Anyone been clobbered by the Sainsbury's parking sensor domes?

[MM]

I haven't had a ticket -- yet! But there might be one on the way.
Why? Well, although I left the car park well within the 2 hours
permitted time, I stupidly returned 20 minutes later to pop back into
Sainbury's. And when I checked the small print on the parking signs it
says "No return within 2 hours."

The sensors can only tell whether a car is parked, yes? They can't
*idenity* a particular car, can they? At Spalding Sainsbury's a man
walks around ~occasionally~ with a hand-held gizmo, so I might be
lucky to have missed him. He doesn't come by very often.

MM

[AndyW]

On 02/10/2015 07:45, MM wrote:
> I haven't had a ticket -- yet! But there might be one on the way.
> Why? Well, although I left the car park well within the 2 hours
> permitted time, I stupidly returned 20 minutes later to pop back into
> Sainbury's. And when I checked the small print on the parking signs it
> says "No return within 2 hours."
>
> The sensors can only tell whether a car is parked, yes? They can't
> *idenity* a particular car, can they?

Yes. Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) is now at the point where
it is a simple code library. However it the rules are not binding or
enforceable as ANPR does not identify the driver.

I have 3 cars and 3 drivers at my house, we each have our own car but
each can drive the others' car(s). If I visit B&Q and then go home and
another driver visits B&Q in the same car then neither of us have
committed any offence nor have any of us broken any contract as neither
knew of the other's visit. The car is not responsible because it is a car.

There is not a problem. If you get a ticket then go to Sainsbury and
tell them that you forgot something and popped back but as a result of
this ticket you are ditching them for Tesco or Asda. It usually gets
sorted sharpish.

Andy

[steve robinson]

Assuming of course they own the carpark

[mro...@btopenworld.com]

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 7:44:48 AM UTC+1, MM wrote:
> I haven't had a ticket -- yet! But there might be one on the way.
> Why? Well, although I left the car park well within the 2 hours
> permitted time, I stupidly returned 20 minutes later to pop back into
> Sainbury's. And when I checked the small print on the parking signs it
> says "No return within 2 hours."

ANPR will verify your 2nd arrival, Your till receipt will confirm that you were using the store at the time in question. You therefore have nothing to worry about.

Sainsburys are not trying to make profit from their customer parking, they are simply seeking to ensure that there is parking for customers a reasonable quest surely.

I have been in suspermarket car parks all be it smaller than Sainsburys that have been completely full with not a single bay available. Yo go into the shop and it is nearly empty. That is surely an unreasonable and unsatisfactory situation for the proprietors.

[John]

"MM" wrote

>I haven't had a ticket -- yet! But there might be one on the way.
> Why? Well, although I left the car park well within the 2 hours
> permitted time, I stupidly returned 20 minutes later to pop back into
> Sainbury's. And when I checked the small print on the parking signs it
> says "No return within 2 hours."

Don't return at all - ever!

John.

[Omega]

On 02/10/2015 07:45, MM wrote:

This issue has been covered many times.

When you get your 'ticket', you simply ignore it and whatever else they
send you threatening this and that. Once you make communication with
them especially with your excuse for being there you will have
incriminated yourself, then you will have to pay up. As someone advised
me, as soon as you answer them they feel they've hooked a live one then
you will almost certainly be required to pay whatever your excuse.

I was also advised in this or a similar group, some time ago, only local
authorities and police can pursue you further and even get you to court
but these companies have no power at all. I have passed on the advice
twice, once to a friend and then later, to my daughter. Each had some
pretty convincing 'official' looking letters but both stood their ground
in not replying then the penalty collectors went away.

Many people simply don't want the hassle and pay up of course but then
that is your choice.

omega

[The Todal]

On 02/10/2015 07:45, MM wrote:

Oh dear , shop at Tesco's.

[Bod]

They do a similar thing at Tescos (2 hour window for parking).

[|||new...@nezumi.demon.co.uk]

On 02/10/2015 07:45, MM wrote:

> I haven't had a ticket -- yet! But there might be one on the way.
> Why? Well, although I left the car park well within the 2 hours
> permitted time, I stupidly returned 20 minutes later to pop back into
> Sainbury's. And when I checked the small print on the parking signs it
> says "No return within 2 hours."

