Tesco speed camera? lol

[paxo89]

Last night i came into tesco in amersham, and as you go in you go round a roundabout, i must have literally been doing 15mph, and as i came in a saw somethin flashing, thought nothing of it at the time, on the way out i had a look at whatever it was that was flashing and saw it was a big sign with 10mph written on it and a little camera on top?
Now this is all on tesco's land so i'm assuming they have no authority to try and fine me/get police involved etc?

[sug7]

tesco value speed tickets ;) wonder if you get clubcard points 2? haha

[Viper]

the camera on top will be the thing that works out your speed.

and in no way can they fine you.

[Yellow_Saxo_Paul]

The camera's at Tescos look at the reg plates. For when you go in and out.

Calculates how long you have been in the car park for.

Hence the 2 or 3 hour max parking period signs they have

:)

[adjy90]

the flashing will be taking picture to timestamp your arrival

[sug7]

yeah they have that system round here alot... even for the halfords carparks and there only small... pain in the arse cos i know i cant go over where as before used to be able to leave it there all day ;)

[Jordysport]

never seen or heard of them, have none around our way in tesco's or halfords or any carpark.

[RobVT]

ahhh i noticed them today aswell first time ive seen them there wonder what they where :S

[sug7]

well the tesco's near us has 3 on the way in and two on the way out...

the normal 2 on way in n out are check ure car at different points for the licence plate, and the third one one the way in i was told is linked with the dvla for vehicle checks...

[Yellow_Saxo_Paul]

Interesting...

Supermarkets including Sainsbury, Waitrose, Tesco, Asda and Lidl are using private vehicle information to charge motorists up to £150 for staying too long in car parks. The retail giants are employing security companies to photograph motorists’ numberplates and send bills to their homes. Threats of legal proceedings follow if they don’t pay.

Many motorists believe data such as their home address is confidentially held by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), but in fact it is being sold to security companies for £2.50 per address. Bills are sent to motorists who exceed car park time limits of typically one or two hours. The charges can be two or three times higher than fines handed out by local authority traffic wardens.

The practice has become widespread because supermarkets perceive clamping as “customer unfriendly”. Critics say the move breaches privacy codes. It is increasing in spite of a government review of the DVLA’s practice of selling motorists’ records to commercial organisations. The review was provoked by a Sunday Times exposé last August of the sale of data.

In the year to April 2006 the DVLA granted 1.1m requests for drivers’ details from private companies, charging what it describes as a £2.50 “administration fee” per inquiry.

Supermarkets claim they need access to the records so they can prevent unscrupulous drivers abusing free parking or disabled bays, especially in stores close to rail stations, leisure centres or city centres.

But motoring organisations warn of a growing number of largely unregulated private parking enforcement companies winning lucrative contracts to levy “unreasonable” charges on behalf of supermarkets, shopping centres and other private landowners. The charges (private landowners cannot legally impose fines) range from £25 at some Waitrose car parks to £40 at about a third of Asda stores to £70 at many Tesco stores. The highest supermarket charges uncovered were £150 at some branches of Lidl.

Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes, has criticised the DVLA and condemned firms such as Creative Car Park Management (CCPM) of Mill Hill, northwest London, which sends out £170 charges to motorists who exceed time limits at the Polegate shopping centre in East Sussex, as well as lower charges to overstayers at some branches of Aldi and Co-op supermarkets. “People willing to give information to the government (the DVLA works on behalf of the Department for Transport) expect it to be used for a very narrow purpose, not sold to other companies for them to make money,” says Baker, who claims he has received a string of complaints about CCPM’s “preposterous” charges.

“The problem is that there is no regulation governing parking on private land,” says Paul Watters of the AA Motoring Trust. “This is a massive growth industry and the DVLA has been guilty of aiding and abetting some fairly spurious practices.”

Motorists can easily miss warning signs in sprawling supermarkets and believe there is unlimited free parking. Several supermarket chains — including Tesco — use surveillance cameras to record numberplates. The first drivers know of their error is when the bill comes through the letter box, several days or weeks later.

“There is a big problem with the supermarkets because often their car parks are so big the signs are not always very noticeable,” says Watters. “You could enforce time limits with tickets and parking booths but some of the supermarkets appear to prefer to punish drivers.”

John Tyler, 43, an auditor from Kent, received two demands for £150 each for staying too long in the Lidl car park in Ashford which it shares with his Fitness First gym. Gym members are allowed to park for three hours and shoppers for one hour. He spent two hours at the gym on consecutive days, not realising that because he had not registered his licence number with the gym he had been marked down as an overstayer.

