases - very carefully picked by with poor defence and using admisisons from defendants
on websites.
All private tickets can safely be ignored.
Mike Harrison
Here are several sets of the chains of letters received by PPC scam victims - they will go away if
you ignore them :
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=2214803
Justin Credible
"Ste" <ste_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:475592ce-dff5-4086...@r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> For the benefit of our group, no one reputable here has ever said that
> these charges are unenforcable.
Are there any "reputable" souls here? You're talking lawyers and
pseudo-lawyers, remember......the Venables scum character had a legal
representative fighting his corner, anyone with a conscience would have hung
him out to dry.
Maybe lawyers approve of downloading kiddie porn and murdering children?
And anyway, the said charges **are** unenforceable if the RK simply replies
to the demand for money with a "I wasn't the driver" response.
Where the private parking companies have won is where someone has been dumb
enough to admit to being the driver but said they were blind enough to not
have seen the signs. In those cases, it's KER-CHING time.
tim....
"Mike Harrison" <mi...@whitewing.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4h4656dkntpluqq6c...@4ax.com...
That's not the point.
The claim was that "you can ignore the ticket because they never prosecute"
That claim has now been shown to be false.
> All private tickets can safely be ignored.
Unless you are the person who loses in court because you have followed this
advice
tim
>
tim....
"Justin Credible" <matt....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:hME4o.26$2d1.23@hurricane...
Oddly enough. This seems to be pretty much what the OP here has done
tim
Ste
I agree. I'm simply saying that we here do not represent the "internet
sites" mentioned in the newspaper piece, and that the collective legal
knowledge of this group is generally of a very high standard.
Ste
wrote:
> "Ste" <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:475592ce-dff5-4086...@r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > For the benefit of our group, no one reputable here has ever said that
> > these charges are unenforcable.
>
> Are there any "reputable" souls here?
I'd say so - at least in terms of legal knowledge.
> You're talking lawyers and
> pseudo-lawyers, remember......the Venables scum character had a legal
> representative fighting his corner, anyone with a conscience would have hung
> him out to dry.
It's not exactly a new story. Boy brought up in abusive household,
then outcast from society and still hounded by vigilantes, develops
antisocial traits.
> Maybe lawyers approve of downloading kiddie porn and murdering children?
Perhaps.
> And anyway, the said charges **are** unenforceable if the RK simply replies
> to the demand for money with a "I wasn't the driver" response.
I'm inclined to agree. As I say, we did it to death the other month,
arguing over whether being the RK makes it sufficiently probable that
you are the driver that the parking company can simply sue the RK. My
view is that being the RK almost certainly does not create a
presumption that you are the driver.
> Where the private parking companies have won is where someone has been dumb
> enough to admit to being the driver but said they were blind enough to not
> have seen the signs. In those cases, it's KER-CHING time.
Agreed. Certainly in the instant case, the CCTV showed the woman
within 1 metre of the signs apparently, and I suppose there can't be
much argument in those circumstances.
Alex Heney
wrote:
>
No, the main defence would be that the penalties did not represent
"liquidated losses" caused by the breach of contract.
Unless, of course, the parking company can persuade the court that
these are contractual fees rather than penalty charges.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
Mike Harrison
I've yet to see any genuine documented case won where all PPC correspondance has been ignored and no
admissions have been made. The few so-called 'won' cases all have a fishy smell about them.
'Safe' is never an absolute. The chance of being successfully taken to court by these scammers is
sufficiently close to zero as to be negligible - they have enough suckers who are tricked into
paying their bogus invoices that they don't need to bother chasing people who know that it's a con.
If these people have a genuine case, why do they send so many letters and then give up?
Mike Ross
And if they try to do that, I think the contract is likely to be nullified on
the ground that it's literally unconscionable. Unconscionabilty of contract is
an actual legal concept, where the terms of the contract are so one-sided that
no right-thinking person would enter into if they realised the full
implications. Being charged a hundred quid for spending a few minutes too long
eating a burger at a place where you're a customer would certainly qualify!
I had cause to learn this term recently when dealing with T-Mobile; they
attempted to bill me $7,000 for three days of fairly light internet use on my
cellphone in Iceland. They only backed down when I spoke to the CEO's office and
threatened them with unconscionabilty of contract. Entire amount waived.
If the penalty levied or price charged is so utterly preposterous in relation to
the goods or services consumed - unconscionability is the way to go. Oh and by
the way, I *know* unfair contract terms legislation excludes price charged; this
is something quite different.
Brimstone
> And if they try to do that, I think the contract is likely to be nullified
> on
> the ground that it's literally unconscionable. Unconscionabilty of
> contract is
> an actual legal concept, where the terms of the contract are so one-sided
> that
> no right-thinking person would enter into if they realised the full
> implications. Being charged a hundred quid for spending a few minutes too
> long
> eating a burger at a place where you're a customer would certainly
> qualify!
>
> I had cause to learn this term recently when dealing with T-Mobile; they
> attempted to bill me $7,000 for three days of fairly light internet use on
> my
> cellphone in Iceland. They only backed down when I spoke to the CEO's
> office and
> threatened them with unconscionabilty of contract. Entire amount waived.
>
> If the penalty levied or price charged is so utterly preposterous in
> relation to
> the goods or services consumed - unconscionability is the way to go. Oh
> and by
> the way, I *know* unfair contract terms legislation excludes price
> charged; this
> is something quite different.
>
That's a useful notion, thanks.
The Todal
I completely disagree.