Must be quite an old one to still have bay sensor domes. My instinct is that unless you parked in the same bay and for a total elapsed time exceeding 2 hours then you will be OK.

All the ones around here bar one are ANPR based or nothing at all.
They even say "hello AB12CDE - departure time hh:mm" on entry.

> The sensors can only tell whether a car is parked, yes? They can't
> *idenity* a particular car, can they? At Spalding Sainsbury's a man
> walks around ~occasionally~ with a hand-held gizmo, so I might be
> lucky to have missed him. He doesn't come by very often.

I doubt you will be caught for that even if you have technically broken the carpark T&Cs. They are really after the people who park for free in their carpark and then catch the bus into the city to shop/work all day.

I can think of one, a Coop near Manchester where their carpark was always full on weekdays but staff outnumbered customers in the shop. They didn't attempt to enforce parking rules and closed last year.

It is now an Aldi and they enforce a 2 hour parking rule. I haven't been there on a weekday since it reopened but I expect there is now room for their customers to park.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[mro...@btopenworld.com]

So I can park on your front lawn or drive and there is nothing you can do about it.

Wrong!

If it were not then how could a private car park impose a parking charge?

NCP would be out of business.

When you enter any car park, notices make clear the nature of the facility and that you are moving onto private property. You are free to leave immediately but if you choose to remain then you enter into a contract the terms of which are clearly set out by clearly visible notices.

In the case of a supermarket car park it is normal that you are allowed to remain in the park free of charge for a fixed period of time more than sufficient for you to carry out your business there. If the owner of the park chooses to charge you an extra charge whether fixed or variable should you overstay your permitted time then provided you are pre-notified (by the notice) then he has a case in law for recovering that charge.

It makes not the slightest difference who was driving it. The car is yours and you have the responsibility for setting out the terms under which is shall be used unless of course it has been driven without your consent which is a criminal offence. The onus is on you therefore to recover the charge from the actual driver should you be so minded.

There is another danger. The owner of the land has the legal right to secure it. This could involve closing and locking security gates leaving car(s) trapped inside. The owner is then denied use of the car until someone turns up with a key to the barrier and the owner does not have to post a key holder's contact number. Some will post a notice "This gate will be locked at [time] prompt". You'd better believe it. Taxi bills/hotel tariffs can soon add up to the cost of a proper car park facility.

[Omega]

On 02/10/2015 11:37, Jethro_uk wrote:
> Beavis parking


Thanks, I have had a look and found it interesting.

My advice to MM is still very valid. Beavis challenged the Parking Co
so thereby telling them who he was. It was Beavis who wanted it taken
to court and then he lost to the court not the Parking Co. Had he said
nothing, then there would be nothing the Parking Co could do.

The court ruled the penalty was reasonable but it doesn't empower the
Parking Co in anyway, in a driver *having* to disclose himself to that
company though Beavis has already done that in this case.

Beavis intends to appeal so it could over ruled anyway though I doubt it.

Merely ignore the threats and a private company can do nothing.

omega

[Omega]

Wheel clamping, securing or towing away of cars parked on private land
was banned October 12012.

omega

[Omega]

October 1st 2012, of course.

omega

[Omega]

On 02/10/2015 13:44, Jethro_uk wrote:

> On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 12:11:21 +0100, Omega wrote:
>
>> On 02/10/2015 11:37, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>> Beavis parking
>>
>>
>> Thanks, I have had a look and found it interesting.
>>
>> My advice to MM is still very valid. Beavis challenged the Parking Co
>> so thereby telling them who he was. It was Beavis who wanted it taken
>> to court and then he lost to the court not the Parking Co. Had he said
>> nothing, then there would be nothing the Parking Co could do.
>

> Changes in the law previously allow the parking company (PC) to obtain a
> vehicles registered keeper details from the DVLA. Once in possession of
> this, they are then at liberty to claim damages from the RK.

>
>
>> The court ruled the penalty was reasonable but it doesn't empower the
>> Parking Co in anyway, in a driver *having* to disclose himself to that
>> company though Beavis has already done that in this case.
>

> True. However, now there is a judgement that a reasonable charge may be
> levelled, the courts are obliged to pursue the matter. So a PC may lodge
> a claim against the *RK* in court. How that would be received, I can't
> say.

