Parking fines from private company
Discussion
Roger Irrelevant said:
Have I got this right - somebody is trying to argue that when supermarkets label a parking spot as 'Parent & Child', or paint a picture of a big person and a little person on it, then it's reasonable to assume that they also intend that space to be used by Billy Big b
ks in his wide expensive car because he might be prissy about it getting dinged? The amazing world of the Pistonheads forums delivers again.
Yep. You hit the nail on the head. ![](/inc/images/censored.gif)
blueg33 said:
Roger Irrelevant said:
Have I got this right - somebody is trying to argue that when supermarkets label a parking spot as 'Parent & Child', or paint a picture of a big person and a little person on it, then it's reasonable to assume that they also intend that space to be used by Billy Big b
ks in his wide expensive car because he might be prissy about it getting dinged? The amazing world of the Pistonheads forums delivers again.
Yep. You hit the nail on the head. ![](/inc/images/censored.gif)
![rofl](/inc/images/rofl.gif)
bad company said:
Wow, moral high ground or what! I use the parent & child places. Never the disabled though.
What is your logic in using P&C spaces when you don't have a young child with you? Why do you feel that its fine? Why do you think the P&C spaces are offered? Why is it ok to use P&C but not disabled ones?disabled bays are clear and everyone knows (or should know) the rules and laws.
regarding those parking pays with the matchstick men icons painted on the ground there are no rules.
according to the RAC there is on-going debate about whether they're also provided for the benefit of pregnant women (unborn child). what if it's grandma with her 3 year old grandchild, is that ok?
rules is rules and if the rules aren't clear then it's presumptuous for anyone to state that their own understanding represents either the wishes of the car park owner or infers any sort of obligations on the driver.
regarding those parking pays with the matchstick men icons painted on the ground there are no rules.
according to the RAC there is on-going debate about whether they're also provided for the benefit of pregnant women (unborn child). what if it's grandma with her 3 year old grandchild, is that ok?
rules is rules and if the rules aren't clear then it's presumptuous for anyone to state that their own understanding represents either the wishes of the car park owner or infers any sort of obligations on the driver.
Edited by Tye Green on Monday 1st July 09:33
blueg33 said:
bad company said:
Wow, moral high ground or what! I use the parent & child places. Never the disabled though.
What is your logic in using P&C spaces when you don't have a young child with you? Why do you feel that its fine? Why do you think the P&C spaces are offered? Why is it ok to use P&C but not disabled ones?I don’t think I need to explain why I wouldn’t use the disabled places.
Tye Green said:
disabled bays are clear and everyone knows (or should know) the rules and laws.
regarding those parking pays with the matchstick men icons painted on the ground there are no rules.
according to the RAC there is on-going debate about whether they're also provided for the benefit of pregnant women (unborn child). what if it's grandma with her 3 year old grandchild, is that ok?
rules is rules and if the rules aren't clear then it's presumptuous for anyone to state that their own understanding represents either the wishes of the car park owner or infers any sort of obligations on the driver.
Icons and signs thats say parent and child or similar. Its perfectly clear to everyone what they mean to try and say it isn't is a pathetic attempt ant defending selfishness. If you don't have a young child with you, you shouldn't park there, the spaces are for those that because they have young kids need more space.regarding those parking pays with the matchstick men icons painted on the ground there are no rules.
according to the RAC there is on-going debate about whether they're also provided for the benefit of pregnant women (unborn child). what if it's grandma with her 3 year old grandchild, is that ok?
rules is rules and if the rules aren't clear then it's presumptuous for anyone to state that their own understanding represents either the wishes of the car park owner or infers any sort of obligations on the driver.
Edited by Tye Green on Monday 1st July 09:33
Its simple.
Here are some clear simple signs. Its not hard even for the thickest of mince brains to work out what they mean. These signs completely debunk your agrguments. Obviously ok for grandma with a 3 year old with her
![rolleyes](/inc/images/rolleyes.gif)
Morrissons
Tesco
Waitrose
blueg33 said:
What is your logic in using P&C spaces when you don't have a young child with you? Why do you feel that its fine? Why do you think the P&C spaces are offered? Why is it ok to use P&C but not disabled ones?