We have no idea what internet sites the man was referring to, and often what
appears to be a website or bulletin board is merely a way of viewing Usenet.
The collective legal knowledge of this group (which isn't an organised or
disciplined group by any stretch of the imagination) is mediocre to poor,
and most people have no way of judging which advice is good and which is
bad. I daresay some judge mainly on the basis of whether the poster uses
good grammar and spelling and is therefore likely to have read a few books.
For good measure, I would add that the moderated group (uk.legal.moderated)
also contains a large amount of poor advice but it filters out some of the
spam. The fact that three people may give the same advice does not in any
way signify that the advice is reliable and good.
Ste
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:51:29 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >wrote:
>
> >>"Norman Wells" <stibb...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
Unconscionability is a good argument, but the bar is set very high.
£7,000 for a modest amount of internet usage probably meets that test
because it is so far beyond the pale, but contracts involving lesser
sums, even if the price is disproportionately high compared to the
service supplied, will not necessarily meet that test. £100 for
parking is a stiff charge, but not necessarily an unconscionable one,
given that people pay a similar amount to park at the airport.
Also, the unfair terms exclude questions of the price itself, but it
does not exclude questions of the charging structure and the
circumstances in which charges are imposed. For example, in your case,
you presumably didn't even realise that the bill was ratcheting up to
£7,000, and in those situations it can be specifically argued that the
terms are unfair because they do not include a pre-set ceiling on
charges, or other measures that allow customers to control spending,
etc.
Norman Wells
> For good measure, I would add that the moderated group
> (uk.legal.moderated) also contains a large amount of poor advice but it
> filters out some of the spam.
What it actually filters out is correct advice expressed bluntly, while
allowing all poor advice expressed with flowers.
Michael Swift
<brim...@hotmail.com> writes
>> If the penalty levied or price charged is so utterly preposterous in
>> relation to
>> the goods or services consumed - unconscionability is the way to go. Oh
>> and by
>> the way, I *know* unfair contract terms legislation excludes price
>> charged; this
>> is something quite different.
>>
>That's a useful notion, thanks.
True, the post is marked to keep, just in case.
Mike
--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange
The Todal
And that's an example of pisspoor advice - a prejudice dressed up as a
reliable and considered opinion.
If you want to see the rejected posts, visit
http://www.moderation.org.uk/3displayulm.php
See if you can find any correct advice expressed bluntly (apart of course
from reject posts that are rejected merely because they are duplicates of
posts that have already been accepted).
Mike Ross
>On 31 July, 01:37, Mike Ross <m...@corestore.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:51:29 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> >Unless, of course, the parking company can persuade the court that
>> >these are contractual fees rather than penalty charges.
>>
>> And if they try to do that, I think the contract is likely to be nullified on
>> the ground that it's literally unconscionable. Unconscionabilty of contract is
>> an actual legal concept, where the terms of the contract are so one-sided that
>> no right-thinking person would enter into if they realised the full
>> implications. Being charged a hundred quid for spending a few minutes too long
>> eating a burger at a place where you're a customer would certainly qualify!
>>
>> I had cause to learn this term recently when dealing with T-Mobile; they
>> attempted to bill me $7,000 for three days of fairly light internet use on my
>> cellphone in Iceland. They only backed down when I spoke to the CEO's office and
>> threatened them with unconscionabilty of contract. Entire amount waived.
>>
>> If the penalty levied or price charged is so utterly preposterous in relation to
>> the goods or services consumed - unconscionability is the way to go. Oh and by
>> the way, I *know* unfair contract terms legislation excludes price charged; this
>> is something quite different.
>
>Unconscionability is a good argument, but the bar is set very high.
>£7,000 for a modest amount of internet usage probably meets that test
>because it is so far beyond the pale, but contracts involving lesser
>sums, even if the price is disproportionately high compared to the
>service supplied, will not necessarily meet that test. £100 for
>parking is a stiff charge, but not necessarily an unconscionable one,
>given that people pay a similar amount to park at the airport.
£100 for an extended period, yes - like a few days. And the difference is,
you're only a customer of the airport in the loosest sense. In the cases we're
discussing we are talking about people who direct customers of the business,
spending their money with them whilst they are, at the same time, unknown to
their customer, levying the outrageous charge. I think a comparison with
airports is very much apples & oranges.
>Also, the unfair terms exclude questions of the price itself, but it
>does not exclude questions of the charging structure and the
>circumstances in which charges are imposed. For example, in your case,
>you presumably didn't even realise that the bill was ratcheting up to
>£7,000, and in those situations it can be specifically argued that the
>terms are unfair because they do not include a pre-set ceiling on
>charges, or other measures that allow customers to control spending,
>etc.
Possibly, although US law on unfair contracts is different, annd precisely such
a ceiling has now been introduced in the EU - although only since the EU forced
the issue!
Norman Wells
This is not the forum to discuss any other group than this one.
But then discussion of the moderated group is prissily not allowed there
either.
It seems we have an impasse of their own making.
Ste
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 02:48:52 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Unconscionability is a good argument, but the bar is set very high.
> >£7,000 for a modest amount of internet usage probably meets that test
> >because it is so far beyond the pale, but contracts involving lesser
> >sums, even if the price is disproportionately high compared to the
> >service supplied, will not necessarily meet that test. £100 for
> >parking is a stiff charge, but not necessarily an unconscionable one,
> >given that people pay a similar amount to park at the airport.