>
>>
>> Beavis intends to appeal so it could over ruled anyway though I doubt
>> it.
>

> I'm sure he does. However, he will need to put up any putative costs for
> the other side first. The lack of people rushing to help him suggests
> that despite the outcry, few people are prepared to put their money where
> their mouth is. I suspect that no one wants to fund a court action which
> has a very high probability of effecting a seismic shift against the
> motorist. (One vaguely recalls a certain Gillick, whose court
> interventions actually reinforced the law she was opposing).

>
>>
>> Merely ignore the threats and a private company can do nothing.
>

> As suggested upthread, this is now *bad* advice.
>

Ah law changed? OK, yes bad advice apologies to MM.

Always a twist somewhere, who would be a lawyer?

Thanks for the information, might just keep myself out of trouble in the
future.

omega

[rasta....@gmail.com]

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 7:44:48 AM UTC+1, MM wrote:

You leave the car park, get five miles up the road and your wife says "I thought you were going to fill the car up?"

You say "bugger, I forgot", turn around and go back in to avail yourself of their petrol station seeing as they're cheaper than anywhere else locally.

I don't see the problem.

[mro...@btopenworld.com]

Nobody is talking of clamping or towing away. I was talking of the legal right of any owner to secure his land no matter what might have been left on it. He is under no obligation to await your appearance. Neither does he have to leave the land insecure.

I know this because I was caught out about 2 years ago. I parked in what I thought was an extension to a car park I was entitled to use. I should have known better because the main car park was full and the 'extension' had 2 or 3 cars in it. When I returned, my car was alone in the car park behind padlocked steel gates.

I went to the police station just round the corner to ask if they knew of a key holder. They did and in fact rung him on my behalf. By that time he was at home in Middlesborough (I was in Doncaster) He made it clear that he had no intention of returning to Doncaster that night. He would be there as normal at 8-30 a.m. the next day. The police Officer who was dealing with me stated he was not able to help me adding that anyone was entitled to lock up his compound before he went home at night and at least the car should be safe. He advised me me to find a hotel for the night. In fact he advised one a nice place and made a reservation on my behalf for the wife and myself. After breakfast there was a bill waiting for me in reception which I paid before returning to recover the car.

The guy was there as promised. He was a nice guy. Semi-apologetic regarding locking me in overnight but adding "You didn't really expect me to come over from Teeside at that time of night did you?" "No, of course not, I said", I just hoped you were more local." I apologised for disturbing him at home so late. AS he walked with me to the car he explained that cars park in the compound from time to time. He doesn't usually bother but if when 6 o'clock came round one was still there, then there it remained until next morning He waits around for nobody and if I parked there again to make sure I was gone by six otherwise I was there for the night.

We the shook hands and parted amicably.

Nobody has to provide me or you with free parking.

[tim.....]

"Omega" <cr...@last.com> wrote in message news:mulol1$7bd$1...@dont-email.me...

No!

The law established in Beavis (assuming that it holds on appeal) means that
the parking company have every right to pursue the case IF they can show
that the facts of the specific offence meet the standard required.

The fact that Beavis admitted his offence mean that they didn't have to do
the latter and could use his case as a test case of the (then) uncertain
law.

But the law has now been found to be on the side of the parking company so
they can now, if they wish, sue anybody for which they have the time to
collect enough evidence to prove the facts

It is true that, more often than not, this will not be a worthwhile exercise
against an intransigent transgressor, but this doesn't mean that as you put
it "they can do nothing", such a statement is 100% wrong

tim

[tim.....]

<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:af168537-43b9-46fe...@googlegroups.com...

There's an (expensive [1]) CoOp near me I'd love to see turned into an Aldi.

I don't suppose you know who I should contact :-)

tim

[1] Aren't they all!

[The Todal]

People don't normally park in a fuel station.

[Omega]

The thread is getting a little ragged but see my 17:18 reply to Jethro.
I am in full acknowledgement/agreement of what you say.

My advice to ignore the Parking Co to friends was some time ago but
valid at the time, and worked incidentally, when I advised a friend and
my daughter, but appears not so now.

omega

[MM]

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 08:18:23 +0100, AndyW <An...@nojunqmail.com> wrote:

>On 02/10/2015 07:45, MM wrote:
>> I haven't had a ticket -- yet! But there might be one on the way.
>> Why? Well, although I left the car park well within the 2 hours
>> permitted time, I stupidly returned 20 minutes later to pop back into
>> Sainbury's. And when I checked the small print on the parking signs it
>> says "No return within 2 hours."
>>
>> The sensors can only tell whether a car is parked, yes? They can't
>> *idenity* a particular car, can they?
>
>Yes. Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) is now at the point where
>it is a simple code library. However it the rules are not binding or
>enforceable as ANPR does not identify the driver.

