IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Now the Homebase on the Retail Park joins the parking fine trough
Iommi
post Sep 24 2009, 01:35 PM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



In the Newbury Weekly News, it gives a story on how people at the Retail Park could be fined for parking on Homebase 'permit holders only' - £75.00 or more!!!

A simple thing to do is don't go to these places. I haven't been to Newbury town nor Homebase shopping for many months.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Darren
post Sep 24 2009, 02:09 PM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,251
Joined: 15-May 09
Member No.: 61



Perhaps if people didn't park there and trot onto a bus into town for work all day the landlords wouldn't have to introduce a penalty system. They kicked learners off there years ago because of the problems they were causing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy
post Sep 24 2009, 02:12 PM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 318
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 26



QUOTE (Iommi @ Sep 24 2009, 02:35 PM) *
In the Newbury Weekly News, it gives a story on how people at the Retail Park could be fined for parking on Homebase 'permit holders only' - £75.00 or more!!!

A simple thing to do is don't go to these places. I haven't been to Newbury town nor Homebase shopping for many months.


The simplest thing to do would to not park in a permit only bay without having a permit, not a problem at all then


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JeffG
post Sep 24 2009, 02:55 PM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 56



QUOTE (Andy @ Sep 24 2009, 03:12 PM) *
The simplest thing to do would to not park in a permit only bay without having a permit, not a problem at all then

Andy, that's far too sensible a comment for this forum.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hugh Saskin
post Sep 24 2009, 02:58 PM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 560
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 37



QUOTE (Darren @ Sep 24 2009, 03:09 PM) *
Perhaps if people didn't park there and trot onto a bus into town for work all day the landlords wouldn't have to introduce a penalty system. They kicked learners off there years ago because of the problems they were causing.


Always some selfish opportunists who spoil it for everyone else. Some years ago a large hospital which had free car parks, found that the visitors and patients had very few spaces to chose from owing to fine, upstanding citizens parking there all day and catching coaches up the motorway to London. No prizes for guessing how they stopped that one. A time limit is fine in most circumstances, though, not sure what exactly the new arrangements are at the retail park?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Sep 24 2009, 03:34 PM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



Unfortuantly although this story comes from NWN they haven't posted it on the web, but the story isn't as simple as you think.

£75.00 is MORE than being caught doing 40 in a 30 past a school at kicking out time.

Another thing, a private company would not 'fine' a potential customer who was visiting, for parking in their staff car park.

QUOTE (Andy @ Sep 24 2009, 03:12 PM) *
The simplest thing to do would to not park in a permit only bay without having a permit, not a problem at all then

That is true and I haven't...for many months!!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hugh Saskin
post Sep 24 2009, 04:47 PM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 560
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 37



Just read the Retail Park story myself and it seems that, away from the permit-only areas, you still get four hours free parking and that the trading standards people didn't have any issues with the signs. Good enough for me, then
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Sep 24 2009, 05:54 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (Hugh Saskin @ Sep 24 2009, 05:47 PM) *
Just read the Retail Park story myself and it seems that, away from the permit-only areas, you still get four hours free parking and that the trading standards people didn't have any issues with the signs. Good enough for me, then

Yes, the same people that have had to admit after declaring the bollard signs as adequate, need re-evaluation. A £10.00 fine would have just the same effect, £75.00 is obscene. Especially as it is most often likely to be an accident. I also think the disabled sign is dubious.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JeffG
post Sep 24 2009, 06:08 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 56



Seems I'll need to start buying the NWN again, then. Several times recently I have bought the paper and thought I had picked up an out-of-date copy. That's because I had already read most of the stories up to a week beforehand on the web site.

No wonder printed newspapers are having problems!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JeffG
post Sep 24 2009, 06:10 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 56



QUOTE (Iommi @ Sep 24 2009, 04:34 PM) *
That is true and I haven't...for many months!!!

But I thought you said you were boycotting them entirely because they were trying to enforce what sound like perfectly reasonable restrictions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hugh Saskin
post Sep 24 2009, 06:11 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 560
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 37



QUOTE (Iommi @ Sep 24 2009, 06:54 PM) *
Yes, the same people that have had to admit after declaring the bollard signs as adequate, need re-evaluation. A £10.00 fine would have just the same effect, £75.00 is obscene. Especially as it is most often likely to be an accident. I also think the disabled sign is dubious.


Were trading standards actually involved in this, being asked to comment on signs on a public road? I know they have a wide remit nowadays, but not sure if it stretches that far....

PS - I think you will find that the disabled sign referred to is behind HMV in Northbrook St, nothing to do with Newbury Retail Park, perhaps a case of two fairly thin stories being put together for effect.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Sep 24 2009, 09:38 PM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (JeffG @ Sep 24 2009, 07:10 PM) *
But I thought you said you were boycotting them entirely because they were trying to enforce what sound like perfectly reasonable restrictions.