>
> £100 for an extended period, yes - like a few days. And the difference is,
> you're only a customer of the airport in the loosest sense. In the cases we're
> discussing we are talking about people who direct customers of the business,
> spending their money with them whilst they are, at the same time, unknown to
> their customer, levying the outrageous charge. I think a comparison with
> airports is very much apples & oranges.
Not really. As I say, the concept of "unconscionability" is not a test
of mere unfairness, but of utter outrageousness, and I'm not sure that
it can be said that this applies to a parking charge of £50 or so,
particularly where there is a fair time period during which a person
can park for free, and where the whole "service" involves towing/
clamping/sueing, etc. I would also note that courts are not entirely
unsympathetic to landowners.
> >Also, the unfair terms exclude questions of the price itself, but it
> >does not exclude questions of the charging structure and the
> >circumstances in which charges are imposed. For example, in your case,
> >you presumably didn't even realise that the bill was ratcheting up to
> >£7,000, and in those situations it can be specifically argued that the
> >terms are unfair because they do not include a pre-set ceiling on
> >charges, or other measures that allow customers to control spending,
> >etc.
>
> Possibly, although US law on unfair contracts is different, annd precisely such
> a ceiling has now been introduced in the EU - although only since the EU forced
> the issue!
I'm not sure I mentioned US law, and indeed the EU is very circumspect
about big companies basically imposing unfair terms on consumers.
Mike Ross
<snip>
>Not really. As I say, the concept of "unconscionability" is not a test
>of mere unfairness, but of utter outrageousness, and I'm not sure that
>it can be said that this applies to a parking charge of £50 or so,
>particularly where there is a fair time period during which a person
>can park for free, and where the whole "service" involves towing/
>clamping/sueing, etc. I would also note that courts are not entirely
>unsympathetic to landowners.
You misunderstand. These charges are NOT (in the cases we're discussing) the
result of towing or clamping. They're produced by automatic private ANPR
systems. If the camera systems detect you have contravened the rules (by e.g
timing you in and out) they send an automated request for RK details to Swansea,
and when they eventually have a name and address (which may be weeks or months
later), post an invoice to the RK. No human ever needs to see or touch the car,
it's entirely a computer-based invoice-generating system.
And I will agree to disagree with you on what is and isn't utterly outrageous
when it comes to parking rules and charges!
I should add that the outrageous behaviour I've heard about from these parking
enforcement companies includes having a postal address only for accepting
payments; if you want to complain or dispute, they insist you contact them only
via a premium-rate phone number. I've also seen them require payment of ten
pounds, by credit card, via the aforementioned premium rate phone line, in order
for them to give you their terms of business in writing! Predators and bullies
and nothing less.
The Peeler
<stib...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>The Todal wrote:
>> Norman Wells wrote:
>>> The Todal wrote:
>>>
>>>> For good measure, I would add that the moderated group
>>>> (uk.legal.moderated) also contains a large amount of poor advice but
>>>> it filters out some of the spam.
>>>
>>> What it actually filters out is correct advice expressed bluntly,
>>> while allowing all poor advice expressed with flowers.
>>
>> And that's an example of pisspoor advice - a prejudice dressed up as a
>> reliable and considered opinion.
>>
>> If you want to see the rejected posts, visit
>> http://www.moderation.org.uk/3displayulm.php
>>
>> See if you can find any correct advice expressed bluntly (apart of
>> course from reject posts that are rejected merely because they are
>> duplicates of posts that have already been accepted).
>
>This is not the forum to discuss any other group than this one.
Says who?
>But then discussion of the moderated group is prissily not allowed there
>either.
>
>It seems we have an impasse of their own making.
Not really: we can discuss anything we like here - the group isn't
moderated!
Mike Ross
>On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 17:49:56 +0100, "Norman Wells"
>>This is not the forum to discuss any other group than this one.
>
>Says who?
>
>>But then discussion of the moderated group is prissily not allowed there
>>either.
>>
>>It seems we have an impasse of their own making.
>
>Not really: we can discuss anything we like here - the group isn't
>moderated!
It certainly isn't moderated but it will have a charter, drawn up when the group
was voted in. This will define what is and isn't on-topic; it will, for
instance, prohbit spam.
AlanG
wrote:
>On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 08:36:24 +0800, The Peeler <peeli...@invalid.admin> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 17:49:56 +0100, "Norman Wells"
>
>>>This is not the forum to discuss any other group than this one.
>>
>>Says who?
>>
>>>But then discussion of the moderated group is prissily not allowed there
>>>either.
>>>
>>>It seems we have an impasse of their own making.
>>
>>Not really: we can discuss anything we like here - the group isn't
>>moderated!
>
>It certainly isn't moderated but it will have a charter, drawn up when the group
>was voted in. This will define what is and isn't on-topic; it will, for
>instance, prohbit spam.
>
uk.legal was formed before the uk heirarchy and has no charter or
anything else
The Peeler
wrote:
>On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 08:36:24 +0800, The Peeler <peeli...@invalid.admin> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 17:49:56 +0100, "Norman Wells"
>
>>>This is not the forum to discuss any other group than this one.
>>
>>Says who?
>>
>>>But then discussion of the moderated group is prissily not allowed there
>>>either.
>>>
>>>It seems we have an impasse of their own making.
>>
>>Not really: we can discuss anything we like here - the group isn't
>>moderated!
>
>It certainly isn't moderated but it will have a charter, drawn up when the group
>was voted in. This will define what is and isn't on-topic; it will, for
>instance, prohbit spam.
