Motorhomes and Supermarket Parking (1 Viewer)

[camcondor]

If the change to the law does not make it easier to charge abusers then it needs to be toughened up properly. We are not talking about "parasites", "ratbags" or "vermin" (except in the case of some car drivers) but genuine business people.
<snip>

GJH, I disagree with much of what you have said, but many of the people ripped off by the parasites, vermin, ratbags and scum that call themselves PPCs, are NOT "abusers" - many of the so called "infringements" are completely trivial and resulted in no loss whatsoever to the landowner. Its all about being FAIR and STAYING WITHIN THE LAW actually and that is what Pepipoo is all about - not "freeloading", but ensuring that the likes of these dodgy companies stay with the LAW which until relatively recently, allowed them to get away with stalking the unsuspecting motorist and clamping their cars, then charging completely OTT (in cash of course) to get the car back.

I realise we are going off topic here although it does follow from the OPs post really - there would be no issue about a large vehicle straddling 2 spaces if the likes of the vermin PPC did not exist.

Sad to see you refer to the disgusting lowlife PPCs as "genuine business people" as that is exactly what they are NOT! They prey on the gullible and use tactics of fear and intimidation to falsely impersonate legal process., often acting well outside of what the law allows them to do!!!!
Luckily the law HAS changed for the better in that their clamping tactics are now a thing of the past unless they want to be arrested. The law needs further "toughening up", as you put it, to get rid of the unscrupulous scum in the parking industry, not to prey on motorists for the most trivial of reasons and also on illegal terms.

 

[GJH]

And there would be no need for enforcement (direct by landowners or through the use of sub-contractors) if people did not abuse parking facilities.

 

[steveclecy]

I wonder if any Funsters have themselves had any issues with companies about parking their MHs in supermarket car parks.

Rather like gas attacks, it seems to always happen to someone someone knows.

Most people are reasonable and park considerately, particularly Motorhomers who neither want to pick up a "ticket" or more importantly a trolley "ding".

I have parked in a number of town centre supermarket car parks and have never had an issued. Even at Morrisons in Alnwick, which is a small car park in a busy town centre, having spoken to the attendant, he told us "no problem".

So have YOU ever had any kind of "parking ticket " or "contractual dispute" whilst shopping in your Motorhome?

Steve

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Parcverger]

We never had a problem when touring with our RV, as when we arrived we tried to park as tidily as we could, then went directly to the welcome/customer service desk and told them what we had done, and that we were in the store in case of need. We arrived latish one day at an Asda and did this, then after our shopping was done went to the desk again, thanked them, and asked if we could stay overnight so that we could have breakfast in the store in the morning. No problem, they checked that they had our reg number for the security guys, and all was well.
Our experience was that if we played fair with them there never was a problem. We have found that the same applies here in France, though parking for motorhomes is so much more relaxed here.
Bob
www.parcverger.com

 

[GJH]

There's a thread Broken Link Removed referring to a MH owner (not a Funster as far as I know) who received a charge in Asda Weston super Mare car park (he posted on another forum about it last July). On that thread I suggested an e-mail to the CEO of any company with such a policy might be helpful. Nobody seems to have taken up that suggestion so a couple of hours ago I sent the following e-mail to the CEOs/MDs of Aldi, Asda, Lidl, Morrisons, Sainsburys, Tesco and Waitrose.

As motorhome owners my wife and I appreciate the problems of both finding parking places for a large vehicle (from the point of view of the driver) and providing suitable places (from the point of view of the business owner). From time to time we need to call in at supermarkets in order to stock up with food. Obviously we avoid small car parks and those where it is dangerous to manoeuvre a large vehicle but we do find it helpful when we are able to use larger parking areas.

In years gone by this did not present a problem (and still doesn't in many areas) but we have noted the rise in the necessity for businesses to protect their interests, and those of their genuine customers, by introducing restrictions on parking to combat the abuse of facilities by inconsiderate motorists. There is one of those restrictions which affects motorhome owners, but not owners of smaller vehicles, and that is the requirement for the vehicle to fit into a single bay. The vast majority of motorhome owners - and I am talking about genuine store customers here - will tend to leave their vehicle in a lesser used area of a car park, where it is not in the way of other people and minimises any effects of multiple bay use, but they still face the possibility of an excess charge in car parks with restrictions. What happens then is that people go elsewhere to shop and the business loses custom which it would otherwise have enjoyed.

It would be much appreciated by ourselves and, I am sure, fellow motorhome owners, if you could relax restrictions on single bay usage for owners of large vehicles who are genuine customers. I look forward to your comments as to whether this may be possible.

I'll post any responses received.

 

[Larby]

I can't believe my original post would generate so much comment. I like the suggestions of running it past the Manager or Security in case of problems.
I think we all park prettily and try not to park by the main entrance but as others have mentioned, some idiots create the need for rules.
Due to the area I live in, most supermarkets operate a time limit. Some, but not the one I used have the cameras which record the time in and out. Still not a problem for me, I agree to the T&Cs if I wish to park there and suffer the consequences. I mentioned common sense but if there is money to be made by the parking administrator then tough on you pal?
I await with interest the replies which GJH seeks from the main players

Look what happened to a Community bus TAKING CUSTOMERS TO AN ALDI nearby to me.

Parking ticket slapped on Sudbury community bus

Published on Tuesday 31 March 2009 16:30

Furious operators of a community bus service are defying a demand for a £70 fine imposed when it picked up disabled shoppers in a supermarket car park.


Sudbury-based Start Community Transport has also banned its drivers from going into the car park at the town's Aldi store until the dispute is sorted out.



The parking charge notice alleges a Start bus stayed in the Aldi car park for almost four hours.



But angry organisers say car park management company ParkingEye's camera must have snapped it on two separate visits.



"We have no intention of paying and we want an apology and an explanation," said transport manager John Phillips.



Taking frail and disabled people to the shops is one of the services offered by Start which runs two minibuses, a five-seat [COLOR=#446688 !important][COLOR=#446688 !important]vehicle[/COLOR][/COLOR], and organises community cars,



Its drivers – many of whom are volunteers – pick up passengers from home, drop them off, and collect them later.



The charge notice states photographic evidence shows the bus going into Aldi car park, which has a one-and-a-half hour limit, at 12.35pm on February 25 and leaving at 4.04pm. It demands payment of 70 which would have been reduced to 40 if paid by March 17.



Mr Phillips has written strongly-worded letters to Sudbury's Aldi store manager and to ParkingEye, but has so far had no reply from either.



"I think this is pretty shabby practice. I have now told our drivers not to go into the Aldi car park.



"If Aldi don't want us to take people to shop there, we will take them elsewhere.



"We are trying to do the community a favour, and take people to the shops, and they want us to pay for the privilege.



"I am also very unhappy that the DVLA sells information about the owners of [COLOR=#446688 !important][COLOR=#446688 !important]vehicles[/COLOR][/COLOR] to parking companies. I think that is wrong."



A spokeswoman for Aldi said they were looking into Mr Phillips' complaint.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

Nice to see that Aldi cancelled that fine pretty quickly when they realised a community transport bus was involved. Of course, it could have been avoided if Start had had the sense to have a word with the store manager when the parking restrictions were first introduced

 

[camcondor]

And there would be no need for enforcement (direct by landowners or through the use of sub-contractors) if people did not abuse parking facilities.

"Enforcement" is not intended to be the primary reason for setting up car parks - it is a FINANCIAL, not "enforcement" reason. I am sure if there was no mechanism at all to charge for parking, companies like supermarkets or shopping centre owners would be very disinterested in who parked where and the manager would have a bay protected by bollards or similar. As with everything these days, charging for parking is a financial decision - not an "enforcement" one.

