On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 13:52:03 +0100, "BruceB" wrote:


Derek


Not what I said at all. It comes down to reasonableness

Park for 2 hours =free, park for 3 minutes more =£90.00 is not
reasonable.

Reasonable to me would imply being able to read the sign from inside
the car where it is parked. (With glasses if worn) :-))

and the companies
involved are making efforts to make their signs appear reasonable.


I dare say they are learning.

Some cases have gone to court and sometimes those parking have lost. For
example:

http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/ne...st-judge-rules


Proof by selected instances.

Somebody said *millions* of pounds turnover in this shady business you
ought to be able to produce hundreds ++ of such cases

He *obviously* should have worn a suit and it could be seen he tried
to make a monkey out of the court/judge by feigning to have forgotten
he was driving. I would advise against it beyond refusing to give
Shyster Flywheel and Shyster any information at all.

However, he did park where the public did not have permission. Not so
in the Lidl instance.

Regards
Bruce

"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 03:54:46 -0700 (PDT), Jethro

AFAIAA these charges are uneforceable ...

All in all they fall down on about 10 grounds.

There is nothing about them which is legal.

Derek

You must be so proud that you know so much better than the corporate lawyers
Lidl and others employ.

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:24:36 +0100, "BruceB" wrote:



You must be so proud that you know so much better than the corporate lawyers
Lidl and others employ.

Can't speak for "others" Lidl are not involved in the legalities save
they seem to have sold their birthright for a mess of pottage
subjecting their customers to such appalling treatment at the hands of
Shyster & Co

The next Lidl I see that has handed their parking control over to
Shyster & Co will be the last time I go near it.

I can only assume the powers that be at Lidl don't realise they are
putting their business in such jeopardy.

It takes 10x as much expenditure to keep a customer than it does to
get a new one. Times are hard and freinds are few.

Derek

Clive George wrote:
On 16/07/2010 11:59, John wrote:

The point that you (and everyone else it would seem) are missing is
that it is not a _public_ car park, it is _Lidl's_ car park. I
assume that when Lidl were spending the time, money and effort to
build a car park outside their shop, they were intending it to be
for their own customers. The fact that they didn't explicitly state
this on a sign somewhere, or barrier it off to all except Lidl
customers should not matter. The car park is on their land, outside
their store, so by implication the car park is for their customers.

The OP is a customer of Lidl. So where's the problem?

And so we come full circle.

The problem is that the OP was a customer of Lidl for a few minutes and then
went off doing general shopping, leaving his car occupying a Lidl parking
space when he wasn't a customer of Lidl. If the car park is/was full he is
effectively blocking a _potential_ customer of Lidl from _becoming_ a
customer of Lidl - ergo, potential customer doesn't get the shopping they
want, Lidl lose money and decide that they need some company like UKPC to
look after the car park - and before some pedant says it'll take more than
the OPs car to make that situation a reality, I know. Maybe there's plenty
more inconsiderate *******s around to make it a reality.

On 16/07/2010 16:22, John wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 16/07/2010 11:59, John wrote:

The point that you (and everyone else it would seem) are missing is
that it is not a _public_ car park, it is _Lidl's_ car park. I
assume that when Lidl were spending the time, money and effort to
build a car park outside their shop, they were intending it to be
for their own customers. The fact that they didn't explicitly state
this on a sign somewhere, or barrier it off to all except Lidl
customers should not matter. The car park is on their land, outside
their store, so by implication the car park is for their customers.

The OP is a customer of Lidl. So where's the problem?

And so we come full circle.

The problem is that the OP was a customer of Lidl for a few minutes and then
went off doing general shopping, leaving his car occupying a Lidl parking
space when he wasn't a customer of Lidl.

I describe myself as a customer of various places, even though at the
moment I'm sitting at a computer.

It's in Lidl's interest to let him do reasonable amounts of other
business, otherwise there's no point in him visiting the store at all,
and there goes a customer.

One could argue that if he was preventing another customer from shopping
there they've lost out, but there seems to be no such indication -
nobody has said the car park was full.

John wrote:

The problem is that the OP was a customer of Lidl for a few minutes and then
went off doing general shopping, leaving his car occupying a Lidl parking
space when he wasn't a customer of Lidl.

I think he did it the other way round, i.e. parked, went elsewhere, came
back to shop at lidl, quite likely to get caught if the sharks are on
the look-out.

If he'd parked, gone to lidl then walked elsewhere (without dropping
stuff into the car) they'd be far less likely to notice ...