Several days later a charge notice arrived from City Enforcement Parking (CEP) of Borehamwood, Hertfordshire, working on behalf of Lidl. Three weeks later a second bill followed. “I am livid,” says Tyler. “This was an honest mistake. There was no ticket on my car when I came out of the gym so the first I knew about it was about a week later, by which time I’d already clocked up another fine. There wasn’t even a contact number for the company on the ticket so I could speak to someone and argue my case, just an automated payment line.”

Fitness First agreed to confirm Tyler had been in the gym during the given period. Tyler wrote to CEP outlining his case but the company refused to withdraw the bills. “The fines are £150 each or £75 if you pay within two weeks, so I don’t feel as if I have any choice but to pay up now.”

Unlike local authority parking fines, which motorists can challenge through an independent appeals body — the National Parking Adjudication Service (or the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service in London) — motorists’ only redress against private parking contractors is through the courts or by complaining to the Office of Fair Trading. Most motorists pay up to avoid the escalating charges or the risk of bailiffs’ bills that can push up the final cost to more than £1,000.

The British Parking Association (BPA), which tries to uphold standards in the industry, said access to DVLA records should be limited to a list of “approved contractors”. “A mandatory code of practice with a full monitoring and auditing process would regulate the approved companies,” said Keith Banbury, chief executive.

There are 270 private parking companies on the BPA’s books although, as membership is voluntary, the total figure is probably significantly higher. The DVLA claims it regularly gives drivers’ details to 17 commercial parking companies. “This is a new subculture that is emerging,” says Mark Moran, editor of Parking Review, a monthly trade magazine. “Every year they (the parking companies) are increasing their income and extending the areas they work in.”

The DVLA said there was a commercial need for private companies to have access to its database. “Unauthorised parking is a widespread problem,” said a spokesman. “If these requests were refused, landlords would argue that the agency was denying them the ability to seek redress.”

Mark Hayden of CEP said the company acted on the instructions of its clients and looked at all appeals. “We want to be in this business in the long term, so it is not in our interests to upset our clients’ customers for the sake of short-term profits.”

Gary Wayne, chief executive of CCPM, which operates 150 car parks and is not a member of the BPA, defended the rights of “reputable” parking companies to pursue drivers. “If the DVLA did not give this information we would have to go back to clamping and towing, which is much more aggressive. We display clear signs telling drivers about time restrictions and drivers are given time to call or write if they want to appeal. The vast majority of people pay within 14 days at the reduced rate of £85. If you compare this with clamping which costs £125 or towing which is £275, it is a much cheaper option.”

The transport department has expressed concern about the “number and breadth” of companies gaining access to DVLA data. Its inquiry report is expected before the end of the year.

[adjy90]

the local tesco to me has one such person they walk around the car park every 20 mins or so taking photo's of new cars etc

[craig180]

In response to the above statement:

http://www.saxperience.com/forum/showthread.php?t=197040

Below is something I came across on the Consumer Action Group forum while searching for the legal stance of a fine my missus received for allegedly being parked in a KFC car park several months ago.

The parking company were demanding £150 for overstaying a maximum time allowance, and escalated this to £225 when they, off their own back, got debt collectors involved.

A long read, but invaluable if you have received a fine whilst parked on PRIVATE LAND (Supermarkets, shopping centres, NCP car parks etc) this paper has everything you need to know to sucessfully defend yourself against extortionate fines



Private Parking Companies/Charges - Advice Paper (everything you need to know)


PRIVATE PARKING COMPANIES

A guide to an effective defence.


Firstly the important thing to remember is that Private Parking Companies are not backed by any aspect of criminal law. Tickets from Traffic Wardens working for the police or local authorities or tickets issued by police officers are. There are provisions for them in the Road Traffic Act 1991 and these provisions allow sanctions that the issuing authority can take.

THIS IS NOT THE CASE FOR PRIVATE PARKING COMPANIES.

I'm sure any number of readers will be familiar with such facilities, from your local pay and display to any number of 'multi deck' car parks and even, more recently, the car parks for many stores.

PRIVATE PARKING COMPANIES RELY ON THE LAW OF CONTRACT

And while contract law can be a minefield of offer, acceptance, terms, implied terms and clauses, it can be surprisingly easy to understand in terms of every day matters such as this.