If these PPCs acted like real people instead of thugs out to con people of many ££££ for the most trivial of reasons, most people would simply accept their existence, park in a reasonable manner and get on with it. The "enforcement" should be reserved for the blatant misuse of the parking area. Unfortunately, it isn't.

 

[GJH]

"Enforcement" is not intended to be the primary reason for setting up car parks -[HI] it is a FINANCIAL, not "enforcement" reason. [/HI]I am sure[HI] if there was no mechanism at all to charge for parking, companies like supermarkets or shopping centre owners would be very disinterested[/HI] in who parked where and the manager would have a bay protected by bollards or similar. [HI]As with everything these days, charging for parking is a financial decision - not an "enforcement" one. [/HI]

If these PPCs acted like real people instead of thugs out to con people of many ££££ for the most trivial of reasons, most people would simply accept their existence, park in a reasonable manner and get on with it. The "enforcement" should be reserved for the blatant misuse of the parking area. Unfortunately, it isn't.

Oh, of course, silly me. How could I not realise that the only reason Morrisons have the rules they do in the car park mentioned in the OP is financial? It's perfectly obvious from the fact that the sign pictured in the OP quotes totally exorbitant charges to park there at all proves that the motive is purely financial.

Ooops, really is silly me now. It's actually free to park in that car park unless one transgresses the rules. What a financial coup that is for "the primary reason for setting up car parks"

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[camcondor]

Oh, of course, silly me. How could I not realise that the only reason Morrisons have the rules they do in the car park mentioned in the OP is financial? It's perfectly obvious from the fact that the sign pictured in the OP quotes totally exorbitant charges to park there at all proves that the motive is purely financial.

Ooops, really is silly me now. It's actually free to park in that car park unless one transgresses the rules. What a financial coup that is for "the primary reason for setting up car parks"

Yes, shame its silly you. This isn't about scoring sarcastic points, although you seem to have taken it there..... Silly you not to realise that although the Morrisons car park in question (as are many other commercial car parks)is "free" for car park users, the PPC has paid the supermarket or landlord substantial fees to run their operation . So the parking is not "free" and the motivation on the part of the landlord and the PPC is entirely financial, although the end user is not paying a parking fee a great deal of money is involved between landlord and PPC. So yes, silly you. And the profits are generated entirely, in such cases, by charging crazy amounts to naive car users in most cases for entirely trivial or illegal reasons (such as the Blue Badge scheme which cannot be "enforced" on private land - but the Equality Act 2010 certainly can).

"Rules" set by any company have to comply with the law of the land as it stands, not operate in an ad hoc, thuggish arena of fear and intimidation and in a manner which breaks applicable civil law.

 

[GJH]

Yes, shame its silly you. This isn't about scoring sarcastic points, although you seem to have taken it there..... Silly you not to realise that although the Morrisons car park in question (as are many other commercial car parks)is "free" for car park users, [HI]the PPC has paid the supermarket or landlord substantial fees to run their operation[/HI] . So the parking is not "free" and the motivation on the part of the landlord and the PPC is entirely financial, although the end user is not paying a parking fee a great deal of money is involved between landlord and PPC. So yes, silly you. And the profits are generated entirely, in such cases, by [HI]charging crazy amounts to naive car users[/HI] in most cases for entirely trivial or illegal reasons (such as the Blue Badge scheme which cannot be "enforced" on private land - but the Equality Act 2010 certainly can).

"Rules" set by any company have to comply with the law of the land as it stands, not operate in an ad hoc, thuggish arena of fear and intimidation and in a manner which breaks applicable civil law.

Yes, perhaps I shouldn't have been sarcastic. Just a reaction to unsubstantiated statements., so I must apologise

You obviously have an advantage over me as I am not privy to the contract between CP Plus Ltd and Morissons. Perhaps you might like to post a copy of the contract to support the assertion that CP Plus has paid Morrisons substantial fees. The amount of those fees would help understand the situation as well.

As regards the people who use the car park, are they really naive? As the OP showed, there is a plainly visible sign spelling out the conditions under which the car park may be used. Is anyone who ignores those conditions really naive?