I never use disabled bays, they’re usually limited in number and they could be required at any time. I will use p&c spaces however if I go shopping late and there are none taken, I’ll park in the one furthest away. Generally avoid ever going in the day as there magnets for car park dingers and if I did I wouldn’t use p&c as they’d genuinely be in high demand by people. I see them more as priority spots, if there’s no chance of me putting someone out, who cares? I go shopping 10-11pm at night to avoid car park dings in a full car park. I’ve parked miles away from the entrance to have some moron park next to me when there is no need and an abundance of spaces.
If it makes me inconsiderate but saves getting my car damaged I’ll continue to do so. It’s of absolutely zero consequence to anyone.
bad company said:
There’s a multitude of reasons why someone might use the P&C spaces such as when there’s heavy luggage to load/offload, when incapacitated say after an illness or surgery, I could go on. I use the P&C spaces if I feel I need to, sometimes my need is greater than someone who just happens to have a child in the car.
I don’t think I need to explain why I wouldn’t use the disabled places.
Do you frequently have heavy luggage to move when you park? or are you just trying to justify your reasons. My wife has just had knee surgery and before that could hardly walk, but we have never considered using a P&C space. As we are not that special. I don’t think I need to explain why I wouldn’t use the disabled places.
Drumroll said:
bad company said:
There’s a multitude of reasons why someone might use the P&C spaces such as when there’s heavy luggage to load/offload, when incapacitated say after an illness or surgery, I could go on. I use the P&C spaces if I feel I need to, sometimes my need is greater than someone who just happens to have a child in the car.
I don’t think I need to explain why I wouldn’t use the disabled places.
Do you frequently have heavy luggage to move when you park? or are you just trying to justify your reasons. My wife has just had knee surgery and before that could hardly walk, but we have never considered using a P&C space. As we are not that special. I don’t think I need to explain why I wouldn’t use the disabled places.
Part of the P&C spaces issue is their location close to the store. I totally understand the need for disabled parking to be close to the store (as well as to make it easier for people to open doors wide). In terms of P&C, the only actual reason is to allow accessibility in and out of the car with prams, child seats etc. There is no other reason why they couldn’t been anywhere else in the carpark, other than in essence the supermarket (or whatever) giving a perceived marketing advantage (which everyone then copied).
The ‘heavy items’ issue is often addressed through a) getting a minimum wage slave to help you, or b) using the ‘pick up/drop off’ spaces (which themselves are often abused by people doing a ‘big shop’).
The ‘heavy items’ issue is often addressed through a) getting a minimum wage slave to help you, or b) using the ‘pick up/drop off’ spaces (which themselves are often abused by people doing a ‘big shop’).
21TonyK said:
blueg33 said:
Roger Irrelevant said:
Have I got this right - somebody is trying to argue that when supermarkets label a parking spot as 'Parent & Child', or paint a picture of a big person and a little person on it, then it's reasonable to assume that they also intend that space to be used by Billy Big b
ks in his wide expensive car because he might be prissy about it getting dinged? The amazing world of the Pistonheads forums delivers again.
Yep. You hit the nail on the head. ![](/inc/images/censored.gif)
![rofl](/inc/images/rofl.gif)
blueg33 said:
I’ve forgotten what the thread was about
The OP explicitly stated that he wanted to discuss the legalities of the situation and explicitly stated that he didn’t want to discuss the moral compass aspect.Earlier in the thread you tried to help OP with details of the legal position but unfortunately your advice was unhelpful and when this was pointed out you said
“oh yeah, I knew all that – I was trying to keep it simple”...err ok..
You then went down the moral compass route and provided your own interpretation of the situation.
Finally, you conflated the two by providing a few photos which all state different things and none of which in any way form any sort of agreement with the driver or infer any sort of obligation on him either.
So, I’ll refer you again to the thread's original post and suggest that
<your own words>
“ It’s not hard even for the thickest of mince brains to work out what they mean”
Tye Green said:
blueg33 said:
I’ve forgotten what the thread was about
The OP explicitly stated that he wanted to discuss the legalities of the situation and explicitly stated that he didn’t want to discuss the moral compass aspect.Earlier in the thread you tried to help OP with details of the legal position but unfortunately your advice was unhelpful and when this was pointed out you said
“oh yeah, I knew all that – I was trying to keep it simple”...err ok..
You then went down the moral compass route and provided your own interpretation of the situation.
Finally, you conflated the two by providing a few photos which all state different things and none of which in any way form any sort of agreement with the driver or infer any sort of obligation on him either.