And perfectly reasonable fines??? blink.gif

No, I don't go because I don't need to AND making it more 'hazardous' means I am unlikely to bother casual shopping either.

QUOTE (Hugh Saskin @ Sep 24 2009, 07:11 PM) *
PS - I think you will find that the disabled sign referred to is behind HMV in Northbrook St, nothing to do with Newbury Retail Park, perhaps a case of two fairly thin stories being put together for effect.

That is right, but I was commenting on the credibility of the Trading Standards point of view, not that it was to do with the Retail Park.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spartacus
post Sep 24 2009, 10:30 PM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,840
Joined: 24-July 09
Member No.: 221



QUOTE (Iommi @ Sep 24 2009, 02:35 PM) *
........how people at the Retail Park could be fined for parking on Homebase 'permit holders only'
It's the people who DESIGNED the bleedin' car park layout who should be fined!! It's all right angled junctions with high kerbs (which knacker the wheels of the unwary) ...and one way circuits (and ineffective No Entry signs) that don't work! As a Saturday morning shopping experience it's a nightmare.......
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hugh Saskin
post Sep 25 2009, 06:09 AM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 560
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 37



QUOTE (Iommi @ Sep 24 2009, 10:38 PM) *
And perfectly reasonable fines??? blink.gif



That is right, but I was commenting on the credibility of the Trading Standards point of view, not that it was to do with the Retail Park.


Like I say, if the trading standards don't have an issue with signs, that's good enough for me. I also think the penalties for parking in the permit only bays are quite reasonable and don't Tesco across the way already charge you £70 for parking a car for more than three hours anywhere in their car park? They give the dosh raised to charity, I believe, perhaps Homebase should take note - and up their charge to £100?. laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Sep 25 2009, 06:50 AM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (Hugh Saskin @ Sep 25 2009, 07:09 AM) *
Like I say, if the trading standards don't have an issue with signs, that's good enough for me. I also think the penalties for parking in the permit only bays are quite reasonable and don't Tesco across the way already charge you £70 for parking a car for more than three hours anywhere in their car park? They give the dosh raised to charity, I believe, perhaps Homebase should take note - and up their charge to £100?. laugh.gif

I hope you have no intentions for political life, but judging by some of the comments on here, this sick country gets the sick administration that is deserves.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Sep 25 2009, 07:26 AM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,025
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



QUOTE (Iommi @ Sep 25 2009, 07:50 AM) *
I hope you have no intentions for political life, but judging by some of the comments on here, this sick country gets the sick administration that is deserves.
I don't see the connection. How is this country's administration linked to the charges for parking in a private car park?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Darren
post Sep 25 2009, 07:37 AM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,251
Joined: 15-May 09
Member No.: 61



QUOTE (user23 @ Sep 25 2009, 08:26 AM) *
I don't see the connection. How is this country's administration linked to the charges for parking in a private car park?


yep. Emphasis on Private.

Why do people assume that because it's private land, they can park on it for as long as they want, however they want?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Sep 25 2009, 08:21 AM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (user23 @ Sep 25 2009, 08:26 AM) *
I don't see the connection. How is this country's administration linked to the charges for parking in a private car park?

The country is full of administrators. Homebase have one that like to charge £70.00 a day for parking in 'reserved' parking spaces, whether deliberate or not.

Incidentally, this country's administrator, the Government, seem quite happy for wheel clamping to exist unregulated, but that's another story.

QUOTE (Darren @ Sep 25 2009, 08:37 AM) *
yep. Emphasis on Private.
Why do people assume that because it's private land, they can park on it for as long as they want, however they want?

I'm not sure I know personally anyone who thinks like that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JeffG
post Sep 25 2009, 08:51 AM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 56



QUOTE (spartacus @ Sep 24 2009, 11:30 PM) *
As a Saturday morning shopping experience it's a nightmare.......

Which I why I would never go there at weekends smile.gif

Re the amount of the fine: what on earth does it matter how much? Don't park where it's clearly (apparently) marked you shouldn't. Simple.

The fine is a deterrent. If people were more conscientious and did as directed, fines would not be necessary. Free parking on private land is a privilege, not a right. So in return, the owners of the land are entitled to make whatever restrictions they choose.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Sep 25 2009, 08:57 AM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (JeffG @ Sep 25 2009, 09:51 AM) *
Re the amount of the fine: what on earth does it matter how much?

Presumably it is a quantity that you have no need to worry about!

QUOTE (JeffG @ Sep 25 2009, 09:51 AM) *
The fine is a deterrent. If people were more conscientious and did as directed, fines would not be necessary. Free parking on private land is a privilege, not a right. So in return, the owners of the land are entitled to make whatever restrictions they choose.

Do they want customers or not.

The point is some people are unaware, especially when it is a new installation. I have a feeling, however, that the charge is unenforceable, but that isn't my specialised subject.

Like I said, the public gets what the public wants.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 02:26 AM