Parking 'Invoice' at Toys R Us?

[Observer2]

F i F said:

So good so far with that letter from TrU, though, as Streaky says, somewhat underwhelming, not to mention the interesting choice of the word vendor. Does that suggest there is some revenue returned to TrU from G24?

I'd be surprised if the ticket revenue is enough to pay the parking managements costs so feasible that TrU pays G24 a retainer for 'parking management services' and ticket revenue is credited in some way. So "vendor" is apt.

Parking management falls under operational/budget control of store security so G24 is "our vendor".

[Tiggsy]

Am i missing something? I park badly on purpose to get these and bin them. why the worry???

[GTIR]

Ignore.

I collect them.

[Tiggsy]

lol - My back seat is full of them!

I keep wishing I could actually get one in front of me but the buggers always nab me while I'm in the shops/TGI fridays!

[Red Devil]

streaky said:

Red Devil said:

TrU letter said:

Cutomers who direct their comments re penalty Charges to G24 directly have found them to be very reasonable when dealing with genuine customers & genuine exceptional circumstances.

Which member of the The United Federation of Planets does the author of this missive live on? It's certainly not Earth.....

One might expect the Security Manager to have a close (and possibly unwholesome) relationship with the particular "vendor", so statements like that are not unexpected. Hence my comment about being underwhelmed.

Streaky

Well, as long as they do it in private.....

[F i F]

The people posting on this thread displaying a table full of these notices, or claiming to have a back seat full of them, well thanks a bunch guys.

I have no issue with people using the current legal situation to deal with a ticket where they have made an odd genuine mistake, or become subject to some form of entrapment.

However it's clear that the people I'm aiming this post at, are quite deliberately and repeatedly, denying various landlords the right to peaceful enjoyment of their property by parking a vehicle without permission or outwith the permitted rules and terms and conditions of use.

Well thanks a bunch guys, you no doubt think you're very smart and very funny, but it's because of selfish idiots like you that the bill going through Parliament will allow the parking enforcers to legally enforce on registered keepers. There will be tears over that, mark my words.

So carry on thinking you are smart and clever, because as far as I'm concerned you are selfish morons.

Quite restrained post, as if had said what I really thought the swear filter would have melted.

[GTIR]

Blimey. Who rattled your chain?

Those parking fines are from 7 of my drivers who've got them in the course of their jobs. (often they've got then even though they assured me they'd only stayed 30 mins and the cars data logger confirmed this.)
The reason why things might be changing is because of the change last year in clamping rules not because a minuscule amount of people don't pay. These companies rely on the fact people are scared into paying an Unenforceable fine/invoice as most people do.

Wind your neck in imbecile.



Have a nice day.

[10 Pence Short]

If clamping on private land is to be made illegal, private landlords were always going to ask for some protection from the law in respect of private ticket enforcement. There's also a passive inequality at the moment, between those who understand the difference between private and Local Authority parking enforcement, and those who do not.

The best solution for all is to give both types of enforcement equal powers and tightened regulation.

[Cyberprog]

F i F said:

Well thanks a bunch guys, you no doubt think you're very smart and very funny, but it's because of selfish idiots like you that the bill going through Parliament will allow the parking enforcers to legally enforce on registered keepers. There will be tears over that, mark my words.

Yes, but there are of course ways round the proposed legislation

[streaky]

GTIR said:

The reason why things might be changing ...

There's no "might" about it.

Streaky

[Tiggsy]

GTIR said:

Blimey. Who rattled your chain?

Those parking fines are from 7 of my drivers who've got them in the course of their jobs. (often they've got then even though they assured me they'd only stayed 30 mins and the cars data logger confirmed this.)
The reason why things might be changing is because of the change last year in clamping rules not because a minuscule amount of people don't pay. These companies rely on the fact people are scared into paying an Unenforceable fine/invoice as most people do.

Wind your neck in imbecile.



Have a nice day.

X2

I got my first one parking with a wheel one inch into the white line of an EMPTY car park while I spent hundreds at the shop there. These companies get people to pay up by threatening diction they know they will never take. They are scumbags.

I regularly use tgi Fridays in reading for kids parties etc and always park in an area no one else uses. I park 1 inch over the dividing line to the next bay..... The empty bay, just like the other 50 empty bays next to it...if they want to ticket that they deserve my mocking.

[GTIR]

streaky said:

GTIR said:

The reason why things might be changing ...

There's no "might" about it.

Streaky

Ok, let me expand on that for the hard of thinking. The current bill will change.

Not streaky.

[anonymous-user]

F i F said:

The people posting on this thread displaying a table full of these notices, or claiming to have a back seat full of them, well thanks a bunch guys.

I have no issue with people using the current legal situation to deal with a ticket where they have made an odd genuine mistake, or become subject to some form of entrapment.

However it's clear that the people I'm aiming this post at, are quite deliberately and repeatedly, denying various landlords the right to peaceful enjoyment of their property by parking a vehicle without permission or outwith the permitted rules and terms and conditions of use.

Well thanks a bunch guys, you no doubt think you're very smart and very funny, but it's because of selfish idiots like you that the bill going through Parliament will allow the parking enforcers to legally enforce on registered keepers. There will be tears over that, mark my words.

So carry on thinking you are smart and clever, because as far as I'm concerned you are selfish morons.

Quite restrained post, as if had said what I really thought the swear filter would have melted.

Well here's a perfect example of the landlord ripping off "idiots" to balance your rant,

The link below is for the Royal Arsenal development in Woolwich (where I live), the parking area shown is surrounded by double yellows. The building to the left of the street view is now a Tesco Metro, and they have painted 4 car park bays and a disabled bay to the opposite side for customers, BUT have still left the double yellows. I have personally seen a customer park up, walk into the store and a private traffic warden put a ticket on the car within a minute or two. I must have seen this happen 10-15 times already.