How soon will it have this "charter"?
AlanG
<peeli...@invalid.admin> wrote:
>On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:02:42 -0400, Mike Ross <mi...@corestore.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 08:36:24 +0800, The Peeler <peeli...@invalid.admin> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 17:49:56 +0100, "Norman Wells"
>>
>>>>This is not the forum to discuss any other group than this one.
>>>
>>>Says who?
>>>
>>>>But then discussion of the moderated group is prissily not allowed there
>>>>either.
>>>>
>>>>It seems we have an impasse of their own making.
>>>
>>>Not really: we can discuss anything we like here - the group isn't
>>>moderated!
>>
>>It certainly isn't moderated but it will have a charter, drawn up when the group
>>was voted in. This will define what is and isn't on-topic; it will, for
>>instance, prohbit spam.
>
>How soon will it have this "charter"?
uk.legal does not have a charter,
uk.legal was never voted in
uk.legal has fuckall to do with the uk. heirarchy
Mike Ross
Then it's even more ancient than I thought! :-)
Adrian
saying:
> uk.legal has fuckall to do with the uk. heirarchy
<looks at group name>
You've clearly got a slightly different concept of "hierarchy" to mine.
I'd have said it was definitely a part of it. Sure, it may pre-date the
current hierarchy management regime, but it's still a part of the
hierarchy.
AlanG
wrote:
>On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 14:55:01 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 20:24:30 +0800, The Peeler
>><peeli...@invalid.admin> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:02:42 -0400, Mike Ross <mi...@corestore.org>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 08:36:24 +0800, The Peeler <peeli...@invalid.admin> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 17:49:56 +0100, "Norman Wells"
>>>>
>>>>>>This is not the forum to discuss any other group than this one.
>>>>>
>>>>>Says who?
>>>>>
>>>>>>But then discussion of the moderated group is prissily not allowed there
>>>>>>either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It seems we have an impasse of their own making.
>>>>>
>>>>>Not really: we can discuss anything we like here - the group isn't
>>>>>moderated!
>>>>
>>>>It certainly isn't moderated but it will have a charter, drawn up when the group
>>>>was voted in. This will define what is and isn't on-topic; it will, for
>>>>instance, prohbit spam.
>>>
>>>How soon will it have this "charter"?
>>
>>uk.legal does not have a charter,
>>uk.legal was never voted in
>>uk.legal has fuckall to do with the uk. heirarchy
>
>Then it's even more ancient than I thought! :-)
>
Predates 1996 as do several other groups formed before the UK
heirarchy
The Peeler
Precisely. Therefore there is no problem with discussing uklm.
AlanG
It isn't.
The uk heirarchy has a governing body which only has control over the
groups formed under it's jurisidiction. Nobody owns or controls
uk.legal and it continues to exist as long as the operators of news
servers continue to allow it to propagate.
James Harris
No new points here. I just thought I should copy this to uk.d-i-y as a
warning to anyone else who uses B&Q car parks. And presumably other
DIY stores and other businesses have such parking fines (displayed not
clearly enough).
To those on uk.d-i-y see uk.legal for the rest of the discussion.
> I see there have been other queries in this newsgroup about "charges"
> for overstaying one's welcome in a firm's car park so I'll try to
> avoid going over old questions.
>
> --- Basic info ---
> Sat 10 July 2010 - parked in B&Q car park for (according to the notice
> I received in the post from ParkingEye) 2 hours 56 minutes. They
> apparently have time limit of 2 hours 30 minutes. I didn't notice any
> signs but presume there are some and that they are clearly displayed.
>
> My whole time was spent in the B&Q store. I know that might make me
> look rather sad [:-(] but I was looking for ideas as well as products.
> I'd have been there longer if their cafe had had anything I wanted!
> Anyway, the point is that I used their car park solely to use their
> store.
>
> I bought a few items and, according to the times on receipt and
> parking charge notice, left the car park 4 minutes after paying for
> them.
> --- End of basic info ---
>
> My questions.
>
> 1. Have I entered into some form of contract with B&Q by using their
> car park (to shop in their store)? The car park has no barriers. It's
> just drive in and drive out. I hadn't even noticed any cameras.
>
> 2. ParkingEye ramp-up the charges: £50 if paid within 14 days (of them
> sending the notice), then £80, then £110. Then they mention, "the
> first of many additional charges will me made" if these payments are
> not made. Is this allowable legally or is it just an attempt to panic
> the vast majority of people who do not have legal experience into
> paying up? I would have thought a fine should be a fixed amount and
> people should at least be given longer to decide whether to accept the
> fine or to take advice from a solicitor or Citizens' Advice.
>
> 3. I didn't get their first letter straight away as I was away for a
> long weekend but I wrote to ParkingEye the day I opened their letter,
> 21 July. I explained I'd been only in the B&Q store, suggested they
> check CCTV recordings, enclosed a copy of the receipt and said that if
> they were not going to drop the charge they should reply quickly
> enough to give me time to take advice before the charge increased.
> I've had no reply but have had another warning that the charge is to
> increase in 4 days (2 days from when the letter reached me, i.e.
> today). This seems grossly unreasonable to me. From a legal point of
> view would these timescales be considered reasonable?
>
> 4. Again on timescales I might have been on a summer holiday when the
> first 14-day notice came through. Does ParkingEye's approach count as
> harassment?
>
> 5. Finally, not a legal question per se but a practical one: what
> points should I include in a complaint to the store manager and/or the
> head office?
