Parking ticket in Waitrose
Discussion
Yes, my son has got another ticket from Waitrose this time, he exceeded the 2 hour stay by 10 minutes he claims.
I would like to ask, under what legal framework can Waitrose issue parking tickets? For example what happens if he does not pay it? Will Waitrose sue him? Will the case have to be dealt by a small claims court?
I would like to ask, under what legal framework can Waitrose issue parking tickets? For example what happens if he does not pay it? Will Waitrose sue him? Will the case have to be dealt by a small claims court?
Unlucky, your son?
For 10 mins they will probably drop it on appeal if he can evidence that he bought something from them. No legal basis, their discretion. Did he buy something from the store?
Being a dad is great and it's nice to help your children but also sometimes you need to let them fight their own battles and learns some lessons.
As he is an adult who not have him sign up to PH and articulate his issues and evidence directly?
For 10 mins they will probably drop it on appeal if he can evidence that he bought something from them. No legal basis, their discretion. Did he buy something from the store?
Being a dad is great and it's nice to help your children but also sometimes you need to let them fight their own battles and learns some lessons.
As he is an adult who not have him sign up to PH and articulate his issues and evidence directly?
If it's a Waitrose in Scotland, bin the ticket, as the courts up here don't recognise the process unless the company can prove financial loss has been incurred - and they can't do that so long as just one empty space was available during the period the "penalty" covers (in your case, 12 minutes).
rallen said:
I would like to ask, under what legal framework can Waitrose issue parking tickets? For example what happens if he does not pay it? Will Waitrose sue him? Will the case have to be dealt by a small claims court?
It's for breach of contract. The one on the signs near where he parked.Yes, they can sue him via the County Court if he doesn't pay and they want to.
rallen said:
Yes, my son has got another ticket from Waitrose this time, he exceeded the 2 hour stay by 10 minutes he claims.
The exact period of overstay is important. See below.*rallen said:
I would like to ask, under what legal framework can Waitrose issue parking tickets?
I very much doubt doubt it was Waitrose which issued the PCN (Parking Charge Notice). It will be a PPC. The legal framework is the law of contract.rallen said:
For example what happens if he does not pay it? Will Waitrose sue him? Will the case have to be dealt by a small claims court?
Ignoring is not a sensible option. The Beavis judgement has encouraged more PPCs to pursue these charges.There is no such thing as a small claims court. It will be allocated to the small claims track in a county court.
It should be the one nearest to where the debtor lives. If not, request it be transferred.
Rather than let it get to that stage, he needs to be pro-active. If he is a paying customer of Waitrose start with the store manager.
Don't bother with anyone lower down the food chain btw. He/she may be able to get the PCN cancelled.
* Find out which PPC and whether it is a member of the BPA. If so, see paragraph 13.4 on page 9 of the CoP.
. http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AO...
N.B. With Waitrose the PPC may well be Britannia Parking Ltd which is a BPA member - http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Approved-Operators
If it is Britannia in his case, this may be of interest - https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/300308/resp... - if the DVLA ban is still in force it has a problem.
Absent the RK details it will struggle to pursue a claim under PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 Section 4 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedul...
As a previous poster mentioned, Scotland is another country. No RK liability there (PoFA is E&W only).
The complainer must pursue the driver. No chance if it doesn't know who that is.
I know the Waitrose by us (and her mums!) is operated directly by Waitrose, not a 3rd party parking company.
If you are genuinely shopping in Waitrose they will cancel the ticket, the store manager will help, if not JL customer services do it.
My Mrs gets them frequently ish, does some shopping bumps into someone she knows nips over to the attached Costa and wham 2/3/4 hours is up.
If you are genuinely shopping in Waitrose they will cancel the ticket, the store manager will help, if not JL customer services do it.
My Mrs gets them frequently ish, does some shopping bumps into someone she knows nips over to the attached Costa and wham 2/3/4 hours is up.
I hope that, as this is a Waitrose parking ticket, it is spelled and punctuated with the utmost accuracy, printed on very posh card or paper, and that the penalty charge is at least £850.
OP, the legal basis for a parking charge in relation to a private car park such as a supermarket car park is that the person parking a car makes a contract with the entity providing the parking site. There is usually a sign notifying drivers the terms on which they can park, and by parking after seeing or being reasonably able to see the sign, the driver is taken to have agreed those terms. If the sign is not there, or could not reasonably be seen by the driver before he or she is committed to parking, no contract is made. The sign also has to set out the terms clearly.