Clive George wrote:
On 16/07/2010 16:22, John wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 16/07/2010 11:59, John wrote:

The point that you (and everyone else it would seem) are missing is
that it is not a _public_ car park, it is _Lidl's_ car park. I
assume that when Lidl were spending the time, money and effort to
build a car park outside their shop, they were intending it to be
for their own customers. The fact that they didn't explicitly state
this on a sign somewhere, or barrier it off to all except Lidl
customers should not matter. The car park is on their land, outside
their store, so by implication the car park is for their customers.

The OP is a customer of Lidl. So where's the problem?

And so we come full circle.

The problem is that the OP was a customer of Lidl for a few minutes
and then went off doing general shopping, leaving his car occupying
a Lidl parking space when he wasn't a customer of Lidl.

I describe myself as a customer of various places, even though at the
moment I'm sitting at a computer.

It's in Lidl's interest to let him do reasonable amounts of other
business, otherwise there's no point in him visiting the store at all,
and there goes a customer.

One could argue that if he was preventing another customer from
shopping there they've lost out, but there seems to be no such
indication - nobody has said the car park was full.

But it might have been. How many other drivers are doing exactly the same as
the OP? I just can't believe that people are trying to justify this. When
going to Lidl I park at Lidl. When going to Asda I park at Asda. When going
into the town centre and maybe visiting a dozen different places, I park at
a public car park that is run by the council or NCP or whoever, it doesn't
matter. What I don't do is to take up a parking space meant for patrons of a
particular place and then go elsewhere.

Andy Burns wrote:
John wrote:

The problem is that the OP was a customer of Lidl for a few minutes
and then went off doing general shopping, leaving his car occupying
a Lidl parking space when he wasn't a customer of Lidl.

I think he did it the other way round, i.e. parked, went elsewhere,
came back to shop at lidl, quite likely to get caught if the sharks
are on the look-out.

If he'd parked, gone to lidl then walked elsewhere (without dropping
stuff into the car) they'd be far less likely to notice ...

Does it matter? End result is that he was using a Lidl parking space when
not a customer of Lidl, that could have been used by a Lidl customer.

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:22:40 +0100, John wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 16/07/2010 11:59, John wrote:

The point that you (and everyone else it would seem) are missing is
that it is not a _public_ car park, it is _Lidl's_ car park. I
assume that when Lidl were spending the time, money and effort to
build a car park outside their shop, they were intending it to be
for their own customers. The fact that they didn't explicitly state
this on a sign somewhere, or barrier it off to all except Lidl
customers should not matter. The car park is on their land, outside
their store, so by implication the car park is for their customers.

The OP is a customer of Lidl. So where's the problem?

And so we come full circle.

The problem is that the OP was a customer of Lidl for a few minutes and then
went off doing general shopping, leaving his car occupying a Lidl parking
space when he wasn't a customer of Lidl. If the car park is/was full he is
effectively blocking a _potential_ customer of Lidl from _becoming_ a
customer of Lidl - ergo, potential customer doesn't get the shopping they
want,
Lidl lose money and decide that they need some company like UKPC to
look after the car park ...

I would expect Lidl's motivation to be far baser than that.
Consider the following model:
They get 100 vehicles an hour parking/shopping/leaving. If the shop is
open for 10 hours a day, that's 1000 vehicles. If only 1% of those get
a £90 penalty - and (say) 7 actually pay up, that's £630/day. I don't know
what Lidl's rake would be - let's say £200.
Now, to make £200 _profit_ from their commercial operation, if they make
5% margin on their sales they'd need to sell £4,000 of extra stuff each day.
If a customer's average transaction is £40 that's equivalent to 100 extra
punters a day - all for issuing one penalty per hour.
If half their customers use the car park, then that means they get 2,000
sales each day - so they've effectively got a 5% increase in turnover
but without having to do anything, except let a little plastic piggie
wander around their carpark, occasionally honking off a car owner.



--
www.thisreallyismyhost.99k.org/page2.php

On 16/07/2010 17:06, John wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 16/07/2010 16:22, John wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 16/07/2010 11:59, John wrote:

The point that you (and everyone else it would seem) are missing is
that it is not a _public_ car park, it is _Lidl's_ car park. I
assume that when Lidl were spending the time, money and effort to
build a car park outside their shop, they were intending it to be
for their own customers. The fact that they didn't explicitly state
this on a sign somewhere, or barrier it off to all except Lidl
customers should not matter. The car park is on their land, outside
their store, so by implication the car park is for their customers.

The OP is a customer of Lidl. So where's the problem?

And so we come full circle.

The problem is that the OP was a customer of Lidl for a few minutes
and then went off doing general shopping, leaving his car occupying
a Lidl parking space when he wasn't a customer of Lidl.

