Sainsbury's unlawfully threatening to "fine" people?

[h***@yahoo.co.uk]

Well this is a step on from car park management companies issuing
unenforceable "parking charge notices" made to look like "penalty
charge notices".

Today when I went into a local Sainsbury's, they had a lot of leaflets
by the checkout threatening to "fine" people £50 if they park in
"parent and child spaces" when unaccompanied by a child under the age
of 12.

Their slogan is: "Fine if you qualify, £50 fine if you don't".

As I understand it, private companies have no authority to fine
people. And even when someone makes a contract with them and breaches
it, the courts would not uphold any "penalty" they might claim in
excess of actual losses. That's why parking companies never take
anyone to court for not paying the amounts claimed on "penalty charge
notices".

Sainsbury's, however, seems to take things further, because they are
now explicitly using the word "fine".

If they did try to "fine" someone, wouldn't they be committing an
offence under s40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970?

This states that:

"(1)A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing
another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under
a contract, he
[...]falsely represents himself to be authorised in some official
capacity to claim or enforce payment"

The car park is managed by Euro Car Parks, by the way.

Michael

[Mike Ross]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:43:48 -0700 (PDT), ***@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

<snip>

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
Today when I went into a local Sainsbury's, they had a lot of leaflets
by the checkout threatening to "fine" people £50 if they park in
"parent and child spaces" when unaccompanied by a child under the age
of 12.
Their slogan is: "Fine if you qualify, £50 fine if you don't".

I don't know if the law has changed in the UK; it might have done. Certainly in
NY USA it's a criminal matter to park in ANY marked disabled bay, on the street
or in a private car park; the police can and do ticket people for parking in
disabled bays in supermarket car parks. Dunno if the same applies to
parent/child spaces; I don't think it does here but it might in the UK?

Mike

http://www.corestore.org
'No greater love hath a man than he lay down his life for his brother.
Not for millions, not for glory, not for fame.
For one person, in the dark, where no one will ever know or see.'

[Steve O]

Post by Mike Ross
<snip>

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
Today when I went into a local Sainsbury's, they had a lot of leaflets
by the checkout threatening to "fine" people £50 if they park in
"parent and child spaces" when unaccompanied by a child under the age
of 12.
Their slogan is: "Fine if you qualify, £50 fine if you don't".

I don't know if the law has changed in the UK; it might have done. Certainly in
NY USA it's a criminal matter to park in ANY marked disabled bay, on the street
or in a private car park; the police can and do ticket people for parking in
disabled bays in supermarket car parks. Dunno if the same applies to
parent/child spaces; I don't think it does here but it might in the UK?

No, in in the UK the police don't have the authority to fine anyone for a
parking offence on private property.
(or Sainsbury's , for that matter)

[Brian Gaff]

They have been doing similar things where folk have been using their car
park as an overflow and cheap alternative to a nearby railway station car
park for some time now.

Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: ***@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Post by Steve O

Post by Mike Ross
<snip>

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
Today when I went into a local Sainsbury's, they had a lot of leaflets
by the checkout threatening to "fine" people £50 if they park in
"parent and child spaces" when unaccompanied by a child under the age
of 12.
Their slogan is: "Fine if you qualify, £50 fine if you don't".

I don't know if the law has changed in the UK; it might have done. Certainly in
NY USA it's a criminal matter to park in ANY marked disabled bay, on the street
or in a private car park; the police can and do ticket people for parking in
disabled bays in supermarket car parks. Dunno if the same applies to
parent/child spaces; I don't think it does here but it might in the UK?

No, in in the UK the police don't have the authority to fine anyone for a
parking offence on private property.
(or Sainsbury's , for that matter)

[h***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by Brian Gaff
They have been doing similar things where folk have been using their car
park as an overflow and cheap alternative to a nearby railway station car
park for some time now.
 Brian

They can buy a car's registered keeper's name and address from the
DVLA and send an invoice to that person, describing the wanted payment
as a "parking charge", but (presumably on legal advice) the car park
management companies have, as far as I was aware until yesterday,
always referred to "parking charges" rather than "penalty charges".
This is because they do not have the authority to impose a penalty.
Nor (again, as far as I am aware), have they ever said they are
imposing "fines" - although of course, this word is sometimes used
verbally by their employees and by the employees of companies they are
associated with.

No English court would enforce such a "penalty" payable to a company
for the civil matter of breach of contract, in excess of the company's
actual losses. The "extra charges" demanded by companies such as CP
Plus and Euro Car Parks are unenforceable and, unless anyone knows
differently, these companies are fully aware of this and have never
gone to court to enforce a SINGLE charge of this kind. Quite simply,
no-one has to pay such a charge.

Sainsbury's saying they have the authority to impose "fines" seems to
be a further step.

I strongly suspect that if they said to a specific person "we've
issued you with a fine which you must pay", they'd be committing a
crime under s40 of the Administration of Justice Act. What do other
people think?

However, a correspondent has pointed out that libraries impose "fines"
on members who do not return books on time, so I'd be interested to
hear some legal eagles discuss the issue here!

(Incidentally, I don't condone able-bodied people selfishly parking in
disabled slots, nor people who don't have children with them parking
in "adults with children" slots, but that's a different issue).

Regards,

Michael

[Brimstone]

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Brian Gaff
They have been doing similar things where folk have been using their car
park as an overflow and cheap alternative to a nearby railway station car
park for some time now.
Brian

They can buy a car's registered keeper's name and address from the
DVLA and send an invoice to that person, describing the wanted payment
as a "parking charge", but (presumably on legal advice) the car park
management companies have, as far as I was aware until yesterday,
always referred to "parking charges" rather than "penalty charges".
This is because they do not have the authority to impose a penalty.
Nor (again, as far as I am aware), have they ever said they are
imposing "fines" - although of course, this word is sometimes used
verbally by their employees and by the employees of companies they are
associated with.
No English court would enforce such a "penalty" payable to a company
for the civil matter of breach of contract, in excess of the company's
actual losses. The "extra charges" demanded by companies such as CP
Plus and Euro Car Parks are unenforceable and, unless anyone knows
differently, these companies are fully aware of this and have never
gone to court to enforce a SINGLE charge of this kind. Quite simply,
no-one has to pay such a charge.
Sainsbury's saying they have the authority to impose "fines" seems to
be a further step.
I strongly suspect that if they said to a specific person "we've
issued you with a fine which you must pay", they'd be committing a
crime under s40 of the Administration of Justice Act. What do other
people think?
However, a correspondent has pointed out that libraries impose "fines"
on members who do not return books on time, so I'd be interested to
hear some legal eagles discuss the issue here!
(Incidentally, I don't condone able-bodied people selfishly parking in
disabled slots, nor people who don't have children with them parking
in "adults with children" slots, but that's a different issue).

The notice designating disabled bays and warning against using them if one
doesn't qualify says that people so doing will be subject to a "fine".

[h***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by Brimstone

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Brian Gaff
They have been doing similar things where folk have been using their car
park as an overflow and cheap alternative to a nearby railway station car
park for some time now.
 Brian

They can buy a car's registered keeper's name and address from the
DVLA and send an invoice to that person, describing the wanted payment
as a "parking charge", but (presumably on legal advice) the car park
management companies have, as far as I was aware until yesterday,
always referred to "parking charges" rather than "penalty charges".
This is because they do not have the authority to impose a penalty.
Nor (again, as far as I am aware), have they ever said they are
imposing "fines" - although of course, this word is sometimes used
verbally by their employees and by the employees of companies they are
associated with.
No English court would enforce such a "penalty" payable to a company
for the civil matter of breach of contract, in excess of the company's
actual losses. The "extra charges" demanded by companies such as CP
Plus and Euro Car Parks are unenforceable and, unless anyone knows
differently, these companies are fully aware of this and have never
gone to court to enforce a SINGLE charge of this kind. Quite simply,
no-one has to pay such a charge.
Sainsbury'ssaying they have the authority to impose "fines" seems to
be a further step.
I strongly suspect that if they said to a specific person "we've
issued you with a fine which you must pay", they'd be committing a
crime under s40 of the Administration of Justice Act. What do other
people think?
However, a correspondent has pointed out that libraries impose "fines"
on members who do not return books on time, so I'd be interested to
hear some legal eagles discuss the issue here!
(Incidentally, I don't condone able-bodied people selfishly parking in
disabled slots, nor people who don't have children with them parking
in "adults with children" slots, but that's a different issue).

