New Lidl car park system. Invoices by default?

[FiF]

Hol said:

swerni said:

Funkycoldribena said:

KFC said:

Why do these threads always run to eleventy billion pages?


How about everyone posting that they should be able to park where they like, posts their home addresses. We'll all dump cars in their drive way or on their front lawn?

Bugger me thats original,why hasnt anyone mentioned that before? How about next time you invite your cleaner/workmen/plumber round to your house you tell them they've got 30 mins free parking then you'll start charging-see how you get on.

How's that even relevant?


how about the cleaner dumps her car in your drive then pops in to town shopping for a couple of hours?

Yup,
That IS closer to the reality of the situation around parking on private property for purposes outside of its clearly intended use.

These threads go to eleventy billion pages because the freeloaders get all pissy when some of us, who are landowners btw, don't buy into their idea of a free for all with no consequences or batst crazy schemes to put Lidl out of business by shopping in Morrisons. Yes I am just taking the piss there, deservedly so.

Let's say a business has a problem and decides to deal with it by a barrier system which is absolutely free at point of use to customers. Except it's not free is it, cost goes onto the prices, or reduced profits, or reduced dividend. Somebody has to pay. As long as it's not the despised freeloaders apparently, that's ok for some.

[Hol]

FiF said:

Hol said:

swerni said:

Funkycoldribena said:

KFC said:

Why do these threads always run to eleventy billion pages?


How about everyone posting that they should be able to park where they like, posts their home addresses. We'll all dump cars in their drive way or on their front lawn?

Bugger me thats original,why hasnt anyone mentioned that before? How about next time you invite your cleaner/workmen/plumber round to your house you tell them they've got 30 mins free parking then you'll start charging-see how you get on.

How's that even relevant?


how about the cleaner dumps her car in your drive then pops in to town shopping for a couple of hours?

Yup,
That IS closer to the reality of the situation around parking on private property for purposes outside of its clearly intended use.

These threads go to eleventy billion pages because the freeloaders get all pissy when some of us, who are landowners btw, don't buy into their idea of a free for all with no consequences or batst crazy schemes to put Lidl out of business by shopping in Morrisons. Yes I am just taking the piss there, deservedly so.

Let's say a business has a problem and decides to deal with it by a barrier system which is absolutely free at point of use to customers. Except it's not free is it, cost goes onto the prices, or reduced profits, or reduced dividend. Somebody has to pay. As long as it's not the despised freeloaders apparently, that's ok for some.

I'm not a landowner and I am also no saint or religious nut.

I just don't believe that the world owes me any more than the next guy behind or in front - when it to playing by the parking rules.

[technogogo]

LoonR1 said:

Nothing. Nothing happens. This isn't a national roll out. This isn't happening everywhere. this is one PH poster coming up with a comment that may or may not be true.

Prone to hyperbole?

No not quite. This was me asking if this new system is in use anywhere else? I described the system. Described how it may trap the innocent, unwary. Then asked the question about its use elsewhere. If nowhere else is using this then I'm very happy.

[Funkycoldribena]

technogogo said:

LoonR1 said:

Nothing. Nothing happens. This isn't a national roll out. This isn't happening everywhere. this is one PH poster coming up with a comment that may or may not be true.

Prone to hyperbole?

No not quite. This was me asking if this new system is in use anywhere else? I described the system. Described how it may trap the innocent, unwary. Then asked the question about its use elsewhere. If nowhere else is using this then I'm very happy.

Are you talking about the keypad in the store or the cctv/anpr cameras? Because I know several carparks/fast food places that use the anpr system.

[technogogo]

LoonR1 said:

technogogo said:

My point in creating the thread is that the new system, I'd not seen *exactly* this type of implementation before, has some edge cases. It doesn't scale up well. So I wondered how prevalent it was becoming. (Not the various car park controls but this 'by default' method in particular.)

So edge cases are where a system fails because someone didn't foresee an event or behaviour. So your example isn't an edge case. The day you park up, walk into the store, grab some items and then realise you forgot your purse, head back to the car to drive home to get it... then you get an invoice and have to prove you were a genuine customer. That is an edge case. As I say above, I'm assuming that if this happens a person could not get the invoice cancelled without undue hassle. For all I know the store are prepared to take their word for it? But the receipt of a demand for money in this circumstance would still arrive and would still cause most people a degree of stress. I suspect many would think it easier to pay than to argue the point?

One other aspect... the store is off St Aldhelm's Road in Poole. If you check out google maps you see that the entrance to the car park is not marked. If you drive past a certain point on this road you are flagged as subject to an invoice even if you are just turning round. It just seems fundamentally unfair to me. It is literally a financial trap that will trap the unwary.