I describe myself as a customer of various places, even though at the
moment I'm sitting at a computer.

It's in Lidl's interest to let him do reasonable amounts of other
business, otherwise there's no point in him visiting the store at all,
and there goes a customer.

One could argue that if he was preventing another customer from
shopping there they've lost out, but there seems to be no such
indication - nobody has said the car park was full.

But it might have been.

That's not good enough. Was it? If not, you've got no point.

pete wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:22:40 +0100, John wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 16/07/2010 11:59, John wrote:

The point that you (and everyone else it would seem) are missing is
that it is not a _public_ car park, it is _Lidl's_ car park. I
assume that when Lidl were spending the time, money and effort to
build a car park outside their shop, they were intending it to be
for their own customers. The fact that they didn't explicitly state
this on a sign somewhere, or barrier it off to all except Lidl
customers should not matter. The car park is on their land, outside
their store, so by implication the car park is for their customers.

The OP is a customer of Lidl. So where's the problem?

And so we come full circle.

The problem is that the OP was a customer of Lidl for a few minutes
and then went off doing general shopping, leaving his car occupying
a Lidl parking space when he wasn't a customer of Lidl. If the car
park is/was full he is effectively blocking a _potential_ customer
of Lidl from _becoming_ a customer of Lidl - ergo, potential
customer doesn't get the shopping they want,
Lidl lose money and decide that they need some company like
UKPC to look after the car park ...

I would expect Lidl's motivation to be far baser than that.
Consider the following model:
They get 100 vehicles an hour parking/shopping/leaving. If the shop is
open for 10 hours a day, that's 1000 vehicles. If only 1% of those
get
a £90 penalty - and (say) 7 actually pay up, that's £630/day. I don't
know what Lidl's rake would be - let's say £200.
Now, to make £200 _profit_ from their commercial operation, if they
make 5% margin on their sales they'd need to sell £4,000 of extra
stuff each day. If a customer's average transaction is £40 that's
equivalent to 100 extra punters a day - all for issuing one penalty
per hour.
If half their customers use the car park, then that means they get
2,000 sales each day - so they've effectively got a 5% increase in
turnover
but without having to do anything, except let a little plastic piggie
wander around their carpark, occasionally honking off a car owner.

Let me make this clear once and for all - I'm not defending the use of UKPC
or the £90 rip-off. What I'm saying is that someone - anyone - should not
use a car park meant for patrons of one place and then go off to other
places. Simples.

Clive George wrote:
On 16/07/2010 17:06, John wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 16/07/2010 16:22, John wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 16/07/2010 11:59, John wrote:

The point that you (and everyone else it would seem) are missing
is that it is not a _public_ car park, it is _Lidl's_ car park. I
assume that when Lidl were spending the time, money and effort to
build a car park outside their shop, they were intending it to be
for their own customers. The fact that they didn't explicitly
state this on a sign somewhere, or barrier it off to all except
Lidl customers should not matter. The car park is on their land,
outside their store, so by implication the car park is for their
customers.

The OP is a customer of Lidl. So where's the problem?

And so we come full circle.

The problem is that the OP was a customer of Lidl for a few minutes
and then went off doing general shopping, leaving his car occupying
a Lidl parking space when he wasn't a customer of Lidl.

I describe myself as a customer of various places, even though at
the moment I'm sitting at a computer.

It's in Lidl's interest to let him do reasonable amounts of other
business, otherwise there's no point in him visiting the store at
all, and there goes a customer.

One could argue that if he was preventing another customer from
shopping there they've lost out, but there seems to be no such
indication - nobody has said the car park was full.

But it might have been.

That's not good enough. Was it? If not, you've got no point.

Of course it's good enough. It doesn't matter if the car park was full or
empty. The whole point is that someone should not use a car parking space
meant for patrons of one particular place and then go off somewhere else.
It's just plain wrong and discourteous.

On Jul 16, 3:24*pm, "BruceB" wrote:

You must be so proud that you know so much better than the corporate lawyers
Lidl and others employ.

If corporate lawyers are always right, how come corporations sue each
other? Surely they'd both know in advance who was right.

On 16/07/2010 17:23, John wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 16/07/2010 17:06, John wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 16/07/2010 16:22, John wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 16/07/2010 11:59, John wrote:

The point that you (and everyone else it would seem) are missing
is that it is not a _public_ car park, it is _Lidl's_ car park. I
assume that when Lidl were spending the time, money and effort to
build a car park outside their shop, they were intending it to be
for their own customers. The fact that they didn't explicitly
state this on a sign somewhere, or barrier it off to all except
Lidl customers should not matter. The car park is on their land,
outside their store, so by implication the car park is for their
customers.