Assuming that a contract is made, the charge could in theory be enforced by a court claim. Sometimes the entity that seeks to impose the charge sues. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it is possible to appeal via a non statutory route (this is optional, not mandatory for the motorist - he/she can if he wishes just wait to see if he/she gets sued). The Surpreme Court has recently considered the sort of charges that can be made for overstaying in a private parking site and has held that fairly substantial but not mega huge sums can lawfully be charged (for example, something like £85).
Waitrose might, as noted above, respond positively to a letter saying, in effect, "I spent tons of cash in the store, soz I was a bit over two hours, call it quits?", or it might not. If it has contracted out parking control to another company, that company might or might not take a tough line.
OP, the legal basis for a parking charge in relation to a private car park such as a supermarket car park is that the person parking a car makes a contract with the entity providing the parking site. There is usually a sign notifying drivers the terms on which they can park, and by parking after seeing or being reasonably able to see the sign, the driver is taken to have agreed those terms. If the sign is not there, or could not reasonably be seen by the driver before he or she is committed to parking, no contract is made. The sign also has to set out the terms clearly.
Assuming that a contract is made, the charge could in theory be enforced by a court claim. Sometimes the entity that seeks to impose the charge sues. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it is possible to appeal via a non statutory route (this is optional, not mandatory for the motorist - he/she can if he wishes just wait to see if he/she gets sued). The Surpreme Court has recently considered the sort of charges that can be made for overstaying in a private parking site and has held that fairly substantial but not mega huge sums can lawfully be charged (for example, something like £85).
Waitrose might, as noted above, respond positively to a letter saying, in effect, "I spent tons of cash in the store, soz I was a bit over two hours, call it quits?", or it might not. If it has contracted out parking control to another company, that company might or might not take a tough line.
grumpyscot said:
If it's a Waitrose in Scotland, bin the ticket, as the courts up here don't recognise the process unless the company can prove financial loss has been incurred - and they can't do that so long as just one empty space was available during the period the "penalty" covers (in your case, 12 minutes).
It remains to be seen whether a Scottish Court might adopt a different approach to the law as to penalty after Beavis. The Beavis case does not bind the Scottish Courts, but might be treated as persuasive by them if someone has a pop at developing the law north of the border. Or the Scottish Courts could decide that they prefer to maintain the current position, as there is no obligation for the two systems to develop their common law in the same way.The abssence of statutory keeper liability in Scotland doesn't seem especially germane to this thread, as the focus is on the dude who parked the car.
Fair enough BV, but given that PoFA doesn't apply in Scotland, how would the PPC be able to bring an action in the first place without having any knowledge of who was driving? As long as sufficient revenue continues to flow where is the incentive to spend far more than the likely return in pursuing a minority of cases?
Silly question but presumably if this happens, the first option would be to contact Waitrose and say "I was in your store for two hours and ten minutes spending £xyz and here's the receipt/bank statement"?
I'm asking because if it happened to me that would seem like a sensible thing to do.
I'm asking because if it happened to me that would seem like a sensible thing to do.
It takes me at least that long to compare all of the varieties of Balsamic vinegar at Waitrose, so the lad did well.
As for keepers and such, some people will fess up to being the driver (and indeed that's the honest thing to do, and not everyone is sneaky and anti social), and the parking company might perhaps have a pop on the basis that the driver might turn out to be the keeper. I don't know how the companies view these things - they might decide only to pursue slam dunkers, or they might try a more scattergun approach and hope that those who roll over will subsidise claims against others. I assume that the companies all have captive in house law firms or bargain basement block business deals with external firms, so the costs of pursuing someone are not initially all that high.
As for keepers and such, some people will fess up to being the driver (and indeed that's the honest thing to do, and not everyone is sneaky and anti social), and the parking company might perhaps have a pop on the basis that the driver might turn out to be the keeper. I don't know how the companies view these things - they might decide only to pursue slam dunkers, or they might try a more scattergun approach and hope that those who roll over will subsidise claims against others. I assume that the companies all have captive in house law firms or bargain basement block business deals with external firms, so the costs of pursuing someone are not initially all that high.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 4th January 19:24
I live in Wokingham where there is ample Waitrose parking and because of this everyone parks there to pootle into town for hours on end. In fact I know *a friend* who works locally and this car park is very convenient. About time he was caught!
Edited by Joe5y on Monday 4th January 21:21
When I had a Defender 110, I used to park at Waitrose in two spaces. Reason I did that was that Waitrose put bollards at the ends of the spaces in the centres, and you cannot get a 110 rear door open if you park in one space. Nose in, not a chance, the turning circle makes it an idiotic thing to do.
But I do know one of their managers, and he was told why too. But I never went at a busy time as I prefer a near empty store. Shopping is much quicker that way.
But I do know one of their managers, and he was told why too. But I never went at a busy time as I prefer a near empty store. Shopping is much quicker that way.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff