I drive a van, and in a virtually empty car park in front of b&q I parked, a little carelessly maybe, but outside their denoted painted lines, I regularly need more space to load my van than their bays allow so didn't think it a problem as I returned to my vehicle with a bunch of product including some 8x4 plaster board to find a £60 parking ticket on my windscreen.
So, I re-enter the store to enquire, I am informed that the store does not own the car park, it's UKPC. However, I am advised by a b&q employee that if I pay the ticket and return with the proof of payment and the receipt that evidences I was making a purchase that b&q would reimburse me as a business customer. A nice gesture I thought. A fact reinforced by the fact that the offer made in the store I was then telephoned about independently about an hour later reiterating the paperwork I would require.
Erm... NO... upon my return to the store with the correct paperwork and £61.50 paid a 'manager' informs me that their employee had no right to make such an offer and that as such he could do nothing for me..!!!
I leave it to you all as to how I consider these two issues, but if you use the store at Bell Green be warned !!!!
B&Q
Re: B&Q
Hmm. Just my thoughts: Biggest problem is that you paid the charge to the "other" independent company contracted to monitor parking, since in law your paying the other party to a contract is equal to accepting the charge as valid, so I doubt you can do anything to recover it from them.
You could try begging and pleading and stamping your foot in B&Q since they misled you, but I wouldn't hold my breath as it was a goodwill offer since they didn't make the charge. (the parking co. did). Unfortunately, a solicitor would cost more than the fine to try to prove that a later verbal contract was made by B&Q with you especially as there was no consideration (payment or goods) passing from you to them for the reimbursement.
I'd stamp my foot in a letter, preferably with a copy of your till receipt for goods purchased attached, and insist that their employee who advised you that they'd reimburse you was acting as B&Q's agent when they advised you to pay the third party removing any option you had of disputing the charge and on which advice you relied in good faith, therefore B&Q cannot then disown their agent's action and should hold good the promise made to you by B&Q.
On the upside, since you paid the charge you won't be landed with bailiff collection letters and charges at £200-300 a go as well.. A valid reason for dispute for those contracts that can work is there not being a prominent sign saying adequately what was fine-able, but too late once you've paid.
As I say, this is just how I'd consider the two issues.
You could try begging and pleading and stamping your foot in B&Q since they misled you, but I wouldn't hold my breath as it was a goodwill offer since they didn't make the charge. (the parking co. did). Unfortunately, a solicitor would cost more than the fine to try to prove that a later verbal contract was made by B&Q with you especially as there was no consideration (payment or goods) passing from you to them for the reimbursement.
I'd stamp my foot in a letter, preferably with a copy of your till receipt for goods purchased attached, and insist that their employee who advised you that they'd reimburse you was acting as B&Q's agent when they advised you to pay the third party removing any option you had of disputing the charge and on which advice you relied in good faith, therefore B&Q cannot then disown their agent's action and should hold good the promise made to you by B&Q.
On the upside, since you paid the charge you won't be landed with bailiff collection letters and charges at £200-300 a go as well.. A valid reason for dispute for those contracts that can work is there not being a prominent sign saying adequately what was fine-able, but too late once you've paid.
As I say, this is just how I'd consider the two issues.
Re: B&Q
Simon are you saying the B&Q employee advised you to pay and that te store would reimburse you? If so, and if that's what you did, then I believe B&Q have to honour that promise. Retailers are responsible for statements made by their employees.
B&Q can't rely on wriggling out of their responsibilities because they used an agent to manage their car parking.
Te Consumer Rights Act 2015 is I believe clear on those points. My only proviso is that as you're a business, you may have to rely on a different Act.
Are there parking info signs in the B&Q car park? I've never seen any and they have to be prominently displayed. Am i allowed to park there and go to another shop in the retail park? I sometimes go to B&Q in a vain attempt to find something I'd possibly want to buy in their plant centre. When I inevitably find nothing I want, I leave the car there and toddle over to Sainsburys. If I am allowed to do that, then it's a shared car park probably owned by the retail park company (whoever they are?) If I'm not allowed to do that, then it's completely B&Q's responsibility to sort, as it's their car park, the management of which they have contracted out. I believe B&Q are responsible for the actions of its sub-contractors as well as the commitments made by their employees.