This is not ANPR. This is ~just~ a dome sensor in each parking space.
It simply registers whether a vehicle is present or not. A man comes
round every so often to note the number plate when a new vehicle has
entered the space. When he next comes round and the vehicle is still
there, he flags it as an overstayer.

Tesco locally, now they DO have ANPR on entry and exit from the car
park, but no sensors in parking spaces.

>I have 3 cars and 3 drivers at my house, we each have our own car but
>each can drive the others' car(s). If I visit B&Q and then go home and
>another driver visits B&Q in the same car then neither of us have
>committed any offence nor have any of us broken any contract as neither
>knew of the other's visit. The car is not responsible because it is a car.
>
>There is not a problem. If you get a ticket then go to Sainsbury and
>tell them that you forgot something and popped back but as a result of
>this ticket you are ditching them for Tesco or Asda. It usually gets
>sorted sharpish.
>
>Andy

Let's see whether the man came round again while I was away for 20
minutes!

MM

[MM]

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 01:10:48 -0700 (PDT), mro...@btopenworld.com
wrote:

>On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 7:44:48 AM UTC+1, MM wrote:
>> I haven't had a ticket -- yet! But there might be one on the way.
>> Why? Well, although I left the car park well within the 2 hours
>> permitted time, I stupidly returned 20 minutes later to pop back into
>> Sainbury's. And when I checked the small print on the parking signs it
>> says "No return within 2 hours."
>
>ANPR will verify your 2nd arrival,

There is no ANPR at Sainsbury's in Spalding. There is a man with a
hand-held. The parking domes simply indicate whether a vehicle has
entered or left. This article explains:
http://www.spaldingtoday.co.uk/news/business/business-news/new-parking-practice-is-backward-step-for-town-1-3274735

MM

[MM]

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 03:32:08 -0700 (PDT),
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote:

>On 02/10/2015 07:45, MM wrote:
>
>> I haven't had a ticket -- yet! But there might be one on the way.
>> Why? Well, although I left the car park well within the 2 hours
>> permitted time, I stupidly returned 20 minutes later to pop back into
>> Sainbury's. And when I checked the small print on the parking signs it
>> says "No return within 2 hours."
>
>Must be quite an old one to still have bay sensor domes. My instinct is that unless you parked in the same bay and for a total elapsed time exceeding 2 hours then you will be OK.

Heh heh! I DID happen to park in the same bay, but the total time for
both parking "events" was not more than 1 hour tops.

(Why did I use the same bay? Well, whenever I park in a public car
park I try to select a space that provides maximum distance to
adjacent vehicles. On occasion I have returned to my vehicle to find
someone's "dinged" it when opening their door. This particular space
was handy as it was next to a walkway on one side, therefore only ONE
potential adjacent vehicle to deal with. On returning, I simply drove
back to the same bay.)

>All the ones around here bar one are ANPR based or nothing at all.
>They even say "hello AB12CDE - departure time hh:mm" on entry.
>
>> The sensors can only tell whether a car is parked, yes? They can't
>> *idenity* a particular car, can they? At Spalding Sainsbury's a man
>> walks around ~occasionally~ with a hand-held gizmo, so I might be
>> lucky to have missed him. He doesn't come by very often.
>
>I doubt you will be caught for that even if you have technically broken the carpark T&Cs. They are really after the people who park for free in their carpark and then catch the bus into the city to shop/work all day.

I doubt it, too, but there's always a first time!

>I can think of one, a Coop near Manchester where their carpark was always full on weekdays but staff outnumbered customers in the shop. They didn't attempt to enforce parking rules and closed last year.
>
>It is now an Aldi and they enforce a 2 hour parking rule. I haven't been there on a weekday since it reopened but I expect there is now room for their customers to park.

I tend not to park at Aldi as the spaces seem very tight to me. I'd
rather pay 60p to park in the council car park 500m away (1 hour) and
walk to Aldi, and then Lidl. I'll park at Aldi if I'm there really
early on a Monday or Tuesday.