The notice designating disabled bays and warning against using them if one
doesn't qualify says that people so doing will be subject to a "fine".

Are you talking about private land?

The BBC seems to think, wrongly, that supermarkets have authority to
"fine" people:

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3485239.stm>

Does the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 contain something relevant
to all this?

Also, what about "adults with children" spaces?

Michael

[Brimstone]

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Brimstone

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Brian Gaff
They have been doing similar things where folk have been using their car
park as an overflow and cheap alternative to a nearby railway station car
park for some time now.
Brian

They can buy a car's registered keeper's name and address from the
DVLA and send an invoice to that person, describing the wanted payment
as a "parking charge", but (presumably on legal advice) the car park
management companies have, as far as I was aware until yesterday,
always referred to "parking charges" rather than "penalty charges".
This is because they do not have the authority to impose a penalty.
Nor (again, as far as I am aware), have they ever said they are
imposing "fines" - although of course, this word is sometimes used
verbally by their employees and by the employees of companies they are
associated with.
No English court would enforce such a "penalty" payable to a company
for the civil matter of breach of contract, in excess of the company's
actual losses. The "extra charges" demanded by companies such as CP
Plus and Euro Car Parks are unenforceable and, unless anyone knows
differently, these companies are fully aware of this and have never
gone to court to enforce a SINGLE charge of this kind. Quite simply,
no-one has to pay such a charge.
Sainsbury'ssaying they have the authority to impose "fines" seems to
be a further step.
I strongly suspect that if they said to a specific person "we've
issued you with a fine which you must pay", they'd be committing a
crime under s40 of the Administration of Justice Act. What do other
people think?
However, a correspondent has pointed out that libraries impose "fines"
on members who do not return books on time, so I'd be interested to
hear some legal eagles discuss the issue here!
(Incidentally, I don't condone able-bodied people selfishly parking in
disabled slots, nor people who don't have children with them parking
in "adults with children" slots, but that's a different issue).

The notice designating disabled bays and warning against using them if one
doesn't qualify says that people so doing will be subject to a "fine".

Are you talking about private land?

Yes, as in a retail park car par,

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
The BBC seems to think, wrongly, that supermarkets have authority to
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3485239.stm>
Does the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 contain something relevant
to all this?
Also, what about "adults with children" spaces?

The latter are in the "gift" of the car park provider. I don't think there's
any legislation about them.

[S]

Post by Brimstone

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Brimstone

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Brian Gaff
They have been doing similar things where folk have been using their car
park as an overflow and cheap alternative to a nearby railway station car
park for some time now.
 Brian

They can buy a car's registered keeper's name and address from the
DVLA and send an invoice to that person, describing the wanted payment
as a "parking charge", but (presumably on legal advice) the car park
management companies have, as far as I was aware until yesterday,
always referred to "parking charges" rather than "penalty charges".
This is because they do not have the authority to impose a penalty.
Nor (again, as far as I am aware), have they ever said they are
imposing "fines" - although of course, this word is sometimes used
verbally by their employees and by the employees of companies they are
associated with.
No English court would enforce such a "penalty" payable to a company
for the civil matter of breach of contract, in excess of the company's
actual losses. The "extra charges" demanded by companies such as CP
Plus and Euro Car Parks are unenforceable and, unless anyone knows
differently, these companies are fully aware of this and have never
gone to court to enforce a SINGLE charge of this kind. Quite simply,
no-one has to pay such a charge.
Sainsbury'ssaying they have the authority to impose "fines" seems to
be a further step.
I strongly suspect that if they said to a specific person "we've
issued you with a fine which you must pay", they'd be committing a
crime under s40 of the Administration of Justice Act. What do other
people think?
However, a correspondent has pointed out that libraries impose "fines"
on members who do not return books on time, so I'd be interested to
hear some legal eagles discuss the issue here!
(Incidentally, I don't condone able-bodied people selfishly parking in
disabled slots, nor people who don't have children with them parking
in "adults with children" slots, but that's a different issue).