So, I’ll refer you again to the thread's original post and suggest that
<your own words>
“ It’s not hard even for the thickest of mince brains to work out what they mean”
Others brought in the moral compass point and you replied demonstrating to us all how your moral compass is faulty.
When you realise that your argument is sad and pathetic you revert to the post above
![rofl](/inc/images/rofl.gif)
Drumroll said:
bad company said:
There’s a multitude of reasons why someone might use the P&C spaces such as when there’s heavy luggage to load/offload, when incapacitated say after an illness or surgery, I could go on. I use the P&C spaces if I feel I need to, sometimes my need is greater than someone who just happens to have a child in the car.
I don’t think I need to explain why I wouldn’t use the disabled places.
Do you frequently have heavy luggage to move when you park? or are you just trying to justify your reasons. My wife has just had knee surgery and before that could hardly walk, but we have never considered using a P&C space. As we are not that special. I don’t think I need to explain why I wouldn’t use the disabled places.
P&C spaces are provided by the retailer to encourage families. On private land they occupy they're entitled to set the rules as they see fit.
These spaces are typically near the door to avoid taking young children across busy car parks with wider spaces to allow easier access.
I use them when I have children in the car and not when I don't. It's not very difficult. If I'm worried about carpark dings I can choose to park out of the way rather than take up a space that might deprive a young mother of easy access or force them to walk some errant toddlers across a busy car park.
There are a surprising number of selfish people out there.
These spaces are typically near the door to avoid taking young children across busy car parks with wider spaces to allow easier access.
I use them when I have children in the car and not when I don't. It's not very difficult. If I'm worried about carpark dings I can choose to park out of the way rather than take up a space that might deprive a young mother of easy access or force them to walk some errant toddlers across a busy car park.
There are a surprising number of selfish people out there.
blueg33 said:
Tye Green said:
21TonyK said:
Tye Green said:
that's your interpretation
Please go on, humour me. What's yours?seems unlikely that the supermarket would discriminate between the above groups of drivers so instead they just paint an icon on the ground which looks like a parent and child but some folk interpret that icon as meaning those spaces are designated for *only* 'parents with a child'.
if a sign clearly specifies the purpose of the wider spaces then that's different to an interpretation of the purpose of them and the OP started the thread trying to understand the legal position and that depends upon what the sign says so interpretation isn't helpful.
Edited by Tye Green on Sunday 30th June 23:09
Edited by Tye Green on Sunday 30th June 23:47
You know exactly who the spaces are for and are failing to make a case for the indefensible.
By your argument, if I drive up with my 28 year old son in the car, it would be fine for me to park there. Whereas any reasonable non entitled person would not.
Clearly, they are wider because the parent has to roll a trolley up to the door so that they can load the infant straight into it. In the same way that disabled spaces are wider to allow room for them to get in a wheelchair.
It’s never been anything to do with catering for people with lots of shopping bags, who wish to open their doors wider. That’s right up there with tin foil hats.
blueg33 said:
Roger Irrelevant said:
Have I got this right - somebody is trying to argue that when supermarkets label a parking spot as 'Parent & Child', or paint a picture of a big person and a little person on it, then it's reasonable to assume that they also intend that space to be used by Billy Big b
ks in his wide expensive car because he might be prissy about it getting dinged? The amazing world of the Pistonheads forums delivers again.
Yep. You hit the nail on the head. ![](/inc/images/censored.gif)
![](/inc/images/censored.gif)
Tommo87 said:
Almost. They ‘think’ they have big b
ks, but all in their imagination.
I get why people would be against it but like anything I believe there is a time and place it's acceptable. I use them if it's late at night and none of them are taken or 1 or 2 out of say 10 spaces are occupied. I'll use whichever is furthest away from store. Not taking a provision away from anyone as there are plenty left and I have a safety buffer from morons who don't care about others possessions or have the common courtesy to do the right thing if they do damage someone's car.![](/inc/images/censored.gif)
I've honestly had my cars scratched, dinged, hit at my own expense on so many occasions I genuinely will not park in a shopping centre car park during peak hours. I've even had a door caved completely in on a car because someone opened their door lost it in the wind and it flung into my door. They looked and drove off leaving no note, unfortunately the cctv couldn't capture their registration.
I'm not a billy big b
![](/inc/images/censored.gif)
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff