Forums Forums Wirral Information Law And Your Rights Morrisons Car Park

Not sure what the problem is then or am I missing something?

2 hours 35 seems a long time to take to do your shopping. Even if you factor in visiting the cafe.

If you were genuinely in there all that time, due to delays or queues then take it up with Morrisons. They usually have good customer service.

Hopefully the CCTV shows him shopping and not going down to the beach, that would impress the courts.

This is a template letter I got from pepipoo and the ticket was dropped, the advice now is dont ignore and using this letter will win for you.



Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. .......131414/212357
Having received this notice in the post on the 6th December 2014 I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car, on these main grounds:

a). The sum does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term. It is a disguised penalty and not commercially justified.
b). As keeper I believe that the signs were not seen, the wording is ambiguous and the predominant purpose of your business model is intended to be a deterrent.
c). There is no evidence that you have any proprietary interest in the land.
d). Your 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA 2012 and breaches various consumer contract/unfair terms Regulations.
e). There was no consideration nor acceptance flowing from both parties and any contract with myself, or the driver, is denied.
f). On the date in question the driver of the vehicle was a customer of the store that owns the car park and spent a considerable amount in store, a copy of the receipt is enclosed with this appeal.

Your clients should be ashamed at the way they allow you to treat consumers visiting their premises. The landowner will be made fully aware of this matter and your response, which I will forward to their CEO when I complain in writing and via social media, as appropriate.

The purpose of this communication is:

1. Formal challenge
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. As such, you must either rely on the POFA 2012 or cancel the charge. I suggest you uphold this challenge now or alternatively, send a rejection letter - subject to accepting my claim for costs as clearly stated below, since you have no case.

2. ''Drop hands'' offer
The extravagant 'parking charge' is baseless but I realise that you may have incurred nominal postage costs. Equally, I have incurred costs to date, for researching the law and responding to your junk mail dressed up to impersonate a parking ticket. It is clear that my costs and yours, at this point, do not exceed £15. Therefore, this is a formal “drop hands” offer. I remind you of the duty to mitigate any loss, so withdraw the spurious charge within 35 days without further expense and I will not pursue you for my costs. If you persist then I will charge in full for my time at £18 per hour plus my out-of-pocket expenses and damages for harassment.

3. Notice of cancellation of contract
I hereby give notice of withdrawal from this alleged 'contract' which was never properly offered by you and certainly was not expressly agreed. This 'contract' is hereby cancelled and any obligations now end. If you offer - and if I decide to use - IAS or POPLA, then the contract ends immediately on the date of their decision (whatever the outcome) so my notice of cancellation still applies. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation & Additional Payments) Regulations apply now to every consumer contract, save for a few exemptions, which parking contracts are not. It is the will of Parliament following the EU Consumer Rights Directive, that express consent is obtained for consumer contracts now - NOT IMPLIED CONSENT- and that information is provided in a durable medium in advance.

You have failed to meet these requirements. The foisting of unexpected contracts like this on consumers, by stealth, is a thing of the past.
By replying to the challenge you are acknowledging receipt and acceptance of points 2 and 3 above. If you decide to persist with this unwarranted threat, I will be put to unnecessary expense and hours of time in appealing or defending this matter. As such, you will be liable for my costs and a pre-estimate of my loss - and in contrast with yours, mine is genuine - is that this sum will be likely to exceed £100.

I have kept proof of submission of this challenge. I look forward to your considered reply within 35 days.

Yours faithfully,

Wish Id known all this before I paid my fine in Aldi car park last year. Thanks for posting.

This kind of thing annoys me. There's so many signs around that car park with the information required. When I used to work there many times is have to drive to the other end of west kirby to park or be circling the car park to find a space, all because people just abused the car park.

I was late on numerous occasions on sunny days and such like simply because people would take the mick. So many times I saw people parking in there and just wandering to the beach which annoyed me. To me if the shop is open that the car park belongs too then the rules should be followed or a fine paid. If the shop is shut then I don't think it should matter.

It's perfectly plausible that in the space of 2hrs and 30mins of that space being taken at least one if not many shoppers have decided to go to Tesco in Heswall or somewhere else. This losing the company potentially hundreds.

I agree

Ditto !

I agree too

I sometimes wonder how Morrisons managed to get planning permission in the first place?

The planning permission was granted to Safeway originally, which then was then taken over by Morrisons. The land was a pitch and putt course before. There were concerns by local residents at the time that a large supermarket would damage local businesses and the image of the village as a small seaside haven. This was denied by Safeway, who said it would bring more people into West Kirby which would bring in more business for the local traders, who at this time were very well established and employed a lot of local people. Common sense at that time told me that this was all an attempt at blinding the locals with corporate nonsense that their small businesses would benefit from the opening of a supermarket in West Kirby. Safeway got the plans pushed forward by a weak Wirral council, maybe a few 'backhanders'(who knows) As soon as Safeway opened I worked for them. I wanted to see this town improvement they had claimed. I can tell you first hand how this is not the case at all. Before the store was even opened they sent staff out, usually management, simply armed with a pen and notebook. They were told not to tell anyone who they worked for and to hide their uniforms. Some just wore long coats as it opened in winter, others even changed into their own clothes. They then went out into Banks Road, The Crescent, and Grange Road were all the local traders were sited. The purpose, as if you have not guessed it yet.... to undercut all the the prices. Big supermarkets can offer lower prices as they have massive buying power and can buy things cheaper, therefore in essence offering the product to you the 'end user' cheaper. The first take over plan is now done. Now to the next plan. Target the customer. Safeway in West Kirby always in its application time that it would be a store that served the whole community, well I supposed it would have to, after all the local businesses waned and eventually died off. West Kirby has a large proportion of elderly people. These people most often buy a little food often, but usually daily, just wishing to have enough for their meal, fresh and regular. This is where local shops and the community benefit and can they can supply this, with all the added small village talk, a chit chat or a personal welcome. Safeway initiated this within the first year of opening... maybe to try and fit in? By year 2 they stopped it to pursue the family shopper' which brings the company more profit with the BOGOFF offers etc etc etc.

Well that is how it happens, I find it shocking.