>
> James
James Harris
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:05:12 +0100, The Todal wrote...
> > The story I quoted
> > was just one of many which, for various reasons, criticise B&Q's car park
> > contractors. So the dissatisfaction is already known to B&Q and the threat
> > from one more customer "if you don't waive this charge I'll go to the Press"
> > really won't cut any ice.
>
> However, the story you've found also quotes a B&Q spokeswoman as saying:
> "In addition to this, should a customer wish to shop with us for more
> than the two hours allowed, they should contact a member of staff whilst
> in store and we'll ensure they do not receive an inappropriate fine."
Copying to uk.d-i-y for info.
James
The Todal
> On 28 July, 10:49, James Harris <james.harri...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> No new points here. I just thought I should copy this to uk.d-i-y as a
> warning to anyone else who uses B&Q car parks. And presumably other
> DIY stores and other businesses have such parking fines (displayed not
> clearly enough).
>
> To those on uk.d-i-y see uk.legal for the rest of the discussion.
>
I visited a B&Q car park a few days ago. The warning signs were reasonably
conspicuous but I probably wouldn't have taken the trouble to read them if I
hadn't been aware of this discussion. Apart from a time limit (which I think
was 2 hours) there is also a rule about not returning within 4 hours.
A customer who complains about a charge days or weeks later and says "but I
was shopping in the store the whole time" is not likely to get much
sympathy, I shouldn't think. After all, that's what he's bound to say even
if he went to a different store or to a football match nearby.
Brimstone
"The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:8bsusm...@mid.individual.net...
James Harris
<ianREMOVETHISjack...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <i2u01q$c9...@news.eternal-september.org>, BruceB
> <n...@nul.com> writes
...
> >Regularly tested in the small claims court. Companies seem reluctant to go
> >there , but here are a couple of examples that went the parking company's
> >way:
http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news/15246/parking-penalty-just-judge-rules
http://www.shropshirestar.com/latest/2010/04/07/court-told-of-signs-in-parking-wrangle
> In both of these cases, the drivers claimed not to have seen the parking
> notices. I have no idea whether this is true or not but, these days, it
> is unwise to expect there NOT to be such notices, and these should be
> sought out and checked every time you use the car park. You never know.
> The conditions might have been sneakily changed since the last time you
> were there.
>
> However, it does seem that parking notices tend to be mounted well out
> of the natural line of vision. They are usually 10 to 12 feet up, on
> poles. I'm not surprised that some shoppers miss them (I often do,
> unless I go looking for them). To avoid all doubt, the law should
> require the entrance to all of these car parks to have displayed an 'in
> your face' notice which simply states something like "Parking
> Restrictions In Force - See Notices". It would then be up to the driver
> to find a notice, and read the terms and conditions.
Valid point. I presume the signs are present but if there is to be a
parking fine/charge/penalty, whatever it should be called, IMHO the
law should require that they customers cannot miss them.
In fact here's a Google streetview photo of about as close to the
entrance as I can get. The B&Q entrance is where the yellow van is
exiting and a small dark blue or black car is entering.
There's no barrier at the entrance, no obvious cameras, and no obvious
sign that I can see on the Google photo. Also, when I told a friend
what had happened he was surprised and said he'd never noticed parking-
charge signs at the store either.
Of course, in the interests of balance I should say things may have
changed at the store recently and the Google photo may be too old to
show new signage. At any rate I noticed nothing to say there was
either a time limit or a charge for an overstay.
I wonder how many other people have been caught out by this. It seems
more like a trap than any kind of entering in to a contract.
James
Jim K
> What a bunch of numpties. B&Q is one place you can easily spend more than 2
> hours, especially if you are going round and round forming ideas.
or waiting for one of their "experts" to ccome back with an
answer....hopefully a correct one....
Jim K
Stephen Wolstenholme
>James Harris <james.h...@googlemail.com>
> wibbled on Wednesday 04 August 2010 11:35
>What a bunch of numpties. B&Q is one place you can easily spend more than 2
>hours, especially if you are going round and round forming ideas.
There's no way I would spend two hours in any shop. I know what I want
before going to the shop. I don't go shopping to form ideas.
Steve
--
Neural Planner Software Ltd www.NPSL1.com
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. www.justnn.com
Twitter http://twitter.com/npsl1
AlanG
>James Harris <james.h...@googlemail.com>
> wibbled on Wednesday 04 August 2010 11:35
>
>What a bunch of numpties. B&Q is one place you can easily spend more than 2
>hours, especially if you are going round and round forming ideas.
I usually go to Wickes, No Frills and Homebase in that order before I
go anywhere near B&Q. Although non of them charge for parking.
stuart noble
It seems that there are no hard and fast rules about all this. If a
court would view your case as reasonable, then it's unlikely the parking
company would take it that far.
The fact that you bought something must be on your side, and that you
left straight afterwards (I imagine most people would go through the
checkout and then wander off to do other things).
Can't help thinking that if you were ordering a kitchen, there's no way
you'd be out in 2 hours.
I think I'd soft soap B&Q and hope they let you off with a warning not
to get too interested in their special offers etc. It would be
interesting to know what the mechanics of this would be. One assumes
that someone at head office has the authority to cancel a fine, and that
they haven't washed their hands of the whole thing.
Ian Jackson
<deadm...@beeb.net> writes
There's a PC World, a Marks & Spencer, an Argos, a Wickes, a Comet, a
large pet shop, a furniture shop, a burger joint and (one or two other
establishments. If you were doing some serious shopping, you could
easily spend most of the day there. I've got a feeling that the parking
time limit is 2 hours. Next time I visit, I suppose I'd better check.