Essentially when a driver of a vehicle drives into a car park and parks his car he is implied to accept the offer for parking on the terms of the offeror (the parking company or land owner). A contract is formed and therefore the contract can be broken (or breached).

The Private Parking Company (PPC) must make the terms clear to the user of the car park. Therefore they are obliged to place ample and appropriate signage about the car park to make those persons using the facilities aware of the terms. The signs must be clear and unambiguous and it cannot be obscured, faded, covered up or in any way difficult or impossible to read and understand. Often times those terms will include a provision that if you over stay you will be penalised to the tune of £50, £70 or whatever. They may also include a clause on clamping (I will not be dealing with the issue of clamping in this article). These signs are usually displayed at the pay stations (for pay and display) and for other car parks at the entrance and at intervals about the land. If the car park is improperly signed then immediately the PPC will be in difficulty. Thus when the driver parks the vehicle in the car park and pays or otherwise he accepts by way of his actions and a contract is formed between he and the owner of the land.

ONLY THE DRIVER AND THE OWNER OF THE LAND ARE A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT UNLESS THE PARKING COMPANY ACTS AS THEIR AGENT

Therefore should you receive an INVOICE from a PPC as the keeper of a vehicle and you do not know who was driving, I suggest you tell them this and tell them not to contact you again. You are under no obligation whatsoever to provide any information to the PPC. Refuse to do so.

If you were the driver of the vehicle then that will move the goalposts a little. I would never advise anyone to lie in a document that could be used in any future proceedings. Thus I cannot advocate that any person write to the PPC and deny being the driver if this they actually were the driver. That said you are still under no obligation to incriminate yourself or to provide the PPC with any information whatsoever. The onus is on the claimant in a civil action to prove their case. As in criminal matters the defendant will retain their right not to incriminate themselves or provide evidence against themselves. I advise that if you were the driver that you ask the PPC to provide proof of who the driver was, being very careful at every stage in communication NOT to offer that you were. Should they be unable to prove who the driver was or unwilling then I would suggest that you write to them telling them never to contact you again.

There will be instances where the PPC has video evidence or otherwise of the driver’s identity. If it transpires that this is the case I would not advise that you make efforts to deny being the driver. I would advise that you simply refuse to confirm that you were and refrain from offering any evidence that may incriminate you later.

Many guides of this ilk will advise you that if you are accosted by an employee of a PPC that you should simply get into your car, not speak a word to them, and leave. Indeed they will struggle to justify their actions or demands without an issued invoice. However I cannot stress enough that driving away quickly or dangerously would be a foolish action, one which could attract unwanted attention. There are plenty of ways to nullify the effect of receiving one of these invoices, so rather than risk any unpleasant outcomes I recommend that if there is no absolutely safe way to simply drive off that you refrain from doing so. I do advise that you ask that person’s name but say absolutely nothing more. Allow them to go about their business, in so far as they do not assault you, but offer them nothing that they could note and use later. Remember you are under no obligation at all to make their job easier. I suggest that you refuse to accept any invoice they hand to you and that you refuse to allow them to place it on your vehicle.

Once one of these invoices has been issued it will have certain characteristics that I would like to draw your attention to.

It will have a name that can be abbreviated to PCN, so Penalty Charge Notice, Parking Charge Notice etc. The reason for this is that there IS a provision within the Road Traffic Act for an instrument called a ‘Penalty Charge Notice’. This provision in the Road Traffic Act applies ONLY to those acting on behalf of the local authority (FPNs will cover tickets issued by those acting for the police). Penalty charge notices issued by local authorities have a certain format they must adhere to and it is well documented. Invoices from PPCs do NOT have to adhere to this format but it is very easy to confuse the two and assume an invoice from a PPC to be a ticket from a local authority. This is no accident and the effect is to cause the uninitiated to believe that the invoice issued by the PPC has an official bearing (ergo to make the recipient more likely to pay without issue).
To this effect the invoice may say on it that removal is prohibited (removal of a PCN or FPN by anyone other than the keeper/driver is a criminal offence under the Road Traffic Act). Furthermore the invoice may also state that the keeper’s details can be obtained from the DVLA (another characteristic of an FPN or PCN because for both these instruments it is the KEEPER who is liable, unlike when dealing with PPCs). To clarify, invoices issued by PPCs are not in any way covered by the provisions of the Road Traffic Act. They will not lead to criminal proceedings, removal or interference with them is not prohibited and they have no statutory right of access to the DVLA’s keeper information (they must request it).

PPCs COMMIT CRIMINAL OFFENCES

If you take the time to examine Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 you will be surprised to discover, I’m sure, that the characteristics described, which give the invoice it’s official bearing and suggest that it’s removal may be a crime make the use, issuing and pursuit of funds claimed due because of such, a crime in itself. Note section 40 (d) specifically.

The Administration of Justice Act 1970.
Section 40 of the act provides that 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 contract, he or she:
(a) harasses the other with demands for payment which by their frequency, or the manner or occasion of their making, or any accompanying threat or publicity are calculated to subject him or his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;
(b) falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;
(c) falsely represent themselves to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment;
(d) utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.
Paragraph (a) above does not apply to anything done by a person which is reasonable (and otherwise legal) for the purpose of :
(1) of securing the discharge of an obligation due, or believed by him to be due, to himself or to persons for whom he acts, or protecting himself or them from future loss; or
(2) of the enforcement of any liability by legal process.
It is also provided that a person may be guilty of an offence under paragraph (a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such action as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.
Thus if you receive one of these invoices and it appears to purport to be a PCN or FPN then I strongly suggest that you report the incident to the police. The police are DUTY BOUND to investigate and act. I had to have a ‘debate’ with the local Sgt to have him act on my behalf, however if you are polite and firm then the police should take it on for you.

THE CONTRACT ELEMENT

Let’s examine the law that does cover the issuing of these invoices.

As I’ve stated earlier the PPC will base it’s claim on the driver having entered into a contract with them. Strictly speaking this is very much the case. Assuming the signage and notice to be sufficient then the driver accept the offer of parking by his actions and is implied to accept the terms and conditions of so doing.

You will have three co-mingling defences to reply on in this case.

Firstly and most simply – contractual penalties. When you park in the car park and over-stay or misuse the facilities in some way you breach your contract with the land owner. The terms state you will not overstay or misuse the facilities, these are terms on which your contract for parking is based, thus when you do something contrary to these terms you breach the contract. The common law holds that the remedy for breach of contract is damages. Therefore the land owner is entitled to damages covering the costs incurred as a result of your breaching the contract.

Let us examine this – if you over-stay at a car park then the land owner loses revenue. Thus if parking is £1 an hour and you overstay by an hour then the damage is £1. Any company may argue that you are liable for the time of any attendant who may be involved in the issuing of an invoice. This is nonsense. The fact is that the PPC employ staff to be at the car park for all eventualities. Their job description will involve the issuing and preparation of these invoices, therefore to imply that damages are incurred by the involvement of an employee hired for this express purpose is a quite ridiculous prospect and should be sternly resisted (particularly when the cost of one of these invoices is more than the attendant is paid per day). Alternatively if you park incorrectly and use two bays I would suggest that in all reality the most that could be said to be valid damages is the value of the spaces you have used (so if you obscure a second space then double the cost of your parking). So as you can see actual damages in these cases will be absolutely minimal. Why, therefore, do the PPCs seek to charge the users of the car parks figures like £50 and £70? Simply because people do not know any better than to pay. The principle surrounding this is very similar to that surrounding bank charges. Banks cannot charge their customers extortionate rates for going over their overdraft limits (breaching their contract). The law is exactly the same for Private Parking Companies. Thus should matters progress with the parking company you should use this as the cornerstone of your defence.

[craig180]

Secondly there is a piece of little known consumer legislation called the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999).

Schedule 2 Indicative and Non-Exhaustive List of Terms which may be Regarded as Unfair

(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a dis-proportionately high sum in compensation.

Thus when PPCs charge £50-£70 for what is a minimal loss on their part, the above regulations will apply.

The full schedules can be found on various government sites. Most notably here –

Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 2083

Pay also particular attention to section 5, which reads:-

“Unfair Terms
5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

(3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.

(4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was.

(5) Schedule 2 to these Regulations contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair.”

Schedule 2 mentioned above is at the end of the document and it is well worth reading up on. It will give you a very good feel for the ‘spirit’ of the regulations.

The OFT’s site will explain this in simpler language and make the regulations more digestible. I urge you to read this also-

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts

The OFT’s page will also have information regarding making a complaint with them. Something I urge you to consider very carefully. Should you feel you have grounds to complain then do so.

Again the regulations will provide you with the basis for a defence against any action taken by a PPC. It will also provide ammunition in your negotiations with them and could well persuade them to dismiss any notions of making a claim.