On the plus side, they have a clever system at the till. You just need to give the first couple of characters of your reg number and it immediately shows an image of your car arriving somewhere near the entrance to the car park. So it is a fairly quick process IF you know the first couple of characters.

You're making a hell of a lot of assumptions in there. Do you really believe thatthe existence of an edge case, as you call them, renders any enforcement unfair?

If so, do you apply that thought process to all laws? There is an edge case for each and every law that exists and therefore they should all be removed by your reckoning.

That's interesting. I can't think of a similar scenario where a genuine and legitimate 'user' of a system would be potentially penalised. Except for those cases where rail users get off the train one stop early and find their ticket doesn't allow this. So they are fined. I've seen a few instances of that in the past.

Just to be clear, once again, the issue I have with system I described is because of its ability to ensnare legitimate users of this car park. I totally agree that free loaders deserve to be hit with an invoice. And I also know that I am making assumptions about how the system is operated. Though the nature of the operation is not fixed and depends on the accuracy of policy enforcement by staff. Something that is likely to vary as staff change and training slips as it tends to do. The store manager could assure his customer that those looping around a full car park can throw their invoices in the bin and the required action in-store to nullify the request will be carried out perfectly and not written on a post-it note for some guy coming in tomorrow who subsequently calls in sick. Yes another assumption also known as stuff happens! But what happens when bolshy manager #6 is in charge a few years later? The hardware (cameras) are fixed. The software (policy, process, interpretation) is not.

[technogogo]

Funkycoldribena said:

technogogo said:

LoonR1 said:

Nothing. Nothing happens. This isn't a national roll out. This isn't happening everywhere. this is one PH poster coming up with a comment that may or may not be true.

Prone to hyperbole?

No not quite. This was me asking if this new system is in use anywhere else? I described the system. Described how it may trap the innocent, unwary. Then asked the question about its use elsewhere. If nowhere else is using this then I'm very happy.

Are you talking about the keypad in the store or the cctv/anpr cameras? Because I know several carparks/fast food places that use the anpr system.

It is common in hotels too. But you kind of expect it in that context.

[bitchstewie]

If you use edge cases as a reason not to do something you'd never do anything "just in case".

Lidl aren't going to be invoicing people for turning around in their car parks.

[LoonR1]

bhstewie said:

If you use edge cases as a reason not to do something you'd never do anything "just in case".

Lidl aren't going to be invoicing people for turning around in their car parks.

Exactly

[LoonR1]

technogogo said:

That's interesting. I can't think of a similar scenario where a genuine and legitimate 'user' of a system would be potentially penalised. Except for those cases where rail users get off the train one stop early and find their ticket doesn't allow this. So they are fined. I've seen a few instances of that in the past.

Just to be clear, once again, the issue I have with system I described is because of its ability to ensnare legitimate users of this car park. I totally agree that free loaders deserve to be hit with an invoice. And I also know that I am making assumptions about how the system is operated. Though the nature of the operation is not fixed and depends on the accuracy of policy enforcement by staff. Something that is likely to vary as staff change and training slips as it tends to do. The store manager could assure his customer that those looping around a full car park can throw their invoices in the bin and the required action in-store to nullify the request will be carried out perfectly and not written on a post-it note for some guy coming in tomorrow who subsequently calls in sick. Yes another assumption also known as stuff happens! But what happens when bolshy manager #6 is in charge a few years later? The hardware (cameras) are fixed. The software (policy, process, interpretation) is not.

I can think of dozens of edge cases around laws though. Let's take today's hot topic. Child gets paedo tag after sending nude pic of himself to his girlfriend. Right, scrap all sex offences as this edge case has proven them to be completely flawed.

With the car park you're assuming a huge amount of things. That penalties are issued immediately on entry, unless you use the key pad, that there is no exit camera, that the car park is ever full (the reason for the system may be that it suddenly frees up a percentage of spaces that were being hogged by selfish people) and so on.

[p1esk]

I don't know if they have any plans to change it, but the Lidl store in Whitby seems to allow 1.5 hours free parking.

At Tesco in Scarborough there's 2 hours free parking, and no obligation to shop in their store. Same principle applies at Sainsbury in Scarborough, except there the time limit is 2.5 hours. I understand this arrangement was established by the local authority as a condition of the original planning consent.

[KFC]

I don't know my own car registration numbers, but 'my mum won't be able to remember hers to enter at the till' is a laughably weak excuse also.