--
Ian
Dave Plowman (News)
The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
> I visited a B&Q car park a few days ago. The warning signs were
> reasonably conspicuous but I probably wouldn't have taken the trouble
> to read them if I hadn't been aware of this discussion. Apart from a
> time limit (which I think was 2 hours) there is also a rule about not
> returning within 4 hours.
Oh dear. I'll often visit a B&Q looking for something, then drive to the
Homebase nearby, to compare price, then back to the B&Q to buy. Or the
other way round. The stores are not 4 hours drive apart...
--
*Don't worry; it only seems kinky the first time.*
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Ian Jackson
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes
>In article <8bsusm...@mid.individual.net>,
> The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
>> I visited a B&Q car park a few days ago. The warning signs were
>> reasonably conspicuous but I probably wouldn't have taken the trouble
>> to read them if I hadn't been aware of this discussion. Apart from a
>> time limit (which I think was 2 hours) there is also a rule about not
>> returning within 4 hours.
>
>Oh dear. I'll often visit a B&Q looking for something, then drive to the
>Homebase nearby, to compare price, then back to the B&Q to buy. Or the
>other way round. The stores are not 4 hours drive apart...
>
one Morrisons I know of does charge you a £1 pay & display for a stay of
1.5 hours, and refunds the £1 with your purchases. However, it also says
'No return within 3(?) hours'. I suppose it's just too bad if you want
to nip back because you forgot to buy your fags!
--
Ian
js.b1
> there is also a rule about not returning within 4 hours.
So I buy something, go home, find it does not fit, return & get
*fined*?
Oh, they better not leave any industrial plant around...
Mike Ross
>On Aug 4, 11:50 am, "The Todal" <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
>> there is also a rule about not returning within 4 hours.
>
>So I buy something, go home, find it does not fit, return & get
>*fined*?
That's a good one. Or better if it was faulty. I'd love to see them try to
defend charging someone for exercising their statutory right to return faulty
goods!
The Peeler
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <8bsusm...@mid.individual.net>,
> The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
>> I visited a B&Q car park a few days ago. The warning signs were
>> reasonably conspicuous but I probably wouldn't have taken the trouble
>> to read them if I hadn't been aware of this discussion. Apart from a
>> time limit (which I think was 2 hours) there is also a rule about not
>> returning within 4 hours.
>
>Oh dear. I'll often visit a B&Q looking for something, then drive to the
>Homebase nearby, to compare price, then back to the B&Q to buy. Or the
>other way round. The stores are not 4 hours drive apart...
Right across the road from each other in fact, right?
Dave Plowman (News)
;-)
But before anyone goes on about saving the planet by walking I'm always
going to buy something too bulky to carry...
--
*A journey of a thousand sites begins with a single click *
Jim K
> In article <gi0j56d48m1kj49ntngagra995mbr05...@4ax.com>, The Peeler
>
> <peeling...@invalid.admin> wrote:
> > On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 14:57:57 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
> > >In article <8bsusmFm5...@mid.individual.net>,
> > > The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
> > >> I visited a B&Q car park a few days ago. The warning signs were
> > >> reasonably conspicuous but I probably wouldn't have taken the trouble
> > >> to read them if I hadn't been aware of this discussion. Apart from a
> > >> time limit (which I think was 2 hours) there is also a rule about not
> > >> returning within 4 hours.
>
> > >Oh dear. I'll often visit a B&Q looking for something, then drive to the
> > >Homebase nearby, to compare price, then back to the B&Q to buy. Or the
> > >other way round. The stores are not 4 hours drive apart...
> > Right across the road from each other in fact, right?
>
> ;-)
>
> But before anyone goes on about saving the planet by walking I'm always
> going to buy something too bulky to carry...
mmm yeah yeah ;>)
shurely one should do these "reccy trips" by bicycle, ideally with
lurid outer garments on?
Cheersh
Jim K
1501
Tanuki
Alex Heney
wrote:
>On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 07:30:54 -0700 (PDT), "js.b1" <js...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>On Aug 4, 11:50 am, "The Todal" <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
>>> there is also a rule about not returning within 4 hours.
>>
>>So I buy something, go home, find it does not fit, return & get
>>*fined*?
>
>That's a good one. Or better if it was faulty. I'd love to see them try to
>defend charging someone for exercising their statutory right to return faulty
>goods!
>
You have no statutory right to park for free or to disregard any
parking signs just because you are returning goods.
It would be bad publicity for them, but so are most of these cases.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Experience: a name everyone gives to his mistakes.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Mike Clarke
> You have no statutory right to park for free or to disregard any
> parking signs just because you are returning goods.
No, but I think the sale of goods act says that the retailer must pay for
the cost of returning faulty goods, I imagine this could include the fees
you have to pay for using their car park.
--
Mike Clarke
Peter
says...
If you did shop there that day, then I would definitely do as James
stated and go to the B&Q store with a copy of your receipt and the
parking fine.
A similar thing happened to me at Iceland. They have a patrons only
parking sign, but I didn't have change for parking meter, so took a
chance only to find a ticket on my car when I came out. I immediately
took it into the store and they were more than happy to deal with it.
However, I received a demand for the money in the post a few weeks later
stating that it had not been paid. I phoned them to tell them that the
store had waived the fine, but they weren't interested, so I had to
return to the store who again said not to worry, they would sort it out.