MM

[MM]

I've contacted Aldi a couple of times over the past few years when
ground has become vacant, as when, for example, our local tractor
retailer moved out of town and the plot seemed just right for Aldi. I
do get a reply back, but it's just a "thank you for your interest in
Aldi" kind of response.

But having been to some new Aldi stores in Germany a few months ago,
they are massive compared to the ones I've ecountered in the UK, so I
reckon Aldi prefers now to build larger stores.

MM

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

<mro...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:f9dbae5e-93b8-4f0c...@googlegroups.com...

Plus One.

[Alex Heney]

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 08:18:23 +0100, AndyW <An...@nojunqmail.com> wrote:

>On 02/10/2015 07:45, MM wrote:
>> I haven't had a ticket -- yet! But there might be one on the way.
>> Why? Well, although I left the car park well within the 2 hours
>> permitted time, I stupidly returned 20 minutes later to pop back into
>> Sainbury's. And when I checked the small print on the parking signs it
>> says "No return within 2 hours."
>>
>> The sensors can only tell whether a car is parked, yes? They can't
>> *idenity* a particular car, can they?
>
>Yes. Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) is now at the point where
>it is a simple code library. However it the rules are not binding or
>enforceable as ANPR does not identify the driver.
>
>I have 3 cars and 3 drivers at my house, we each have our own car but
>each can drive the others' car(s). If I visit B&Q and then go home and
>another driver visits B&Q in the same car then neither of us have
>committed any offence nor have any of us broken any contract as neither
>knew of the other's visit. The car is not responsible because it is a car.
>

This used to be the case, but the law changed last year.

The registered keeper is now liable unless he can show who it actually
was using the vehicle.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I am free of all prejudice. I hate everyone equally.
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom

[mro...@btopenworld.com]

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 8:48:30 PM UTC+1, MM wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 01:10:48 -0700 (PDT), mro...@btopenworld.com

> >ANPR will verify your 2nd arrival,
>
> There is no ANPR at Sainsbury's in Spalding. There is a man with a
> hand-held. The parking domes simply indicate whether a vehicle has
> entered or left. This article explains:
> http://www.spaldingtoday.co.uk/news/business/business-news/new-parking-practice-is-backward-step-for-town-1-3274735

Same difference. The hand held device either held a record of your presence or you were missed. In either case, your till receipt verified a transaction in the market during the time in question.

I think you are forgetting the reason why supermarket operators provide parking at all. They do not sell it.

[MM]

On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 02:00:44 -0700 (PDT), mro...@btopenworld.com
wrote:

>On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 8:48:30 PM UTC+1, MM wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 01:10:48 -0700 (PDT), mro...@btopenworld.com
>
>> >ANPR will verify your 2nd arrival,
>>
>> There is no ANPR at Sainsbury's in Spalding. There is a man with a
>> hand-held. The parking domes simply indicate whether a vehicle has
>> entered or left. This article explains:
>> http://www.spaldingtoday.co.uk/news/business/business-news/new-parking-practice-is-backward-step-for-town-1-3274735
>
>Same difference. The hand held device either held a record of your presence or you were missed. In either case, your till receipt verified a transaction in the market during the time in question.

What on earth has the till receipt got to do with it?

>I think you are forgetting the reason why supermarket operators provide parking at all. They do not sell it.

Why does Sainsbury's in Spalding provide parking for:

Sainsbury's
Wilko
Poundstretcher
Halfords
Argos

?

When someone overstays or returns, like I did, within 2 hours, do they
divi up the parking fine amongst them?

MM

[Ian Jackson]

In message <e8gv0blgvpib3iu8p...@4ax.com>, MM
<kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> writes

I can understand the justification of a time limit, but the 'No return
within 2 hours" is most objectionable.

It's reasonable that there should be rules designed to prevent you from
parking for just under the time limit, then driving around the block and
re-parking (possibly repeatedly). However, its obvious that there are
several bona fide reasons why a shopper might want (or need) to return
to the car park less than 2 hours after leaving.

For example, you might go to buy a certain item from Store A, but soon
find that they don't have exactly what you want (although they do have
something that might possibly serve as an alternative). However, you
think that Store B (about a mile away) might have your item, so after
spending for only 10 minutes in Store A, you leave and drive to Store B.
Unfortunately, Store B is even worse, as it has nothing remotely
resembling what you want - so you quickly return to Store A, where you
have another look at the alternative item, and either decide it is
satisfactory, and buy it - or decide it isn't really what you want, and
you'll look elsewhere. So you go home, and look on Ebay or Amazon.