Worst case she gets caught out once. So it'll be a trip back to the car park to note it down. Then you can print her up a little laminated card with the reg number in a massive font. This goes in her purse... job jobbed.

[HustleRussell]

If your happy for your own mum to pay £90 for legitimate use of the car park you are clearly on another planet from me.

[Countdown]

p1esk said:

I don't know if they have any plans to change it, but the Lidl store in Whitby seems to allow 1.5 hours free parking.

At Tesco in Scarborough there's 2 hours free parking, and no obligation to shop in their store. Same principle applies at Sainsbury in Scarborough, except there the time limit is 2.5 hours. I understand this arrangement was established by the local authority as a condition of the original planning consent.

Tesco in Bury allow 3 hours. It used to be free but people used to park there and then spend all day shopping at Millgate or The Rock.

Both the latter have their own car parks but why pay for parking if you can get it for free

[LoonR1]

HustleRussell said:

If your happy for your own mum to pay £90 for legitimate use of the car park you are clearly on another planet from me.

Where've you got that notion from?

[Hol]

LoonR1 said:

HustleRussell said:

If your happy for your own mum to pay £90 for legitimate use of the car park you are clearly on another planet from me.

Where've you got that notion from?

I'm pretty sure my mum would write her registration down and type it in.

Especially if she knew it was required AND it meant she was more likely to find a parking space.


She lives on Earth, btw.

[Red Devil]

bhstewie said:

If you use edge cases as a reason not to do something you'd never do anything "just in case".

Agreed

bhstewie said:

Lidl aren't going to be invoicing people for turning around in their car parks.

You are correct, but not for the reason I suspect you were thinking of when you wrote that.
It's not Lidl's decision to make. It's the PPC it has hired which does the invoicing.

You are also assuming that Lidl have the power to force cancellation of the invoice.
That will entirely depend on the terms of the contract. We have no way of knowing.

Absent that power a PPC can tell the supermarket to shove it.
There have been cases where the former has done just that.

In one well known example the supermarket found that the negative impact on its customers to be unacceptable.
The complaints were such that it made a commercial decision to get rid of the PPC asap.
Unfortunately its damage limitation exercise rebounded because it had failed to negotiate the contract accordingly.
It was then that it found out just how costly the decision to employ the PPC in the first place would prove to be.

p1esk said:

At Tesco in Scarborough there's 2 hours free parking, and no obligation to shop in their store. Same principle applies at Sainsbury in Scarborough, except there the time limit is 2.5 hours. I understand this arrangement was established by the local authority as a condition of the original planning consent.

Funny you should mention that. Exactly the same situation applied to a supermarket in Portslade.
Then without any consultation with the local community the allotted time was suddenly and unilaterally reduced.
This was challenged and the local authority told the supermarket to comply with the planning consent.

The response was to ignore the instruction and put in a retrospective application to reduce the allotted hours.
The reason given? Because customers could not get a space when visitors to other shops used its car park.
But that was wholly specious because it was well aware of the LA planning conditions when the site was developed.
The failure to take this into acccount rested entirely on its own shoulders.

The application was (quite properly) refused. However on the ground nothing changed. Complaints mounted.
These were all ignored and the unlawful breach continued. So the LA issued a formal notice.
This too was ignored. The local authority (kudos to them) wasn't having it and a summons was issued.
The supermarket was found guilty by the bench of a breach of planning consent and fined.

However there is a twist to this tale. The supermarket had in fact employed a very well konwn PPC to 'manage' its car park.
There is a certain irony that it was in fact the PPC that made the unilateral decision to alter the free time.
But the failure to follow due process cost the supermarket the fine!

The supermarket subsequently succeeded in a further application to reduce the hours. The the PPC then made another unilateral decision.
This time to restrict usage to the supermarket's customers only. A further breach of planning consent.
A aggrieved citizen alerted the local authority and it forced the PPC to roll back and comply with the consent conditions.

You couldn't make it up. PPCs are a law unto themselves and interested only in their bottom line.

I don't condone freeloaders and fully agree that landowners have every right to manage their land.
However they need to be careful who they get into bed with. Allowing a PPC 'free reign' is where the problems start.
Those who engage them are often far too ready to play the role of Pontius Pilate.

The government had the opportunity to hang tough at the Bill stage of PoFA.
Had it done so, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation now.
Instead it allowed itself to be played for a sucker by the the PPC industry's trade body, the BPA.
If you don't believe me, go and read Hansard. The warnings were there to be heeded.

[Mandalore]

Its a good job LIDL sell tin foil cheap then!

It could get expensive for people to change their headgear.