The OP is a customer of Lidl. So where's the problem?

And so we come full circle.

The problem is that the OP was a customer of Lidl for a few minutes
and then went off doing general shopping, leaving his car occupying
a Lidl parking space when he wasn't a customer of Lidl.

I describe myself as a customer of various places, even though at
the moment I'm sitting at a computer.

It's in Lidl's interest to let him do reasonable amounts of other
business, otherwise there's no point in him visiting the store at
all, and there goes a customer.

One could argue that if he was preventing another customer from
shopping there they've lost out, but there seems to be no such
indication - nobody has said the car park was full.

But it might have been.

That's not good enough. Was it? If not, you've got no point.

Of course it's good enough. It doesn't matter if the car park was full or
empty. The whole point is that someone should not use a car parking space
meant for patrons of one particular place and then go off somewhere else.
It's just plain wrong and discourteous.

There we disagree. I've explained why it's not, and indeed is in the
interest of the provider of that car park to allow that to happen.

Clive George wrote:
On 16/07/2010 17:23, John wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 16/07/2010 17:06, John wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 16/07/2010 16:22, John wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 16/07/2010 11:59, John wrote:

The point that you (and everyone else it would seem) are
missing is that it is not a _public_ car park, it is _Lidl's_
car park. I assume that when Lidl were spending the time,
money and effort to build a car park outside their shop, they
were intending it to be for their own customers. The fact that
they didn't explicitly state this on a sign somewhere, or
barrier it off to all except Lidl customers should not matter.
The car park is on their land, outside their store, so by
implication the car park is for their customers.

The OP is a customer of Lidl. So where's the problem?

And so we come full circle.

The problem is that the OP was a customer of Lidl for a few
minutes and then went off doing general shopping, leaving his
car occupying a Lidl parking space when he wasn't a customer of
Lidl.

I describe myself as a customer of various places, even though at
the moment I'm sitting at a computer.

It's in Lidl's interest to let him do reasonable amounts of other
business, otherwise there's no point in him visiting the store at
all, and there goes a customer.

One could argue that if he was preventing another customer from
shopping there they've lost out, but there seems to be no such
indication - nobody has said the car park was full.

But it might have been.

That's not good enough. Was it? If not, you've got no point.

Of course it's good enough. It doesn't matter if the car park was
full or empty. The whole point is that someone should not use a car
parking space meant for patrons of one particular place and then go
off somewhere else. It's just plain wrong and discourteous.

There we disagree. I've explained why it's not, and indeed is in the
interest of the provider of that car park to allow that to happen.

Fair enough - we disagree.

"Huge" wrote in message
...

Lidl's lawyers know full well these charges are unenforcable. But most
people
are spineless morons (like you, for example) and pay up.

I have ignored similar charges rather than pay them.
Your rudeness above shows you are an arsehole who knows very little about
contract law.

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 18:09:08 +0100, "BruceB" wrote:



"Huge" wrote in message
...

Lidl's lawyers know full well these charges are unenforcable. But most
people
are spineless morons (like you, for example) and pay up.

I have ignored similar charges rather than pay them.
Your rudeness above shows you are an arsehole who knows very little about
contract law.

What do you mean "contract" ?

There is no contract.

Derek

Ade wrote:
did gone and wrote:
Yes, I think this thread probably sums it up

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=1490213

Good grief, that Bert666 chap really was thick as pig****.


It all seems to hinge on whether there is a contract, and the judge in
that Oldham case obviously took the view that there was, so it seems
things are not cut and dried.

On Jul 16, 5:23*pm, "John" wrote:

Of course it's good enough. It doesn't matter if the car park was full or
empty. The whole point is that someone should not use a car parking space
meant for patrons of one particular place and then go off somewhere else.
It's just plain wrong and discourteous.


Leaving aside the fact that the OP is a regular and long-standing
customer of Lidl (which holes your ludicrous argument below the
waterline), how does occupying a small amount of tarmac in an empty
carpark outside an empty supermarket qualify as "just plain wrong"?
What fundamental undermining of the moral rectitude of the universe
has been caused by this action?

On Jul 16, 5:06*pm, "John" wrote:

I just can't believe that people are trying to justify this.

And yet everyone but you is. If you had even a smidgeon of
intelligence, that might give you pause for thought.

On Jul 16, 11:59*am, "John" wrote:

The point that you (and everyone else it would seem) are missing is that blah blah blah

It's the fate of geniuses not to be recognized in their own
lifetimes. Poor John.

In article ,
says...

did gone and wrote:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=1490213

Good grief, that Bert666 chap really was thick as pig****.