While none of your behaviour could be considered in any way to be
abusing the availability of the carpark, you could well end getting a
swingeing penalty.
--
Ian

[Peter Parry]

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 07:44:35 +0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

>It's interesting to note that when the "horror stories" about private
>parking enforcement are laid out, a little bit of careful reading will
>reveal the fact that - irrespective of "the facts" - the OP invariably
>*did* contravene the T&Cs of the car park.

As in UKPC controlled car parks? Or Excel Parking, or Roxburghe Ltd
or MET Parking Ltd or VP Parking solutions Ltd or Combined Parking
Solutions Ltd or ANPR PC Ltd?

All of the above were told off by the British Parking Association (A
trade association so they are not going to do anything too serious
against their members) for breaches of their rules or in UKPC's case
falsifying photographs and paying wardens by results - more
tickets=more pay.

[MM]

That's pretty much how it happened with me. I drove away and parked
near the bus station. That part of the car park is NOT Sainsbury's,
it's a different outfit, although the whole parking area is part of
the same complex. I drove away because that is in the direction of
home and I wanted to spend a penny at the bus station public
convenience before I set off. However, that was "Closed due to
vandalism" (standard South Holland wording for when they can't be
arsed to fix a leaking toilet or whatever). So I thought, well, I
might as well go back to the Sainsbury's section, use Sainsbury's
toilet and buy a couple of items there at the same time. So, in total,
the time between leaving the parking bay and re-entering it could not
have been more than 15 minutes. It was only after I was leaving the
second time that the bombshell hit me: Oh no! What have I done! Is
there not a rule... etc etc.

Sure enough, there is! It just remains to be seen whether the man with
the hand-held came round in the time I was away -- and then returned
when the computer said there's another vehicle in Bay 123, better go
and check it, Fred.

This afternoon I parked in the Sainsbury's section again, and sat
there in my car waiting for an appointment at SpecSavers. I sat there
for 20 minutes and there was no sign of the man with the gizmo. Also,
when I returned (well within the 2 hours) and ambled (deliberately
slowly) across to my car -- quite a trek, again no sign of the man.

I do see him sometimes (there's a couple of them, I believe, but only
one on duty at any one time), but mainly in the mornings. I reckon
they give up at around lunch time. They don't seem particularly keen,
not "busy, busy, busy" jobsworth types.

MM

[The Todal]

So you abused the carpark, wait for the Invoice.

[Steve O]

On 02/10/2015 11:37, Jethro_uk wrote:

> On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 10:06:09 +0100, Omega wrote:
>
>> On 02/10/2015 07:45, MM wrote:
>>> I haven't had a ticket -- yet! But there might be one on the way.
>>> Why? Well, although I left the car park well within the 2 hours
>>> permitted time, I stupidly returned 20 minutes later to pop back into
>>> Sainbury's. And when I checked the small print on the parking signs it
>>> says "No return within 2 hours."
>>>
>>> The sensors can only tell whether a car is parked, yes? They can't

>>> *idenity* a particular car, can they? At Spalding Sainsbury's a man
>>> walks around ~occasionally~ with a hand-held gizmo, so I might be lucky
>>> to have missed him. He doesn't come by very often.
>>>

>>> MM
>>>
>>>
>>
>> This issue has been covered many times.
>>
>> When you get your 'ticket', you simply ignore it and whatever else they
>> send you threatening this and that. Once you make communication with
>> them especially with your excuse for being there you will have
>> incriminated yourself, then you will have to pay up. As someone advised
>> me, as soon as you answer them they feel they've hooked a live one then
>> you will almost certainly be required to pay whatever your excuse.

>>
>> I was also advised in this or a similar group, some time ago, only local
>> authorities and police can pursue you further and even get you to court
>> but these companies have no power at all. I have passed on the advice
>> twice, once to a friend and then later, to my daughter. Each had some
>> pretty convincing 'official' looking letters but both stood their ground
>> in not replying then the penalty collectors went away.
>>
>> Many people simply don't want the hassle and pay up of course but then
>> that is your choice.
>>

>> omega
>
> Out of date and incorrect advice. Google "Beavis parking"·
>
> UK courts can now enforce *reasonable* charges made by parking firms.
>

Soon to be coming up on appeal at the Supreme Court.
-And certainly isn't reasonable to charge £160 for ten minutes parking
,is it?