A few weeks later I received a further demand in the post and phoned
them again and, unsurprisingly, they still weren't interested, so I told
them, as far as I was concerned, the matter was closed and, if they had
a problem, then get in touch with the store, which they told me they
weren't prepared to do. So, I told them, neither was I, I had done
enough running around and wasn't going to do any more to try and prove
my case and the conversation ended there.
Never heard any more and this was now well over a year ago.
--
Pete Ives
Remove All_stRESS before sending me an email
Alex Heney
No, it doesn't say that at all.
It says that if the item has to be posted, then the seller must bear
the costs of postage, but it doesn't say that the seller must bear all
the costs of return under all circumstances..
If you could show that it was *necessary* for you to park there in
order to return the goods, and that you would not otherwise have done
so, and that it was *necessary* for you to incur the parking fee, then
they *might* be held liable for the cost.
But unless it is something which cannot be carried (so you have to
park outside the door) and which *must* be returned at such a time
that you will be charged for parking, that just isn't going to happen
with goods you return in person.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
People who always put stuff back in its place after use do so because they are just too lazy to look for things!
Mike Ross
>On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 23:01:56 +0100, Mike Clarke
><UCEb...@milibyte.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Alex Heney wrote:
>>
>>> You have no statutory right to park for free or to disregard any
>>> parking signs just because you are returning goods.
>>
>>No, but I think the sale of goods act says that the retailer must pay for
>>the cost of returning faulty goods, I imagine this could include the fees
>>you have to pay for using their car park.
>
>No, it doesn't say that at all.
>
>It says that if the item has to be posted, then the seller must bear
>the costs of postage, but it doesn't say that the seller must bear all
>the costs of return under all circumstances..
>
>If you could show that it was *necessary* for you to park there in
>order to return the goods, and that you would not otherwise have done
>so, and that it was *necessary* for you to incur the parking fee, then
>they *might* be held liable for the cost.
>
>But unless it is something which cannot be carried (so you have to
>park outside the door) and which *must* be returned at such a time
>that you will be charged for parking, that just isn't going to happen
>with goods you return in person.
This discussion concerns (amongst other examples) B&Q. Many large items will be
impossible to practically return except by car and trolley. It wouldn't even
occur to me, or I suspect to most people, that a store would actually attempt to
impose a preposterously huge parking charge in what is generally a free car
park, for customers on legitimate business.
Sometimes, when you go to a shop like that, it's just for a handfull of nails.
But often it'll be for very large items. It's not going to be so terribly
uncommon for people to have to make multiple trips to pick up all their stuff -
there's a limit to how many windows & doors, or sacks of cement, you can fit in
a Mini :-)
Yet there's often, somewhere in the small print, a 'no return within x hours'
clause. To expect someone to pay the huge charges that are being asked in such a
situation is literally, legally, unconscionable; no reasonable person would
expect to be charged such a disproportionate amount, and no sane person would
knowingly agree to such a contract.
In a few cases, at some particularly busy times, some kind of action is
justified and necessary in restricting or 'policing' such free car parks, due to
abuse. In the vast majority of cases it's an attempted scam, pure and simple -
ambush charging, using 'gotcha' so-called contracts. What astonishes me is the
way major companies think they can away with treating their customers like this,
washing their hands of the matter and saying it's nothing to do with them, it's
between the motorist and the private parking scammer.
Michael Swift
<mi...@corestore.org> writes
>In a few cases, at some particularly busy times, some kind of action is
>justified and necessary in restricting or 'policing' such free car
>parks, due to abuse. In the vast majority of cases it's an attempted
>scam, pure and simple - ambush charging, using 'gotcha' so-called
>contracts. What astonishes me is the way major companies think they can
>away with treating their customers like this, washing their hands of the
>matter and saying it's nothing to do with them, it's between the
>motorist and the private parking scammer.
We have a large trading park which includes B&Q, Argos and several
others which has a large parking area and is virtually across the road
from the football stadium.
The retail park was built on the old football ground so they both opened
at more or less the same time, there was some problems on home match
days when customers couldn't get to the shops for fan's cars.
I'm not a football fan and avoid going there on match days but I assume
they use wardens and ticketing to control the abuse.
Mike
--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange
Adrian
they were saying:
> The retail park was built on the old football ground so they both opened
> at more or less the same time, there was some problems on home match
> days when customers couldn't get to the shops for fan's cars.
>
> I'm not a football fan and avoid going there on match days but I assume
> they use wardens and ticketing to control the abuse.
Our local hospital is right next door to the football ground, with very
tightly-controlled on-street parking nearby. Whenever there's all the
muttering about hospital parking charges, I tend to think "Yep, and if
there weren't...?"
Pete Verdon
> Oh dear. I'll often visit a B&Q looking for something, then drive to the
> Homebase nearby, to compare price, then back to the B&Q to buy.
You want to get one of they phones with t'internet on. Then you don't
need to traipse round the countryside to find that the price in front of
you is no more extortionate than any of the others.
Pete
James Harris
> for overstaying one's welcome in a firm's car park so I'll try to
> avoid going over old questions.
>
> --- Basic info ---
> Sat 10 July 2010 - parked in B&Q car park for (according to the notice
> I received in the post from ParkingEye) 2 hours 56 minutes. They
> apparently have time limit of 2 hours 30 minutes. I didn't notice any
> signs but presume there are some and that they are clearly displayed.