You obviously read bert666's postings very carefully in order to come to
that conclusion - including the mention of being 6 months pregnant!

Now who's as thick as pig****?!

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 21:42:27 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 16/07/2010 15:49, Derek Geldard wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:24:36 +0100, wrote:



You must be so proud that you know so much better than the corporate lawyers
Lidl and others employ.

Can't speak for "others" Lidl are not involved in the legalities save
they seem to have sold their birthright for a mess of pottage
subjecting their customers to such appalling treatment at the hands of
Shyster& Co

The next Lidl I see that has handed their parking control over to
Shyster& Co will be the last time I go near it.

It would be well worth people who have ceased being customers for these
reasons letting the shops know why. Once enough do so, then the
popularity of the cowboys will fall.

I can only assume the powers that be at Lidl don't realise they are
putting their business in such jeopardy.

It takes 10x as much expenditure to keep a customer than it does to
get a new one. Times are hard and freinds are few.

I think you mean that the other way round (i.e. retaining an existing
customer is cheaper than recruiting a new one)


So it is.

Derek

On 16 July, 20:07, stuart noble wrote:
Ade wrote:
did gone and wrote:
Yes, I think this thread probably sums it up

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=1490213

Good grief, that Bert666 chap really was thick as pig****.

It all seems to hinge on whether there is a contract, and the judge in
that Oldham case obviously took the view that there was, so it seems
things are not cut and dried.

this should really be ported over to uk.legal ...

ISTR when courts rule on "contracts" they use certain criteria to
evaluate the relationship between the two parties to see if it can be
described as "contractual" ... IANAL so would not presume to be
definitive, but one of the features of a contract is that it provides
for one party to decline ...

Regarding parking charges, the argument goes that by posting the
parking companies T & Cs in the car park, they are making you aware of
their provisions (that you pony up £90 if you don't shop at Lidl). If
you don't like the T&Cs you are free to leave. By not leaving you are
implicitly agreeing to the "contract" (and therefore owe the £90).
This concept is called (IANAL caveat again) "weak consent".

HOWEVER, AFAIAA this has never been tested in a court. If it were to
be, then the visibility of the sign, the wording, and a whole load of
other factors would be considered as to whether the situation were
clear enough to be considered a "contract" and therefore enforceable
by the courts.

As I have posted previously this is where *clampers* get away with it,
as there are only two ways to get the clamp removed lawfully. Either
stump up. Or start a civil action requiring them to remove it. Until
somebody with deep pockets (and two cars :-) ) takes the latter route,
you are stuck with the former.

Of course you *could* angle grind the clamp off (which would be
criminal damage) and invite the clampers to sue you for the cost.
However, mysteriously, even though there are many cases of people
doing this, no clamping firm has tried it.

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:

Its frequently not that clear cut anyway. For example a supermarket
close to the town centre near here operates a pay on exit car park,
which is free for up to two hours for customers (you get your car park
ticket stamped at the checkout or show a receipt to the attendant on
exit). They have no restrictions on leaving the shop etc and are happy
to accept people park there and shop elsewhere even if not customers,
for which they charge a fair price for the parking space.

Other branches of the same supermarket however have different policies;
some allow use of the car park as long as you also shop in the store,
others restrict use to only those that shop there and for no other
purpose. So unless you read the small print *every* time you visit you
are not always certain of what "rules" apply (its common practice for
parking "enforcement" operators to modify the terms of use with some
small print on a sign somewhere so as to catch regular users in a bait
and switch manoeuvre, changing an allowable practice into a revenue
generating one overnight with no warning or explicit signage - itself a
questionable practice.

If you have to pay to park and claim it back if and when you use the
store, it would be safe to assume you can use the car park and not shop at
the store. Sainsbury tend to do this where their store is close to a
commuter station.
At other branches they seem to be going for a fixed maximum term using
numberplate recognition cameras.

I don't see anything wrong with a store operating their carparks how they
want. They own them, after all. If you don't like how they do things use a
different supermarket.

--
*Acupuncture is a jab well done*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

John Rumm wrote:
On 16/07/2010 17:06, John wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 16/07/2010 16:22, John wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 16/07/2010 11:59, John wrote:

The point that you (and everyone else it would seem) are missing
is that it is not a _public_ car park, it is _Lidl's_ car park. I
assume that when Lidl were spending the time, money and effort to
build a car park outside their shop, they were intending it to be
for their own customers. The fact that they didn't explicitly
state this on a sign somewhere, or barrier it off to all except
Lidl customers should not matter. The car park is on their land,
outside their store, so by implication the car park is for their
customers.

The OP is a customer of Lidl. So where's the problem?