As a third point, are the amounts charged really crazy? Once one has added up the labour costs of administering and processing the charge notice (plus a reasonable profit) how far short of the amount charged do they fall? As with the contract, I don't know, so it would be illuminating if you would publish the actual figures.

 

[Philiphall]

I know for a fact (ex-wife was employed by a supermarket head office) that very few of the supermarkets actually employ a parking warden (if they do have one its only during busy times) - the majority are controlled by CCTV cameras (as posted earlier) they note your time of entry and exit so as long as you don't overstay you should not get a ticket.

I often park in my motorhome (2/3 times a week) at Supermarket car parks but never at busy times and always at the back of the car park out of the way - not always to shop at the supermarket often because its free and near other shops.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Barclaybasher]

Graham (GJH)

I know for a fact (ex-wife was employed by a supermarket head office) that very few of the supermarkets actually employ a parking warden (if they do have one its only during busy times) - the majority are controlled by CCTV cameras (as posted earlier) they note your time of entry and exit so as long as you don't overstay you should not get a ticket.

I often park in my motorhome (2/3 times a week) at Supermarket car parks but never at busy times and always at the back of the car park out of the way -[HI] not always to shop at the supermarket often because its free and near other shops[/HI].

Never met you Graham but I can imagine that you are now banging your head against the nearest wall !!

 

[drivingontheroadto]

Yawn

It's getting a bit boring. Where did the FUN go

 

[steveclecy]

Not sure it ever got boring, a little heated perhaps, but not boring. Interesting the two opposing views.

I believe it remains a theoretical discussion for this Forum. I don't think any Funster has fallen foul of the system when shopping at supermarkets.

Steve

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

Never met you Graham but I can imagine that you are now banging your head against the nearest wall !!

No, not at all People parking at supermarkets because its free and near other shops happens all over the country. In the vast majority of cases it doesn't cause a problem and the supermarkets aren't bothered because it does not affect their trade. It is only in a minority of cases that supermarkets have to bring in restrictions because of widespread abuse. What makes me look for a wall is people knowingly ignoring the restrictions and then whinging when they receive a charge notice

 

[Taran_Las]

Can I be of assistance?


Broken Link Removed

 

[chrisgreen]

"Laws are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools."

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[ShiftZZ]

Having read the hardback version, I may have to wait for the paperback version to be published.

This is a complex issue and I actually understand both sides of the argument and there is a common factor and that is abuse.

Fact there has been abuse of Supermarket car parks by a number of individuals and that has had a knock on effect of causing the supermarkets to try and sort the issue out and that may well have led to abuse by those enforcing.

Let me give you two examples.
In Nuneaton there is a Dunelm, outside which there is a car park, half of which is free and the other half is not. I was not aware of this until I found a ticket on my windscreen, thinking back, I remember looking at some bloke in an uniform and wondering why he was looking at me when I walked into Dunelm, yes I was angry and when I checked, I was wrong, lesson learnt, ‘fee’ paid, ShiftZZ learnt another lesson.

In Bangor North Wales, the Hospital Car parks are free and that’s fine, the hospital is some two miles or so from the City centre, and the hospital run a free bus service from the Hospital to the City Centre Bus and Railway station. Guess what? Yep, a number of individuals abuse that system and the NHS are picking up the cost. Again abused by a number of individuals, I suspect the same individuals who go to the hospital to use the canteen as it’s cheaper than the local café’s.

I can understand the frustration from both sides, but, you/we/us are just victims of those who are/have/will abuse the system, no different to any other service, just look at the abuse of the Welfare System.

 

[JJ]

I rarely find threads like this one boring.

I have "Fun" witnessing the fighting!

I always have respect for those who can stay calm in the heat of "battle" and avoid using emotive words... but then I also have a soft spot for people who are passionate about issues too...

May I be so bold as to suggest that any Funster who gets bored by a thread stops reading it.