You should also consider making use of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

A copy of the Act is available here-

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

Generally the Act covers agreements made between businesses but it can extend to nearly all forms of contract and interestingly negates clauses in contracts which seek to evade certain specific liabilities.

However in this case Section 4 will apply. It states:-

“4 Unreasonable indemnity clauses

(1) A person dealing as consumer cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.

(2) This section applies whether the liability in question—

(a) is directly that of the person to be indemnified or is incurred by him vicariously;

(b) is to the person dealing as consumer or to someone else.”


Clearly per the Act £50-£70 for parking for a few hours is not reasonable by any stretch of the imagination.

This law should provide three solid avenues by which to have any action against you deflected or halted.

NO TICKET PLACED ON YOUR VEHICLE - DVLA DETAILS

All parking companies seeking access to the DVLA register must be members of an accredited association with a clear code of conduct. The only such associaton that exists at this time is the British Parking Association (BPA), their code of conduct may be found here-

Welcome to the British Parking Association

Lynn Jones, MP details very concisely on her own web page what the code requires and I reproduce it here under fair use copyright entitlements. It is here for your education only.

"1. There is now new detailed guidance on what is likely to constitute a “reasonable cause” for a company or individual to access information from the vehicle register.

The DVLA website Release of information from DVLA records has the guidance.

2. Clear guidance is now included on the detailed application forms that must be completed by any person seeking vehicle keeper data from the DVLA database. The guidance advises clearly that any person misusing the data may have future requests refused. The behaviour of applicants for approved conditional access is now taken into account when an application from them is considered, and where behaviour has not been of a suitably high standard, access is not granted.

3. The new application form requires enquirers to provide evidence that they are the landowner, or that the landowner has granted them permission to act on their behalf – a statement from the landowner is required.

4. The new application form includes a requirement to provide evidence that adequate penalty schemes/signage etc, are clearly displayed.

5. Those bodies and companies seeking approved conditional access to the vehicle register are required to be current members of an accredited trade association. Part of the process of determining accreditation of these organisations includes ensuring that there is a clear and enforced code of conduct (for example relating to conduct, parking charge signage, charge levels, appeals procedure, approval of ticket wording, and appropriate pursuit of penalties – e.g, approach by letter only, with county court action necessary to permit a house call).

6. Any organisation that does not comply with the terms of the accredited trade association will be expelled, and without valid membership of another accredited trade association, will lose approved conditional access to the DVLA vehicle register. This forms part of the process and conditions of accreditation. Loss of accreditation by a previously accredited Trade Association will result in that Association’s members losing their access to the register.

7. All of those seeking approved conditional access will be required to serve a probationary period of six months or, if longer, the period of time it takes to lodge 20 requests to the vehicle register, during which time all requests must be made on a case by case basis.

8. It is now required that all organisations that receive data from the register, as evidence of their “reasonable behaviour” , and as a condition of access to the register, must include in any correspondence with a vehicle keeper a leaflet or statement advising them of :

* The “reasonable cause” that formed the basis of the request;
* The complaints procedure by which a data subject can notify both the DVLA and the Information Commissioner if they believe that their data have been used inappropriately;
* The appeals procedure (of the regulatory body) if they feel that, for example, a parking charge notice has been issued incorrectly;

- and that this information should be placed on the DVLA website.

9. The DVLA must maintain on its website (Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency) a list of organisations and companies who have requested data, and the reasons for their requests.

10. A reference to location on the DVLA website of guidance and advice and all other data related to the release of vehicle keeper data is to be included on all DVLA documentation sent to the vehicle keeper, including the annual VED reminder.

11. There is now a rolling 3 year programme of audit checks, including targeted checks on those companies and organisations where concerns have been raised.

12. An audit will be triggered by complaints of substance representing a disproportionate level of granted access requests, or any complaint of a serious nature.

If, following implementation of the audit recommendations, a disproportionate level of complaints of substance are received, an organisation with approved conditional access will be required to submit requests on a case by case basis. If it is already subject to request on a case by case basis, it will be subject to additional scrutiny of each request it makes. If a disproportionate level of further complaints of substance is received and a company is found consistently to be using data inappropriately, or a serious complaint of abuse of the system by the applicant is substantiated, then there is a real possibility that the applicant would not be deemed to have reasonable cause for future requests for data release, which would consequently be declined.

13. A clear procedure is in place by which data subjects can notify DVLA if they feel that their data has been used inappropriately. The DVLA now draws the attention of vehicle keepers to this procedure by including information in paperwork sent to them and on the DVLA website. This includes information on how they can notify the Information Commissioner of the mis-use of their data.