On a side note: I wonder if they're tightening up in anticipation of the fact that the proposed Aldi hasn't enough parking spaces?
B&Q can't rely on wriggling out of their responsibilities because they used an agent to manage their car parking.
Te Consumer Rights Act 2015 is I believe clear on those points. My only proviso is that as you're a business, you may have to rely on a different Act.
Are there parking info signs in the B&Q car park? I've never seen any and they have to be prominently displayed. Am i allowed to park there and go to another shop in the retail park? I sometimes go to B&Q in a vain attempt to find something I'd possibly want to buy in their plant centre. When I inevitably find nothing I want, I leave the car there and toddle over to Sainsburys. If I am allowed to do that, then it's a shared car park probably owned by the retail park company (whoever they are?) If I'm not allowed to do that, then it's completely B&Q's responsibility to sort, as it's their car park, the management of which they have contracted out. I believe B&Q are responsible for the actions of its sub-contractors as well as the commitments made by their employees.
On a side note: I wonder if they're tightening up in anticipation of the fact that the proposed Aldi hasn't enough parking spaces?
Re: B&Q
And people wonder why I shop online.
There is always someone somewhere trying to get money out of you, or lie to you because their jobs are garbage and they like the power.
I can get items delivered next day for £6.95 usually by a smiling delivery person. It's really a simple choice and I am not responsible for killing the high street, greed killed the high street
There is always someone somewhere trying to get money out of you, or lie to you because their jobs are garbage and they like the power.
I can get items delivered next day for £6.95 usually by a smiling delivery person. It's really a simple choice and I am not responsible for killing the high street, greed killed the high street
Re: B&Q
I received a ticket for parking in a disabled bay. I am registered disabled. I have written in to "appeal" the ticket. Also making a formal complaint about the nature of the imposition of the ticket. I shall update you when I get a response.
UKPC have no lawful authority to issue tickets. You should refuse to pay. Cite a decision in the House of Lords in a case against Mitchells and Butlers Brewery. It was ruled that anyone has a right to park on any land they can access. To prevent parking the owner must make it impossible to access the land. The owners of the land are also responsible for any damage to your vehicle.
UKPC do not own the land. The land belongs to the landlord of all those businesses. UKPC effectively operates on their behalf since the car park forms a part of their tenancies.
I suggest a boycott of all the stores that operate there. I refuse to shop with any of them anywhere. I have written to the Head Office of each to say so.
UKPC have no lawful authority to issue tickets. You should refuse to pay. Cite a decision in the House of Lords in a case against Mitchells and Butlers Brewery. It was ruled that anyone has a right to park on any land they can access. To prevent parking the owner must make it impossible to access the land. The owners of the land are also responsible for any damage to your vehicle.
UKPC do not own the land. The land belongs to the landlord of all those businesses. UKPC effectively operates on their behalf since the car park forms a part of their tenancies.
I suggest a boycott of all the stores that operate there. I refuse to shop with any of them anywhere. I have written to the Head Office of each to say so.
Re: B&Q
I have to admit it's really annoying when people don't park in between lines. And it happens a lot. It's really not difficult. If you follow the rules, you won't get a ticket. just because someone else does it, or the car park was empty doesn't mean that it's ok to break the rules.
Re: B&Q
If parked correctly they fit in most carparks marked out in the last 10 years. Vans fit. Suv's fit.
Today's cars (in Europe) pollute a lot less than they did, even compared to a 1970s mini. They don't make Hummers any more.
Today's cars (in Europe) pollute a lot less than they did, even compared to a 1970s mini. They don't make Hummers any more.
Re: B&Q
A big Long wheel base van would struggle to stay in the marked bays. if the driver looks like they have attempted to stay within the bay then fair enough...what else can they do?
but selfish lazy parking should not be allowed. i see it all the time at the Tesco express on Perry hill where there is limited parking but people are in such a rush they don't care and take 2 spaces....
