Parking fines from private company

[blueg33]

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 bks 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.

[21TonyK]

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 bks 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.

its sad really.

[blueg33]

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?

[Tye Green]

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.

Edited by Tye Green on Monday 1st July 09:33

[bad company]

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?

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.

[blueg33]

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.

Edited by Tye Green on Monday 1st July 09:33

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.

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 Not ok for an entitled, selfish **** trying to come up with spurious arguments to justify their crap attitude.

Morrissons


Tesco


Waitrose

[Ronzx6r]

i wonder if these people are like this in real life sure some on here just enjoy arguing.

[evolution380]

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.

[Drumroll]

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.

[blueg33]

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.

Precisely. I have a friend who lost both his legs in an accident, he wont use P&C spaces if all of the disabled ones are taken. In fact he rarely uses disabled spaces either as he thinks there are others who need them more than him.

[ChevronB19]

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’).

[Pica-Pica]

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 bks 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.

its sad really.

The only time my car got a ding was when I parked far away from the entrance with no cars around, but some idiot managed to put some paint on my car and a minor ding. Luckily I could scrape the paint off with my nail. The irony was, I had my granddaughter with me and could have parked in the adult and child spaces, if I had thought about it.

[Tye Green]

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”

[blueg33]

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”

Some one else expanded on the point thats correct, it wasn't really needed to answer the ops question.

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

[bad company]

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.

In your situation I’d use the P&C spaces. You obviously disagree which is fine.

[Ronzx6r]

if you're using the parent and child spaces you are just as much of a chunt as using the disabled spaces.

[Forester1965]

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.

[Tommo87]

blueg33 said:

Tye Green said:

21TonyK said:

Tye Green said:

that's your interpretation

Please go on, humour me. What's yours?

they are wider spaces which could be helpful to drivers who are accompanied by children, or those who have lots of shopping bags and wish to open their doors wide without risk of hitting adjacent cars, or by drivers who are concerned about possible damage from others car doors, or even by divers who have wider than average cars.

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 are arguing stupid semantics and adding they are also for people with full shopping baskets.

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.

Seriously, that is one of the most moronic excuses I have read for them being so wide in ages.

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.

[Tommo87]

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 bks 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.

Almost. They ‘think’ they have big bks, but all in their imagination.

[evolution380]

Tommo87 said:

Almost. They ‘think’ they have big bks, 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.

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 bks, nor do I think I am, I apply a level of consideration to my decision. If i turned up shopping late and for some reason half the P&C spaces were taken then i'd just park far away from the entrance in a normal space and hope some absolute pleb didn't park next to me, and if they did hope they had some common courtesy. Done this before and come back to a scratch down to the metal.