The notice designating disabled bays and warning against using them if one
doesn't qualify says that people so doing will be subject to a "fine".

Are you talking about private land?

Yes, as in a retail park car par,

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
The BBC seems to think, wrongly, that supermarkets have authority to
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3485239.stm>

What about the British Board of Control and similar sporting bodies or
professional organisations which conduct disciplinary hearings?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/boxing/9027165.stm says that Hatton
was fined £20,000.

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the

Post by S
What about the British Board of Control and similar sporting bodies or
professional organisations which conduct disciplinary hearings?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/boxing/9027165.stm says that Hatton
was fined £20,000.

I suppose Hatton could tell them to fuck off, but at some detriment to
his future employment/earnings.

[Steve O]

Post by S

Post by Brimstone

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Brimstone

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Brian Gaff
They have been doing similar things where folk have been using
their
car
park as an overflow and cheap alternative to a nearby railway
station
car
park for some time now.
Brian

They can buy a car's registered keeper's name and address from the
DVLA and send an invoice to that person, describing the wanted payment
as a "parking charge", but (presumably on legal advice) the car park
management companies have, as far as I was aware until yesterday,
always referred to "parking charges" rather than "penalty charges".
This is because they do not have the authority to impose a penalty.
Nor (again, as far as I am aware), have they ever said they are
imposing "fines" - although of course, this word is sometimes used
verbally by their employees and by the employees of companies they are
associated with.
No English court would enforce such a "penalty" payable to a company
for the civil matter of breach of contract, in excess of the company's
actual losses. The "extra charges" demanded by companies such as CP
Plus and Euro Car Parks are unenforceable and, unless anyone knows
differently, these companies are fully aware of this and have never
gone to court to enforce a SINGLE charge of this kind. Quite simply,
no-one has to pay such a charge.
Sainsbury'ssaying they have the authority to impose "fines" seems to
be a further step.
I strongly suspect that if they said to a specific person "we've
issued you with a fine which you must pay", they'd be committing a
crime under s40 of the Administration of Justice Act. What do other
people think?
However, a correspondent has pointed out that libraries impose "fines"
on members who do not return books on time, so I'd be interested to
hear some legal eagles discuss the issue here!
(Incidentally, I don't condone able-bodied people selfishly parking in
disabled slots, nor people who don't have children with them parking
in "adults with children" slots, but that's a different issue).

The notice designating disabled bays and warning against using them if one
doesn't qualify says that people so doing will be subject to a "fine".

Are you talking about private land?

Yes, as in a retail park car par,

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
The BBC seems to think, wrongly, that supermarkets have authority to
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3485239.stm>

What about the British Board of Control and similar sporting bodies or
professional organisations which conduct disciplinary hearings?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/boxing/9027165.stm says that Hatton
was fined £20,000.

Which he is under no obligation to pay

[Alex Heney]

<snip>

Post by Steve O

Post by S

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
The BBC seems to think, wrongly, that supermarkets have authority to
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3485239.stm>

What about the British Board of Control and similar sporting bodies or
professional organisations which conduct disciplinary hearings?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/boxing/9027165.stm says that Hatton
was fined £20,000.

Which he is under no obligation to pay

Unless, of course, he wants to continue with his career.

[Alex Heney]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 02:02:36 -0700 (PDT), ***@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:

<snip>

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
The BBC seems to think, wrongly, that supermarkets have authority to
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3485239.stm>

First, there is nothing in that article to support your suggestion
that the BBC think any such thing.

Second, if the BBC did think that, why do you believe it might be
"wrongly"?

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
Does the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 contain something relevant
to all this?

Yes.

All public facing businesses MUST take reasonable steps to ensure
facilities are adequate for disabled users.

[Brian Gaff]

Libraries are run by local authorities, many of whom employ parking
enforcement companies to fine motorists parking not according to signs they
put up. Are you suggesting these are illegal? I am aware of several local
authorities having to pay back fines due to poor signage and even no
signage or road markings, but it seems to be enforceable even though its a
private company. On one council estate it clearly names a clamping firm as
enforcing the regulations and the council has issued passes to those allowed
to park there.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - ***@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!

Post by Brian Gaff
They have been doing similar things where folk have been using their car
park as an overflow and cheap alternative to a nearby railway station car
park for some time now.
Brian

They can buy a car's registered keeper's name and address from the
DVLA and send an invoice to that person, describing the wanted payment
as a "parking charge", but (presumably on legal advice) the car park
management companies have, as far as I was aware until yesterday,
always referred to "parking charges" rather than "penalty charges".
This is because they do not have the authority to impose a penalty.
Nor (again, as far as I am aware), have they ever said they are
imposing "fines" - although of course, this word is sometimes used
verbally by their employees and by the employees of companies they are
associated with.

No English court would enforce such a "penalty" payable to a company
for the civil matter of breach of contract, in excess of the company's
actual losses. The "extra charges" demanded by companies such as CP
Plus and Euro Car Parks are unenforceable and, unless anyone knows
differently, these companies are fully aware of this and have never
gone to court to enforce a SINGLE charge of this kind. Quite simply,
no-one has to pay such a charge.

Sainsbury's saying they have the authority to impose "fines" seems to
be a further step.

I strongly suspect that if they said to a specific person "we've
issued you with a fine which you must pay", they'd be committing a
crime under s40 of the Administration of Justice Act. What do other
people think?

However, a correspondent has pointed out that libraries impose "fines"
on members who do not return books on time, so I'd be interested to
hear some legal eagles discuss the issue here!

(Incidentally, I don't condone able-bodied people selfishly parking in
disabled slots, nor people who don't have children with them parking
in "adults with children" slots, but that's a different issue).

Regards,

Michael

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
(Incidentally, I don't condone able-bodied people selfishly parking in
disabled slots, nor people who don't have children with them parking
in "adults with children" slots, but that's a different issue).

Let the little bastards walk - do them some good.

[Mark]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 18:04:55 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon

Post by Grimly Curmudgeon
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
(Incidentally, I don't condone able-bodied people selfishly parking in
disabled slots, nor people who don't have children with them parking
in "adults with children" slots, but that's a different issue).

Let the little bastards walk - do them some good.

What about those who can't?

[Clint Sharp]

Post by Grimly Curmudgeon
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
(Incidentally, I don't condone able-bodied people selfishly parking in
disabled slots, nor people who don't have children with them parking
in "adults with children" slots, but that's a different issue).

Let the little bastards walk - do them some good.

T'isn't about making them walk, it's about ease of access, far easier to
fit the little monsters into their legally required car seats with a
wide parking space.

[Dr Zoidberg]

Post by Clint Sharp

Post by Grimly Curmudgeon
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
(Incidentally, I don't condone able-bodied people selfishly parking in
disabled slots, nor people who don't have children with them parking
in "adults with children" slots, but that's a different issue).

Let the little bastards walk - do them some good.

T'isn't about making them walk, it's about ease of access, far easier to
fit the little monsters into their legally required car seats with a wide
parking space.

True, but there's no reason why they need to be located close to the shops,
unlike the disabled spaces.
In fact, putting them at the far end would discourage the lazy from using
them.

[Chris Whelan]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 19:59:49 +0100, Dr Zoidberg wrote:

[...]

Post by Dr Zoidberg
True, but there's no reason why they need to be located close to the
shops, unlike the disabled spaces.

Apart from the fact that it is significantly safer to not have small
children walking from one end of the car park to the other.

Chris

[Clint Sharp]

Post by Dr Zoidberg

Post by Clint Sharp
T'isn't about making them walk, it's about ease of access, far easier
to fit the little monsters into their legally required car seats with
a wide parking space.