The OP has admitted to being careless but I think his gripe is the way B&Q dealt with it.
but selfish lazy parking should not be allowed. i see it all the time at the Tesco express on Perry hill where there is limited parking but people are in such a rush they don't care and take 2 spaces....
The OP has admitted to being careless but I think his gripe is the way B&Q dealt with it.
Re: B&Q
What's the citation for that judgement? I can't seem to find a copy of it.John H wrote: UKPC have no lawful authority to issue tickets. You should refuse to pay. Cite a decision in the House of Lords in a case against Mitchells and Butlers Brewery. It was ruled that anyone has a right to park on any land they can access. To prevent parking the owner must make it impossible to access the land. The owners of the land are also responsible for any damage to your vehicle.
As far as I am aware private parking firms are perfectly entitled to issue "tickets" (they are actually invoices) for parking on their land. They are different from parking fines that are issued by local authorities - those have a statutory regime governing them. But they are nevertheless lawful.
That's irrelevant. A landlord or tenant may employ an agent to administer their affairs.John H wrote: UKPC do not own the land. The land belongs to the landlord of all those businesses. UKPC effectively operates on their behalf since the car park forms a part of their tenancies.
Re: B&Q
Actually, there's very little stopp No someone parking on your drive. It's a civil matter so the police can't get involved and you can't clamp them or block them in due to s.54 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The only real recourse I can think of is through the Small Claims Court for any losses incurred.Ghlpc wrote:?
are you saying, according to the outcome of the case you cited, someone can park on my drive if it is accessible?
you didn't say if you had a disabled badge displayed or not?
Re: B&Q
It's a fact that cars pollute less now than they did years ago.rod taylor wrote:Try opening the doors of a Renault Clio when you're parked next to one.leenewham wrote:If parked correctly they fit in most carparks marked out in the last 10 years. Vans fit. Suv's fit.
Well that's alright then! I'll be sure to mention that to the planet.leenewham wrote:Today's cars (in Europe) pollute a lot less than they did, even compared to a 1970s mini.
Can they pollute less? Yes of course. But the size of the car isn't just the issue. Diesel pollutes more than most hybrids, buying a new car has a huge carbon footprint, electric cars obviously pollute less as long as the source of the electricity is clean.
Merely stating its the size of car that's the issue is wrong. It's complicated. That's my point. Changing a new SUV for a 70s mini is a backward step if you want to pollute less.
I've got a Toyota Pius. My doors open just fine next to most cars in parking spaces if they are parked properly.
Re: B&Q
I was successful in getting the cowboy parking firm to withdraw the ticket.
For the rather rude person who asked... The Mitchells and Butlers' case was many years ago. I made the points contained in my first post to them... and more.
For the rather rude person who asked... The Mitchells and Butlers' case was many years ago. I made the points contained in my first post to them... and more.
Re: B&Q
John H, would I be right in thinking that you objected before paying the ticket? It's said that a lot of people pay them as the parking companies put the frighteners on about bailiff costs. It's good to know such charges can still be challenged successfully.
Could you tell us why the "ticket" (invoice) was purportedly issued in the first place as you appear to have done nothing wrong if disabled in a disabled bay and presumably have a badge? Aside from the legal things, what were you supposed to have done wrongly in their perception? Ta.
Could you tell us why the "ticket" (invoice) was purportedly issued in the first place as you appear to have done nothing wrong if disabled in a disabled bay and presumably have a badge? Aside from the legal things, what were you supposed to have done wrongly in their perception? Ta.
Re: B&Q
Yes, but Intentional.rod taylor wrote:Freudian slip.leenewham wrote:I've got a Toyota Pius.
Re: B&Q
I don't quite see where I was rude requesting the name of the case because I couldn't find the citation googling "Mitchell and butlers" and "parking". I wanted to read the full facts of the judgement.John H wrote:I was successful in getting the cowboy parking firm to withdraw the ticket.
For the rather rude person who asked... The Mitchells and Butlers' case was many years ago. I made the points contained in my first post to them... and more.
Just because a company withdrew their "ticket" it doesn't necessarily mean that they were wrong in law to demand payment. They could have withdrawn their demand for any number of reasons.