JJ:Cool:

 

[rainbow chasers]

There is an easy solution that can take 10 minutes and save a fine/clamp on your motorhome/.

When you enter the supermarket - give them your reg nyumber and ask.....once you have their permission, it will override any fines you may incur. It is the same ethics as if you stay in a lodge at a services - you would have permissive access to take up as much room as you need within reason.

In shiftzz case at Dunelm, it could be abuse of those parking in the free side to avoid charges, that are meaning Dunelm customers are having to pay on the other side of the carpark. Unfortunately, he did not realise and just paid, though I do suppose it could be argued that the signs need to be made very clear as to which side is which - not that management companies want to do this, as they probably make a nice living from those like Shiftzz who did not realsise what side they were parked on.


The biggest problem with private parking is the ANPR cameras - these often are abuse by the operators - there has been many cases where a vehicle has visited twice in one day, and they have issued fines stating that they had been their all day - if you get these, get a tracker report from your motorhome to prove otherwise.

There are some recent laws regarding private management powers when it comes to enforcement. If you want to fight these, then you need to look into these regulations.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[drivingontheroadto]

May I be so bold as to suggest that any Funster who gets bored by a thread stops reading it.


JJ:Cool:

:Blush::Blush: I'm the one that said it was boring .....and I'm still reading it lol

 

[aba]

Taken from a site that is a bit like ! parks like a ****.com

i find nothing wrong with this parking he is parked between the lines and using only 1 marked space..

the fact that the landowner hasn't renewed the line after a repair is not this persons fault although it is parked like a tw@t

 

[Daveo2006]

So are we saying "Take the p--s but don't take the proverbial P--s?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[oldun]

[HI]I've never had a prob, but must admit I tend to park so the arse is overhanging the grass verge if poss. [/HI]


Yes but what about your van ?? Rangi

Sometimes "rogue" companies are needed to deal with the scum who have decided that they can do whatever they like, wherever they like and when they like. There are far too many of them and it is these people who make the car park owners go to sometimes extreme measures to protect themselves and make our lives difficult.

Can anyone please explain to me why supermarkets should not be allowed to protect their investment?

The car parks are owned by someone or some company so why should "we" expect to get away with totally ignoring their regulations.

The problem stems from the "I'll take whatever I like" brigade and not with the supermarkets.

 

[simbadog]

I think calling teddybard scum is a bit much IMHO

 

[GJH]

I think calling teddybard scum is a bit much IMHO

I thought it was a general comment on abusers rather than having a go at Teddybard personally

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[peter marshall]

Hi
Our local Aldi in Cleveleys as a car park which I must admit people missuse to shop around Cleveleys Centre shops, and may or not go into Aldi, what they have now is a set time 1 .1/2 hours, with a computor screen instore to enter your Reg number on exit from the store, cameras catch you in and out, not fool proof as you could still park and just go in the store to check out, I dont know if it works or not only used it once. Pete

 

[GJH]

On a related (and hopefully positive) point, I have linked previously to my Correspondence with Supermarkets.
A couple of weeks ago we went into Morrisons a Malvern Link and found notices up about not using two bays. I went in the store and asked at customer services if we would be OK or whether we should go to Tesco instead and was told we would be OK.
After we got back home last week I wrote to Morrisons' CEO pointing out that he might like to re-think his policy. I've had a reply saying they will reconsider so I am awaiting the final response. Naturally, I shall update my web site and post it here once received.

 

[GJH]

Hi
Our local Aldi in Cleveleys as a car park which I must admit people missuse to shop around Cleveleys Centre shops, and may or not go into Aldi, what they have now is a set time 1 .1/2 hours, with a computor screen instore to enter your Reg number on exit from the store, cameras catch you in and out, not fool proof as you could still park and just go in the store to check out, I dont know if it works or not only used it once. Pete

We visited Aldi when we were in Cleveleys a couple of weeks ago. I never saw the screen so perhaps it's a good job we were on foot I got the impression, though, that it was a bit tight round there for using a large vehicle at busy times

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}