And so we come full circle.

The problem is that the OP was a customer of Lidl for a few minutes
and then went off doing general shopping, leaving his car occupying
a Lidl parking space when he wasn't a customer of Lidl.

I describe myself as a customer of various places, even though at
the moment I'm sitting at a computer.

It's in Lidl's interest to let him do reasonable amounts of other
business, otherwise there's no point in him visiting the store at
all, and there goes a customer.

One could argue that if he was preventing another customer from
shopping there they've lost out, but there seems to be no such
indication - nobody has said the car park was full.

But it might have been. How many other drivers are doing exactly the
same as the OP? I just can't believe that people are trying to
justify this. When going to Lidl I park at Lidl. When going to Asda
I park at Asda. When going into the town centre and maybe visiting a
dozen different places, I park at a public car park that is run by
the council or NCP or whoever, it doesn't matter. What I don't do is
to take up a parking space meant for patrons of a particular place
and then go elsewhere.

Its frequently not that clear cut anyway. For example a supermarket
close to the town centre near here operates a pay on exit car park,
which is free for up to two hours for customers (you get your car park
ticket stamped at the checkout or show a receipt to the attendant on
exit). They have no restrictions on leaving the shop etc and are happy
to accept people park there and shop elsewhere even if not customers,
for which they charge a fair price for the parking space.

Other branches of the same supermarket however have different
policies; some allow use of the car park as long as you also shop in
the store, others restrict use to only those that shop there and for
no other purpose. So unless you read the small print *every* time you
visit you are not always certain of what "rules" apply

Well I'm obviously the only one who thinks the way I do so fair enough, I'll
accept that I'm a weirdo or whatever but, I still say that it doesn't matter
what "rules" apply or what you can and cannot do - to my way of thinking
it's just morally wrong to park in a space meant for patrons of one business
and then go elsewhere. The OP states "I've done my shopping in town and
returned to shop in Lidl...".

I don't know Uttoxeter at all, but I'll bet that there's some sort of
council-run or perhaps privately-run (think NCP or whatever) car park that
would be more suited to "general shopping in town" that he could use first
and then move on to Lidl. However, I'll also bet that the OP is parking at
Lidl to avoid paying his dues elsewhere.

On Jul 17, 8:28 am, John Rumm wrote:

Other branches of the same supermarket however have different policies;
some allow use of the car park as long as you also shop in the store,
others restrict use to only those that shop there and for no other
purpose. So unless you read the small print *every* time you visit you
are not always certain of what "rules" apply (its common practice for
parking "enforcement" operators to modify the terms of use with some
small print on a sign somewhere so as to catch regular users in a bait
and switch manoeuvre, changing an allowable practice into a revenue
generating one overnight with no warning or explicit signage - itself a
questionable practice.

A shop in NZ has changed their parking system to one where you get a
ticket for free parking for half an hour. Unfortunately the machine is
under cover in the dark, and the screen is backlit only when you press
any button.
If you don't spot which is the free button, you get to a menu that
only accepts money. They don't seem to understand how stupid this is.
I see lots of people doing without tickets as they don't understand
the system.

On Jul 17, 4:01 pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 16/07/2010 23:45, Jethro wrote:

Of course you *could* angle grind the clamp off (which would be
criminal damage) and invite the clampers to sue you for the cost.
However, mysteriously, even though there are many cases of people
doing this, no clamping firm has tried it.

one could mail a replacement padlock of equal quality to the clamping
company to compensate for their losses! ;-)

Are 12 volt angle grinders available or do I have to buy an inverter?

Jethro
wibbled on Friday 16 July 2010 23:45


As I have posted previously this is where *clampers* get away with it,
as there are only two ways to get the clamp removed lawfully. Either
stump up. Or start a civil action requiring them to remove it. Until
somebody with deep pockets (and two cars :-) ) takes the latter route,
you are stuck with the former.

Of course you *could* angle grind the clamp off (which would be
criminal damage) and invite the clampers to sue you for the cost.
However, mysteriously, even though there are many cases of people
doing this, no clamping firm has tried it.

3 ways: learn to pick locks and remove the clamp without damage.

--
Tim Watts

Managers, politicians and environmentalists: Nature's carbon buffer.

"Jethro" wrote in message
...
snip
Regarding parking charges, the argument goes that by posting the
parking companies T & Cs in the car park, they are making you aware of
their provisions (that you pony up £90 if you don't shop at Lidl). If
you don't like the T&Cs you are free to leave. By not leaving you are
implicitly agreeing to the "contract" (and therefore owe the £90).
This concept is called (IANAL caveat again) "weak consent".

HOWEVER, AFAIAA this has never been tested in a court. If it were to
be, then the visibility of the sign, the wording, and a whole load of
other factors would be considered as to whether the situation were
clear enough to be considered a "contract" and therefore enforceable
by the courts.


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/ne...st-judge-rules
http://www.shropshirestar.com/latest...arking-wrangle

snip

Of course you *could* angle grind the clamp off (which would be
criminal damage) and invite the clampers to sue you for the cost.
However, mysteriously, even though there are many cases of people
doing this, no clamping firm has tried it.

The clampers do not have to sue you, they can report you to the police as it
is criminal damage and then you risk a criminal record.

Regards
Bruce

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...

3 ways: learn to pick locks and remove the clamp without damage.

Now that would be a useful skill to learn. Can anyone recommend a good
learning resource and/or basic tools
Regards
Bruce

On Jul 17, 8:11 pm, "BruceB" wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message

...

3 ways: learn to pick locks and remove the clamp without damage.

Now that would be a useful skill to learn. Can anyone recommend a good
learning resource and/or basic tools

Google for "bump key" --- 53,300 results

Matty F wrote:
On 16/07/2010 23:45, Jethro wrote:

Of course you *could* angle grind the clamp off (which would be
criminal damage) and invite the clampers to sue you for the cost.

Are 12 volt angle grinders available or do I have to buy an inverter?

Think you can get cordless ones, much like drills, but you can certainly
get petrol-powered ones. This is what Angle Grinder Man used to use.

Pete

Of course you *could* angle grind the clamp off (which would be
criminal damage) and invite the clampers to sue you for the cost.
However, mysteriously, even though there are many cases of people
doing this, no clamping firm has tried it.

one could mail a replacement padlock of equal quality to the clamping
company to compensate for their losses! ;-)

Are 12 volt angle grinders available or do I have to buy an inverter?

I must be missing something but where does the enforcement company get the
name and address of the car's keeper from? It can only be the DVLA but I
don't remember authorising them to release my details to a third party
especially a commercial company. Doesn't the Data Protection Act have
something to say about this?

"Malcolm" wrote in message
...
I must be missing something but where does the enforcement company get the
name and address of the car's keeper from? It can only be the DVLA but I
don't remember authorising them to release my details to a third party
especially a commercial company. Doesn't the Data Protection Act have
something to say about this?

DVLA will hand out information to anyone who shows reasonable cause to need
it:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring...cle/DG_4022066

Regards
Bruce

BruceB
wibbled on Saturday 17 July 2010 09:11



"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...

3 ways: learn to pick locks and remove the clamp without damage.

Now that would be a useful skill to learn. Can anyone recommend a good
learning resource and/or basic tools
Regards
Bruce

Lots on the internet.

I can do "silly locks" like filing cabinets which has occasionally been
useful (legally useful I might add) and they're not hard.

Wheel clamps will have decent locks so one would need lots of practice but
nothing is uncrackable...

--
Tim Watts

Managers, politicians and environmentalists: Nature's carbon buffer.

Pete Verdon d
wibbled on Saturday 17 July 2010 09:32

Matty F wrote:
On 16/07/2010 23:45, Jethro wrote:

Of course you *could* angle grind the clamp off (which would be
criminal damage) and invite the clampers to sue you for the cost.

Are 12 volt angle grinders available or do I have to buy an inverter?

Think you can get cordless ones, much like drills, but you can certainly
get petrol-powered ones. This is what Angle Grinder Man used to use.

Pete

Liquid nitrogen is another method that purportedly works - freeze the lock,
hit the lock, wait for tyres to warm up, drive off...

--
Tim Watts

Managers, politicians and environmentalists: Nature's carbon buffer.

John Rumm wrote:
On 17/07/2010 00:16, John wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
On 16/07/2010 17:06, John wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 16/07/2010 16:22, John wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 16/07/2010 11:59, John wrote:

The point that you (and everyone else it would seem) are
missing is that it is not a _public_ car park, it is _Lidl's_
car park. I assume that when Lidl were spending the time,
money and effort to build a car park outside their shop, they
were intending it to be for their own customers. The fact that
they didn't explicitly state this on a sign somewhere, or
barrier it off to all except Lidl customers should not matter.
The car park is on their land, outside their store, so by
implication the car park is for their customers.

The OP is a customer of Lidl. So where's the problem?

And so we come full circle.

The problem is that the OP was a customer of Lidl for a few
minutes and then went off doing general shopping, leaving his
car occupying a Lidl parking space when he wasn't a customer of
Lidl.

I describe myself as a customer of various places, even though at
the moment I'm sitting at a computer.