[Steve O]

On 02/10/2015 12:11, Omega wrote:
> On 02/10/2015 11:37, Jethro_uk wrote:
>> Beavis parking
>
>
> Thanks, I have had a look and found it interesting.
>
> My advice to MM is still very valid. Beavis challenged the Parking Co
> so thereby telling them who he was. It was Beavis who wanted it taken
> to court and then he lost to the court not the Parking Co. Had he said
> nothing, then there would be nothing the Parking Co could do.

Incorrect.
Read up on the Freedom of Informations Act 2012

>
> The court ruled the penalty was reasonable but it doesn't empower the
> Parking Co in anyway, in a driver *having* to disclose himself to that
> company though Beavis has already done that in this case.
>
> Beavis intends to appeal so it could over ruled anyway though I doubt it.
>
> Merely ignore the threats and a private company can do nothing.

They can sue the registered keeper of the vehicle for parking charges.\
There is no requirement to identify the driver

[Steve O]

On 02/10/2015 19:43, Omega wrote:
> On 02/10/2015 19:21, tim..... wrote:
>>
>> "Omega" <cr...@last.com> wrote in message
>> news:mulol1$7bd$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 02/10/2015 11:37, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>> Beavis parking
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks, I have had a look and found it interesting.
>>>
>>> My advice to MM is still very valid. Beavis challenged the Parking Co
>>> so thereby telling them who he was. It was Beavis who wanted it taken
>>> to court and then he lost to the court not the Parking Co. Had he said
>>> nothing, then there would be nothing the Parking Co could do.
>>>
>>> The court ruled the penalty was reasonable but it doesn't empower the
>>> Parking Co in anyway, in a driver *having* to disclose himself to that
>>> company though Beavis has already done that in this case.
>>>
>>> Beavis intends to appeal so it could over ruled anyway though I doubt
>>> it.
>>>
>>> Merely ignore the threats and a private company can do nothing.
>>
>> No!
>>
>> The law established in Beavis (assuming that it holds on appeal) means
>> that the parking company have every right to pursue the case IF they can
>> show that the facts of the specific offence meet the standard required.
>>
>> The fact that Beavis admitted his offence mean that they didn't have to
>> do the latter and could use his case as a test case of the (then)
>> uncertain law.

Beavis has neither admitted or committed any offence whatsoever under UK
law.
He simply parked in an area in which the landowners (or their
representatives)specified there was fee or charge payable.
He challenged that fee as an unreasonable one which did not represent an
accurate estimate of the parking company's losses.
This case is about an alleged unpaid bill, not an offence under law.

[tim.....]

"Steve O" <nos...@here.thanks> wrote in message
news:d7dm5g...@mid.individual.net...

OK I accept that this isn't an offence in law

but the point was he did admit that:

a) he was the person responsible for the infringement
b) he did see the signs

These are important points because usually when a parking company take
someone to court the defendant usually contests both these points causing
the company much effort in proving otherwise - something which they like not
to have to do

> He simply parked in an area in which the landowners (or their
> representatives)specified there was fee or charge payable.

and admitted it

> He challenged that fee as an unreasonable one which did not represent an
> accurate estimate of the parking company's losses.

yes he did, that was the point. The parking company wanted to prove that he
was wrong on a point of law without getting lost in having to prove a load
of points of fact first

> This case is about an alleged unpaid bill, not an offence under law.

I never said otherwise

tim


>
>

[Ri©ardo]

Unfair, it was more like self abuse - which is no surprise!

--
Moving Things In Still Pictures

[Ri©ardo]

...in Germany.

Well, given Merkel's free for all immigration policy, they're bloody
well going to need them, aren't they?

[MM]

I had the opportunity yesterday to accost the parking attendant and asked him what the sus was when one returned after 15 minutes. He said, don't worry about it. They are only concerned about the habitual offenders who park for the 2 hours, drive out of the car park and then return for another 2 hours.

Could explain why I never got a ticket!

[Ri©ardo]

All done very sensibly and without hysteria. Good on all parties concerned.