Author Topic: Aldi rejects calls for parking fine refunds despite dodgy ParkingEye $cameras  (Read 3873 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4497
  • THE lowest common denominator
If only there was an appropriate emoticon... :idea:

<shootfoot>

<shootfoot>

<shootfoot>

<shootfoot>

<shootfoot>


http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/local-news/mold-aldi-rejects-calls-parking-7257453

Mold: Aldi rejects calls for parking fine refunds

Supermarket chain refuse to reimburse fines issued by CCTV cameras that did not have planning permission at Mold store

Supermarket chain Aldi has refused to reimburse fines issued by unauthorised CCTV cameras at its Mold store.

Local MPs and councillors had called for the company to refund customers as a ‘gesture of goodwill’ after it was revealed automatic number plate recognition cameras installed at the store’s entrance had been operating for 12 months without permission.

According to planning bosses at Flintshire County Council, the cameras – designed to control the length of stay – breached a Section 106 planning agreement in place which stated that only a patrol officer could monitor the car park.

A retrospective application for the cameras was approved by members last month – providing the ‘microscopic’ signage be made bigger.

Despite this, community leaders argued that as the store was in breach of its agreement, all fines issued in this time should not be valid, and reimbursements should be made.

Cllr Helen Brown said: “There were no signs in place as people approach the car park to say that they were entering into a contract where there was a maximum stay and you need a stepladder and magnifying glass to actually read the ones inside the car park.

“My question is, if Aldi were in breach of their s106 then is it right that they were fining all these people?”

In an email to a customer who had requested a refund, Aldi said that it didn’t matter if the cameras had permission or not, the evidence that parking restrictions had been exceeded remained the same.

The email stated: “The fact that the cameras and the poles had not been granted planning permission from the time they were erected up to the present, does not render the evidence recorded by those cameras as invalid.

“Aldi has carefully considered whether or not to reimburse those who were charged and has, for the reasons set out above, decided not to do so.”

Delyn MP David Hanson said: “Aldi need to explain not only why they don’t feel they should repay the charges but what more they will do to win back those customers who are disappointed and angry with this experience.

“Let’s not forget – they have broken the agreement they had with the council – this is not good enough.”
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline Kill Switch

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 1380
The council should have insisted that they reimburse before giving retrospective planning permission, they made them increase the size of the signage, they should have made them reimburse as well
A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones that need the advice


Offline Bazster

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 74
ParkingEye was kicked out of Aldi's Dunstable branch when it came to light that Aldi had breached a s.106 agreement which stipulated that the car park was to be available to all town centre shoppers, not just Aldi customers.  Here too Aldi made no refunds, despite they/ParkingEye having no right to impose the parking restrictions in the first place.

Offline scalyback

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 325
Unless my knowledge needs updating it seems that the police cannot use evidence from illegally placed or non authorised cameras, The law courts do not accept footage from unauthorised surveillance, but for some reason, Aldi think they are above the law, and use the evidence from their non-authorised cameras to illegally extort money?

Or have I got something wrong here?

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4497
  • THE lowest common denominator
Unless my knowledge needs updating it seems that the police cannot use evidence from illegally placed or non authorised cameras, The law courts do not accept footage from unauthorised surveillance, but for some reason, Aldi think they are above the law, and use the evidence from their non-authorised cameras to illegally extort money?

Or have I got something wrong here?

I'd say that sums up the situation pretty well.  <Thumbsup>
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline Ewan Hoosami

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2227
  • Veni, Vidi, $chunti. I came, I saw, I assisted.
………………….illegally extort money?

Exactly it in a nutshell. The entire private parking business model is on very shaky legal ground to begin with. It is the 'numbers game' which makes it so successful. Literally millions of dodgy charges are issued. The amount demanded and the construct of the invoice are designed to appear as close to a statutory penalty as possible. Then a series of carefully worded threat-o-grams are sent and hey presto! the money rolls in. 100,000 sPeCulative iNvoices at £90 a pop with a recovery rate of 75% = £6,750,000 Ker-ching!  <cash>

Aldi's position is that they are not paying back a penny of their ill gotten gains. Victims can take them to court and probably win but the vast majority will not. Most people will have neither the will, knowledge or determination to go through a long and drawn out process to recover, what is to them, a fairly small amount of money. They will likely chalk it up to experience and move on with their lives.

To the lowly, and I cannot stress the word lowly quite enough, parking weasel and it's cohorts this is simply an extension of that 'numbers game'.

The campaign community know exactly how the process works and our aim(the wider community as well as the NoToMob) is to disrupt that process as much as possible.

 :-ev-:
Appealing to the council is like playing chess with a pigeon. You might be a chess grand master but the pigeon will always knock all the pieces over, shit on the board and then strut around triumphantly.

Offline dangerous beanz

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 161
If, or rather now Aldi (et all) are aware the monies have been acquired illegally, they are committing Theft, by not returning said money (and probably interest).

I wonder if the police should be told?
If there is a tourist season...how come we can't shoot them?

Offline Bazster

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 74
That would be a civil matter sir.

Offline DastardlyDick

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 1697
Presumably, Aldi cannot refund the money since it all goes into the pocket of Parking Eye?

« Last Edit: 26 November, 2014, 06:14:28 PM by DastardlyDick »

 


Supporters of the NoToMob

In order to view this object you need Flash Player 9+ support!

Get Adobe Flash player