It's in Lidl's interest to let him do reasonable amounts of other
business, otherwise there's no point in him visiting the store at
all, and there goes a customer.

One could argue that if he was preventing another customer from
shopping there they've lost out, but there seems to be no such
indication - nobody has said the car park was full.

But it might have been. How many other drivers are doing exactly
the same as the OP? I just can't believe that people are trying to
justify this. When going to Lidl I park at Lidl. When going to Asda
I park at Asda. When going into the town centre and maybe visiting
a dozen different places, I park at a public car park that is run
by the council or NCP or whoever, it doesn't matter. What I don't
do is to take up a parking space meant for patrons of a particular
place and then go elsewhere.

Its frequently not that clear cut anyway. For example a supermarket
close to the town centre near here operates a pay on exit car park,
which is free for up to two hours for customers (you get your car
park ticket stamped at the checkout or show a receipt to the
attendant on exit). They have no restrictions on leaving the shop
etc and are happy to accept people park there and shop elsewhere
even if not customers, for which they charge a fair price for the
parking space. Other branches of the same supermarket however have
different
policies; some allow use of the car park as long as you also shop in
the store, others restrict use to only those that shop there and for
no other purpose. So unless you read the small print *every* time
you visit you are not always certain of what "rules" apply

Well I'm obviously the only one who thinks the way I do so fair
enough, I'll accept that I'm a weirdo or whatever but, I still say
that it doesn't matter what "rules" apply or what you can and cannot
do - to my way of thinking it's just morally wrong to park in a
space meant for patrons of one business and then go elsewhere. The
OP states "I've done my shopping in town and returned to shop in
Lidl...".

If the shop allows the practice of using their car park and shopping
elsewhere, then I can see no reason to object on moral grounds or
otherwise. Especially if they either directly profit from the sale of
parking, or indirectly by drawing customers to their shop.

If the shop prohibits the practice (and has always done so, and makes
it clear that this is the case) then I accept your view is right and
proper. (whether it is good business practice or PR for the company in
question however is a different matter).

I see what you're saying but to me it's still not right. It's not about what
the shop allows or doesn't allow, it's about the individual driver who
chooses to do it. I just would not do it because I truly believe that
parking spaces at a shop are for customers of that shop while they do their
shopping in there. Once you've finished, you move on and let someone else
use that space while they shop there. It's just common courtesy and good
manners rather than the 'I'm alright Jack and stuff anyone else' attitude.

Another example - Round here we have a stretch of road, probably 500 metres,
with a 'right turn only' lane and a 'straight ahead only' lane. I need to be
going straight on so I sit in the queue and wait, as we all _know_ we
should, then I see ill-mannered, inconsiderate *******s shooting down the
'turn right only' lane and forcing their way into the straight ahead queue
as they get to the lights. But I won't do that. I refuse to behave that way
because it's just not right. What gives them the right to get ahead at the
expense of others? Nothing. They know they shouldn't do it, just as the OP
knew he shouldn't do it.

John
wibbled on Saturday 17 July 2010 10:29

Another example - Round here we have a stretch of road, probably 500
metres, with a 'right turn only' lane and a 'straight ahead only' lane. I
need to be going straight on so I sit in the queue and wait, as we all
_know_ we should, then I see ill-mannered, inconsiderate *******s shooting
down the 'turn right only' lane and forcing their way into the straight
ahead queue as they get to the lights. But I won't do that. I refuse to
behave that way because it's just not right. What gives them the right to
get ahead at the expense of others? Nothing. They know they shouldn't do
it, just as the OP knew he shouldn't do it.

I always make a point of not allowing those people to merge if they try to
pull in front of me after such a stunt. And they know it. They usually fail
to merge for many cars behind as everyone seems to take equal exception.

--
Tim Watts

Managers, politicians and environmentalists: Nature's carbon buffer.

"Jethro" wrote in message
...
On 16 July, 20:07, stuart noble wrote:
Ade wrote:
did gone and wrote:
Yes, I think this thread probably sums it up

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=1490213

Good grief, that Bert666 chap really was thick as pig****.

It all seems to hinge on whether there is a contract, and the judge in
that Oldham case obviously took the view that there was, so it seems
things are not cut and dried.


Of course you *could* angle grind the clamp off (which would be
criminal damage) and invite the clampers to sue you for the cost.
However, mysteriously, even though there are many cases of people
doing this, no clamping firm has tried it.

The clamping firm would simply ring the police and you would be arrested.

If you can get the clamp off without damaging it then no problem.

However, remember that clampers do not usually wait long after clamping a
car before they tow it. They make more money that way and they are paid on a
commision basis.

Cheers

Adam