>
> My whole time was spent in the B&Q store. I know that might make me
> look rather sad [:-(] but I was looking for ideas as well as products.
> I'd have been there longer if their cafe had had anything I wanted!
> Anyway, the point is that I used their car park solely to use their
> store.
>
> I bought a few items and, according to the times on receipt and
> parking charge notice, left the car park 4 minutes after paying for
> them.
> --- End of basic info ---
>
> My questions.
>
> 1. Have I entered into some form of contract with B&Q by using their
> car park (to shop in their store)? The car park has no barriers. It's
> just drive in and drive out. I hadn't even noticed any cameras.
>
> 2. ParkingEye ramp-up the charges: £50 if paid within 14 days (of them
> sending the notice), then £80, then £110. Then they mention, "the
> first of many additional charges will me made" if these payments are
> not made. Is this allowable legally or is it just an attempt to panic
> the vast majority of people who do not have legal experience into
> paying up? I would have thought a fine should be a fixed amount and
> people should at least be given longer to decide whether to accept the
> fine or to take advice from a solicitor or Citizens' Advice.
>
> 3. I didn't get their first letter straight away as I was away for a
> long weekend but I wrote to ParkingEye the day I opened their letter,
> 21 July. I explained I'd been only in the B&Q store, suggested they
> check CCTV recordings, enclosed a copy of the receipt and said that if
> they were not going to drop the charge they should reply quickly
> enough to give me time to take advice before the charge increased.
> I've had no reply but have had another warning that the charge is to
> increase in 4 days (2 days from when the letter reached me, i.e.
> today). This seems grossly unreasonable to me. From a legal point of
> view would these timescales be considered reasonable?
>
> 4. Again on timescales I might have been on a summer holiday when the
> first 14-day notice came through. Does ParkingEye's approach count as
> harassment?
>
> 5. Finally, not a legal question per se but a practical one: what
> points should I include in a complaint to the store manager and/or the
> head office?
[OP] To follow this up: I have received a reply from ParkingEye. They
confirm that the parking charge has been cancelled and I have nothing
to pay. No apology, just a confirmation.
My only contact was with ParkingEye. I haven't told B&Q of the issue.
Some lessons picked up from the discussion here on Usenet?
1. Innocent-looking parking places may have charges for parking. No
barrier to the parking area is required so it's not always obvious one
is entering a restricted-parking zone.
2. Be on the lookout for parking charge signs when parking anywhere.
There can be charges for length of stay or for return within a given
period.
3. If aware of a potential issue ask about it before leaving the
store.
4. Keep receipts.
5. While parking abuse may be an issue the firms addressing it are a
long way from dealing with it properly and are making some bad
customer relations mistakes. And they are probably largely unaware of
it.
James
Brimstone
"James Harris" <james.h...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:e44fd0fc-1070-4317...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
requests for money.
stuart noble
> [OP] To follow this up: I have received a reply from ParkingEye. They
> confirm that the parking charge has been cancelled and I have nothing
> to pay. No apology, just a confirmation.
>
So, did you approach ParkingEye directly? I imagine part of their
contract with B&Q is that, at least initially, they cancel tickets where
a valid receipt is produced.
Dave Plowman (News)
You reckon Homebase charge the same prices in all of their stores?
I've got news for you...
--
*When blondes have more fun, do they know it?
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember James Harris
<james.h...@googlemail.com> saying something like:
>5. While parking abuse may be an issue the firms addressing it are a
>long way from dealing with it properly and are making some bad
>customer relations mistakes. And they are probably largely unaware of
>it.
The store owners *might* be unaware of the bully-boy tactics used by the
people they give the contracts to, but sure as hit the enforcers do it
deliberately.
Christopher Bowlas
> I'm not sure how far you will get. A local <burger joint> was in the
> press a year or so ago because a group of mothers organised a party for
> one of their children at <burger joint>. They occupied <burger joint>
> for a period of three hours and were all issued with parking "fines"
> because <burger joint> operate a policy of two hour's parking maximum.
> Despite having booked the party in advance and having staff as witnesses
> to their continuous presence at the party the mothers were unable to get
> the fines dropped by <burger joint>.
I do hope they all ignored the nasty letters sent by the "<burger
joint>" (MuckDonalds?) as being probably unenforcible or, if Silly
Buggers continued to play at Silly Buggers and actually tried to sue,
they counter-claimed for breach of contract.
Christopher Bowlas
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:28:27 +0100, "tim...."
> <tims_new_h...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >"Rad" <r...@rad.rad> wrote in message
> >news:HR14o.246780$aS3.87838@hurricane...
> >> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 02:49:30 -0700, James Harris wrote:
> >>> I bought a few items and, according to the times on receipt and parking
> >>> charge notice, left the car park 4 minutes after paying for them.
>
>
> >> a) Write to your local and national news paper, write to your MP. Stand
> >> outside B&Q's headquarters with a banner, take photo of the signs in the
> >> car park, speak to the store manager, tell B&Q how much of a valuable
> >> customer you are and how much money you will be spending with them, write
> >> to Private Eye, write to every DIY magazine you can find.
>
> >> or,
> >> b) Put the ticket in the bin because the charge will never be enforced.
>
> >There is evidence to the contrary here. Sometime they DO go to court if
> >they think that they should win
>
> I haven't heard of one where it has been about an overstay (as opposed
> to somewhere you are not allowed to park at all), and where the case
> was actually heard in court.
>
> But there probably have been a few. Magistrates don't always get it
> right.
Do magistrates decide cases in a County Court?