True, but there's no reason why they need to be located close to the
shops, unlike the disabled spaces.
In fact, putting them at the far end would discourage the lazy from
using them.

I agree completely, as long as there's a safe walkway to the shop
entrance, most supermarket carparks are like playing dodgems, with kids
in tow it can be quite scary.

[Alex Heney]

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Brian Gaff
They have been doing similar things where folk have been using their car
park as an overflow and cheap alternative to a nearby railway station car
park for some time now.
 Brian

They can buy a car's registered keeper's name and address from the
DVLA and send an invoice to that person, describing the wanted payment
as a "parking charge", but (presumably on legal advice) the car park
management companies have, as far as I was aware until yesterday,
always referred to "parking charges" rather than "penalty charges".
This is because they do not have the authority to impose a penalty.
Nor (again, as far as I am aware), have they ever said they are
imposing "fines" - although of course, this word is sometimes used
verbally by their employees and by the employees of companies they are
associated with.
No English court would enforce such a "penalty" payable to a company
for the civil matter of breach of contract, in excess of the company's
actual losses.

Why do you believe that?

It might be overturned on appeal, but lower courts might well do so,
and not everybody will appeal.

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
The "extra charges" demanded by companies such as CP
Plus and Euro Car Parks are unenforceable and, unless anyone knows
differently, these companies are fully aware of this and have never
gone to court to enforce a SINGLE charge of this kind. Quite simply,
no-one has to pay such a charge.
Sainsbury's saying they have the authority to impose "fines" seems to
be a further step.

Where have they said anything about "authority"?

Although they do have such authority - but with the only real sanction
available to them being to ban you from their land.

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
I strongly suspect that if they said to a specific person "we've
issued you with a fine which you must pay", they'd be committing a
crime under s40 of the Administration of Justice Act. What do other
people think?

I think you are probably wrong.

Unless they are threatening criminal proceedings, or are making
demands of somebody frequent enough to class as harassment, I can't
see what other part of that they might be breaching.

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
However, a correspondent has pointed out that libraries impose "fines"
on members who do not return books on time, so I'd be interested to
hear some legal eagles discuss the issue here!

I think you are getting too hung up on the semantics - as do many who
post on this subject here.

For something to class as a "fine" in law, then it can only be imposed
by certain authorities.

But for it to class as a "fine" in normal English usage, it can be
imposed by anybody who for whatever reason, has some authority over
you in certain circumstances.

Such as the library, or a supermarket when you use their facilities,
or your employer (in some circumstances).

[Fredxx]

Post by Steve O

wrote: <snip>

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
Today when I went into a local Sainsbury's, they had a lot of
leaflets by the checkout threatening to "fine" people £50 if they
park in "parent and child spaces" when unaccompanied by a child
under the age of 12.
Their slogan is: "Fine if you qualify, £50 fine if you don't".

I don't know if the law has changed in the UK; it might have done. Certainly in
NY USA it's a criminal matter to park in ANY marked disabled bay, on the street
or in a private car park; the police can and do ticket people for parking in
disabled bays in supermarket car parks. Dunno if the same applies to
parent/child spaces; I don't think it does here but it might in the UK?

No, in in the UK the police don't have the authority to fine anyone
for a parking offence on private property.
(or Sainsbury's , for that matter)

The police are empowered to provide due care and attention NIPs to cars from
drivers behaviour on private land. I would guess it could include parking
in designated parking bays, after all they are often put there at the
insistance of the local council.

[Mark]

Post by Fredxx

Post by Steve O

wrote: <snip>

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
Today when I went into a local Sainsbury's, they had a lot of
leaflets by the checkout threatening to "fine" people £50 if they
park in "parent and child spaces" when unaccompanied by a child
under the age of 12.
Their slogan is: "Fine if you qualify, £50 fine if you don't".