14. Complaints received about a company will form part of a the evaluation of whether its application to access data from the vehicle register validly includes a “reasonable cause"..."


Point 3.2 of the DVLA Code of COnduct on Private Parking states -

Specifically, point 3.2 of the code states:

“Notices giving full details of the parking contravention and the proposed course of action to be taken by the enforcer should be placed in a prominent position on the ‘offending’ vehicle without causing it damage. Vehicle keepers should be made aware that their name and address will be requested from the DVLA”.

Therefore if the PPC do not put a ticket on your vehicle they breach the voluntary code and have obtained your details from the DVLA under false pretences. COMPLAIN TO THE DVLA, the BPA and the DATA COMMISSIONER.

Mention this issue to the PPC.


To summarise-

It is most important that you know your rights. Please don’t use this guide as a ‘be all and end all’ to the subject. Use it as your starting point. Read around these topics and get to know the law. This is good consumer law for today’s generation and will serve you well in other aspects of your life. Being willing to speak out and stand up to corporate bullies will set you in good stead for the rest of your life.

The important thing to remember is that you don’t have to help these bloodsuckers to build a case against you. Resist it at every step. The law’s presumption is of innocence and that is for good reason. It protects the individual from the imbalanced power of the many. The PPC must prove your liability. 99 times out of 100 they simply can’t and so you’re safe. In the one instance they may be able to develop a prima facie case you will have three good defences. Rely on these. Become familiar with them and their workings.

Don’t be afraid to contact and request the assistance of the following-

The Police

Trading Standards

The Office of Fair Trading

These organisations were created to protect you and your rights. They may be reluctant to undertake what they regard as a trifling or minor matter but don’t accept that. Demand their assistance. Your council tax, income tax and every other tax the good people of the UK are fleeced for pays for this protection. You have earnt it.

I have NEVER heard of a case like this making it to court. I suspect PPCs don’t sue their victims, and they are victims, because they know the merits of their case are non existent.


Author: Pete Jones 12/2/07

In simple terms they have absolutely no right to fine you...

[claff]

Pretty much they have no right to do anything to you.. it only costs 30p for them to send a threatening letter and most people will be intimidated enough to pay up

i hate that the dvla sells our details to whoever wants it, it shouldnt be allowed to happen. i dont want to be bothered by these shitty companies just because dvla makes a quick couple quid by selling my details.

tescos makes enough money, i dont have 150 quid to just give away because i parked for 10 minutes too long

[sug7]

I have started somehing off now by mentioning the dvla and tescos camera's aint i :D


tescos makes enough money, i dont have 150 quid to just give away because i parked for 10 minutes too long

and yeah i would agree, the supermarket round our way only gives you 2 hours, well dont know how many of uou go shopping with ure mrs... but my gf... u may aswell make it a day trip :P

but seriously tho, you can easily spend lets say an hour to an hour n half shopping... then if ya sit n have a coffee or a bit to eat cos ya misses stressed ya out n you dont feel like driving yet... lol

then bang your over the 2 hours...

[nathan818]

well i acctually work in a tesco,we dont have cameras but they have a stupid 3 hour limit after that you can get a £70 fine,in my stores case they contract a company to mointor the car park,and i have a little green sticker in my window so i dont get fined..

luckly the guy goes home at 5.30 :)

so after 5.30 you can stay aslong as you want,dont know about other stores though

or just buy a little green sticker ;)


also appearntly they can fine you for parking outwith the marked bays,but its not wrote on the signs in the cark park so they cant really enforce that imo

[yetisvtr]

WTF didnt know tesco had that lol

[nathan818]

every little helps ;)

[JamesR]

This country is getting stupid with cameras, laws etc.

[BenjaM]

Amersham eh ;)

[GTJames]

Thats crazy, I suggest we all have revolving number plates :D lol. I mean come on a multi-storey car park fair enough but cameras in Tesco car parks, this is getting silly.

[sug7]

yeah mate defo... its getting stupid...

well at the local multi story carpark near me

its stupid.. cos u can stay in there all day.. run over to the machine at the entrance press it for another ticket... go town for another hour.. then pay for only an hour on the second ticket... there aint even any camera's lol

[b0t13]

if u run over just don't pay it, simples.

only ever pay OFFICIAL ones by the robbing cunts that work for the councils, as they will rape you, supermarkets cant do shit but send nasty letters hoping u pay, and threaten you with court which they never do..