So the landlord of the development allows the store (or its done them itself) to paint car park bays on the tarmac to entice customers to park, and then hires a parking enforcement company to ticket them as soon as they do. Now if that isn't taking the piss then I don't know what is.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=royal+arsenal&...

[F i F]

Let me put it this way, if also faced on a frequent and repetitive basis having access to their land blocked by thoughtless drivers who abandon their vehicles having no concern other than their own selfish convenience, then there would be a lot of people on PH who would be far less blasé about the problem of parking without permission.

This scummy industry has only grown due to drivers taking the mick. We can all quote instances where landowners and private enforcers are beyond the pale. We can all find instances where drivers have been equally beyond reasonable behaviour. What do people think will happen when these scum have the legal right to enforce on registered keepers.

That will come in as law, despite confident claims by one poster.

So as for winding my neck in? No I don't think I will, thank you very much. Good day.

[oldsoak]

F i F said:

Let me put it this way, if also faced on a frequent and repetitive basis having access to their land blocked by thoughtless drivers who abandon their vehicles having no concern other than their own selfish convenience, then there would be a lot of people on PH who would be far less blasé about the problem of parking without permission.

This scummy industry has only grown due to drivers taking the mick. We can all quote instances where landowners and private enforcers are beyond the pale. We can all find instances where drivers have been equally beyond reasonable behaviour. What do people think will happen when these scum have the legal right to enforce on registered keepers.

That will come in as law, despite confident claims by one poster.

So as for winding my neck in? No I don't think I will, thank you very much. Good day.

Indeed & well said.

[lyonspride]

djstevec said:

Well here's a perfect example of the landlord ripping off "idiots" to balance your rant,

The link below is for the Royal Arsenal development in Woolwich (where I live), the parking area shown is surrounded by double yellows. The building to the left of the street view is now a Tesco Metro, and they have painted 4 car park bays and a disabled bay to the opposite side for customers, BUT have still left the double yellows. I have personally seen a customer park up, walk into the store and a private traffic warden put a ticket on the car within a minute or two. I must have seen this happen 10-15 times already.

So the landlord of the development allows the store (or its done them itself) to paint car park bays on the tarmac to entice customers to park, and then hires a parking enforcement company to ticket them as soon as they do. Now if that isn't taking the piss then I don't know what is.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=royal+arsenal&...

I've encountered something very similar, landlord tears out garden (and fencing) and creates 8 carpark spaces behind his property, these spaces are right next to a council carpark and have been marked out to look the same....... This property is a small empty shop on a busy town highstreet, it's been empty for at least 9 years.
The parking scam at the back means the shop doesn't even need to be open or in use, he just pays someone to sit there ticketing people all day long (fine is £75). In the summer months he's apparently claims to make over £5000 a week..... Even if just 8 cars a day use it, he's making 600 a day!!

[streaky]

GTIR said:

streaky said:

GTIR said:

The reason why things might be changing ...

There's no "might" about it.

Streaky

Ok, let me expand on that for the hard of thinking. The current bill will change.

Not streaky.

You will find nothing of comfort in relation to wheel-clamping in the Ping Pong of 19 March 2012, nor I fear, in the next Ping Pong (24 April). IIRC, the Lords proposed no substantive (if any) changes in this area.

Streaky

[streaky]

streaky said:

GTIR said:

streaky said:

GTIR said:

The reason why things might be changing ...

There's no "might" about it.

Streaky

Ok, let me expand on that for the hard of thinking. The current bill will change.

Not streaky.

You will find nothing of comfort in relation to wheel-clamping in the Ping Pong of 19 March 2012, nor I fear, in the next Ping Pong (24 April). IIRC, the Lords proposed no substantive (if any) changes in this area.

Streaky

Like to point out the (relevant) changes, GTIR?

Actually, the point of resurrecting this thread is a report on the BBC website that ToysRUs were "disappointed" at G24's refusal (until pressured into it) to cancel a parking penalty inflicted upon a 75-year-old who suffered chest pains (having previously had two heart attacks) and took medication, then (at least partly as a consequence) fell asleep in his car, overstaying the 'maximum' time by some 20 minutes.

Perhaps ToysRUs should consider an alternative 'service' provider.

Streaky

[the_scorpion]

F i F said:

Let me put it this way, if also faced on a frequent and repetitive basis having access to their land blocked by thoughtless drivers who abandon their vehicles having no concern other than their own selfish convenience, then there would be a lot of people on PH who would be far less blasé about the problem of parking without permission.

This scummy industry has only grown due to drivers taking the mick. We can all quote instances where landowners and private enforcers are beyond the pale. We can all find instances where drivers have been equally beyond reasonable behaviour. What do people think will happen when these scum have the legal right to enforce on registered keepers.

That will come in as law, despite confident claims by one poster.

So as for winding my neck in? No I don't think I will, thank you very much. Good day.

I read something on Pepipoo (i think) about that and although the registered keeper will become liable, there is still the issue of the landowner only being able to sue for actual loss and not whatever a parking company decides to charge. So if I read right then these would still be unenforceable invoices.

[stemll]

the_scorpion said:

I read something on Pepipoo (i think) about that and although the registered keeper will become liable, there is still the issue of the landowner only being able to sue for actual loss and not whatever a parking company decides to charge. So if I read right then these would still be unenforceable invoices.

So overstaying in a free carpark would mean their loss amounts to £0.00 (if you are correct)?