I don't know if the law has changed in the UK; it might have done. Certainly in
NY USA it's a criminal matter to park in ANY marked disabled bay, on the street
or in a private car park; the police can and do ticket people for parking in
disabled bays in supermarket car parks. Dunno if the same applies to
parent/child spaces; I don't think it does here but it might in the UK?

No, in in the UK the police don't have the authority to fine anyone
for a parking offence on private property.
(or Sainsbury's , for that matter)

The police are empowered to provide due care and attention NIPs to cars from
drivers behaviour on private land. I would guess it could include parking
in designated parking bays, after all they are often put there at the
insistance of the local council.

Parking on private land is a civil matter and therefore the Police
would not be interested.

Going back to the other points. The Supermarket may introduce a
"charge" for the "service" of you parking in the wrong space. However
they are not permitted to charge you more than the actual amount they
lose if you are breach of contract.

I really don't know how the highway robbers (aka clampers) get away
with charging extortionate amounts of money for releasing your car or
towing it away.

At least the current govt. is proposing to outlaw the practice.

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Mark
Going back to the other points. The Supermarket may introduce a
"charge" for the "service" of you parking in the wrong space. However
they are not permitted to charge you more than the actual amount they
lose if you are breach of contract.

That's not entirely true; contracts may include penalty clauses relating to
breach of contract which can exceed the loss incurred by the breach. But
such penalties do have to be reasonable in relation to the contract.

On a more general note, the courts have ruled in favour of private
landowners imposing reasonable penalty charges for unauthorised parking, so
there's little doubt that they are enforceable under the right
circumstances. The sticking point is that they are only enforceable against
the actual driver, not the registered keeper, and the registered keeper is
under no obligation to inform the landowner of the driver's identity. So,
in practice, such penalties, although enforceable, are usually evadable
with little effort.

Going back to the original point, a £50 penalty for parking in the wrong
space at a supermarket would be enforceable against the driver, but it's
incorrect to describe it as a fine. I suspect that the marketing department
has come up with a slogan which has a nice ring to it, using a play on the
double meaning of "fine", but didn't think to clear it with the legal
department first.

Mark

[Mark]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 20:19:55 +0100, Mark Goodge

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Mark
Going back to the other points. The Supermarket may introduce a
"charge" for the "service" of you parking in the wrong space. However
they are not permitted to charge you more than the actual amount they
lose if you are breach of contract.

Interesting. I wonder how a charge in excess of the actual loss could
be considered reasonable though?

Post by Mark Goodge
That's not entirely true; contracts may include penalty clauses relating to
breach of contract which can exceed the loss incurred by the breach. But
such penalties do have to be reasonable in relation to the contract.
On a more general note, the courts have ruled in favour of private
landowners imposing reasonable penalty charges for unauthorised parking, so
there's little doubt that they are enforceable under the right
circumstances. The sticking point is that they are only enforceable against
the actual driver, not the registered keeper, and the registered keeper is
under no obligation to inform the landowner of the driver's identity. So,
in practice, such penalties, although enforceable, are usually evadable
with little effort.

Unless the vehicle is clamped or towed away.

I wonder what happens in the case that the vehicle is towed away. They
would not be able to inform the driver unless someone waits around at
the location where the vehicle was formerly parked. Otherwise they
would presumablty attempt to contact the registered keeper and they
could say it was not them driving.

[fred]

Post by Fredxx

Post by Steve O
No, in in the UK the police don't have the authority to fine anyone
for a parking offence on private property.
(or Sainsbury's , for that matter)

The police are empowered to provide due care and attention NIPs to cars from
drivers behaviour on private land. I would guess it could include parking
in designated parking bays, after all they are often put there at the
insistance of the local council.

You guess wrong.

[Steve O]

Post by Fredxx

Post by Steve O

wrote: <snip>
I don't know if the law has changed in the UK; it might have done. Certainly in
NY USA it's a criminal matter to park in ANY marked disabled bay, on the street
or in a private car park; the police can and do ticket people for parking in
disabled bays in supermarket car parks. Dunno if the same applies to
parent/child spaces; I don't think it does here but it might in the UK?

No, in in the UK the police don't have the authority to fine anyone
for a parking offence on private property.
(or Sainsbury's , for that matter)

The police are empowered to provide due care and attention NIPs to cars
from drivers behaviour on private land.

We were discussing parking offences- not off-road misuse of vehicles driven
on privately owned land without the landowners permission

Post by Fredxx
I would guess it could include parking in designated parking bays, after
all they are often put there at the insistance of the local council.

We are talking about private supermarket parking bays- they are not run or
owned by the council by the council.

[Peter Hill]

Post by Fredxx

Post by Steve O

wrote: <snip>

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
Today when I went into a local Sainsbury's, they had a lot of
leaflets by the checkout threatening to "fine" people £50 if they
park in "parent and child spaces" when unaccompanied by a child
under the age of 12.
Their slogan is: "Fine if you qualify, £50 fine if you don't".

I don't know if the law has changed in the UK; it might have done. Certainly in
NY USA it's a criminal matter to park in ANY marked disabled bay, on the street
or in a private car park; the police can and do ticket people for parking in
disabled bays in supermarket car parks. Dunno if the same applies to
parent/child spaces; I don't think it does here but it might in the UK?

No, in in the UK the police don't have the authority to fine anyone
for a parking offence on private property.
(or Sainsbury's , for that matter)

The police are empowered to provide due care and attention NIPs to cars from
drivers behaviour on private land. I would guess it could include parking
in designated parking bays, after all they are often put there at the
insistance of the local council.

The British police don't do the beat anymore. As they see it as a
traffic wardens job they have never really enforced overstays or non
payment on council car parking or pay and display on street parking.
Round here they don't even bother about parking on double yellow no
parking lines, just wait in line until the oncoming lane is clear to
allow them past the offender, usually a private hire vehicle - they
need all of them to clear the town at ASAP NSL+50% every Fri and Sat
night.

The local councils are obtain powers of "Civil Parking Enforcement".
https://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/tmaportal/tmafeatures/tmapart6/secparkingfactsheets/parkingenforcepwers

And there are fewer that have traffic wardens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_warden

[john]

don't see why people with brats should get all the concessions...

[Mark Goodge]

Post by john
don't see why people with brats should get all the concessions...

Because, on average, they spend more in supermarkets than people without
children. So the supermarkets give them reserved spaces in order to attract
their custom.

You were not, I hope, foolish enough to think that there is any altruistic
motive behind the provision of parent and child parking spaces. You are
perfectly at liberty to take your custom to a supermarket which values it
more highly than it does theirs, if you so want.

Mark

[johnmids2006]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by john
don't see why people with brats should get all the concessions...

Because, on average, they spend more in supermarkets than people without
children. So the supermarkets give them reserved spaces in order to attract
their custom.
You were not, I hope, foolish enough to think that there is any altruistic
motive behind the provision of parent and child parking spaces. You are
perfectly at liberty to take your custom to a supermarket which values it
more highly than it does theirs, if you so want.
Mark
--
Blog:http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff:http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

Many of the young women that get out of their cars in a Sainsbury's
car park near here need the wide spaces whether or not they have their
children with them.

[Frederick Williams]

Post by johnmids2006
Many of the young women that get out of their cars in a Sainsbury's
car park near here need the wide spaces whether or not they have their
children with them.

I think that by providing wide spaces for some drivers, Sainbury's (and
others) are admitting that their regular spaces are not wide enough.
They are also being discriminatory which, depending on whom one is
discriminating against, may be a crime more serious than murder.

[Janitor of Lunacy]

Post by Frederick Williams

Post by johnmids2006
Many of the young women that get out of their cars in a Sainsbury's
car park near here need the wide spaces whether or not they have
their children with them.

I think that by providing wide spaces for some drivers, Sainbury's
(and others) are admitting that their regular spaces are not wide
enough. They are also being discriminatory which, depending on whom
one is discriminating against, may be a crime more serious than
murder.

LOL

You seem to be suggesting that these women may be wider than others, in
which case, er, don't they buy more food? Sounds like a reasonable business
model to me to discriminate in their favour.