On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 11:28:16 +0200, David in Normandy
wrote:


I can understand that such a deterrent is needed to stop people abusing
the car park and shopping elsewhere but I think the store manager should
have some sort of fine veto arrangement with the company they have the
car park managed through or it is a very good way of getting bad
publicity and losing good customers.

I manage a number of estates where we've (reluctantly) had to bring in
parking management because of abuse problems - polite notices put
under windscreen wipers are ignored and it's surprising how many of
the problem cars are "repeat problems". In all cases, the parking
management contractor has paid for the installation of the camera
systems (we simply provide somewhere for the "control computer" with
electricity and an ADSL link back to their base). These systems can
cost several thousand pounds. In return, the contractor gets an
agreement which gives them the "absolute" right to enforce whatever
the rules are. I make sure there's a clause that allows me to "demand"
cancellation of a ticket but have to use this ability carefully. We
do, though, maintain funds which can be used to reimburse someone the
cost of what is a "legal" ticket in "unfortunate circumstances" such
as the B&Q one quoted.

These automated systems have their downside - because they're
automated they don't know what discretion is, though normally they
will be set to allow 10-15 minutes leeway over the specified time. But
they are far better than the alternative of clamping - at least you
can drive away immediately rather than having to wait for someone to
come to remove a clamp.

I'm currently looking at one store car park where we're thinking of
making it "pay and display" and the parking fee will be refunded at
the checkout - this is because the 2 hour limit is being abused by
people who want to shop nearby in a town centre and can do what they
want to do in the 2 hour period whilst people who want to shop in the
store cannot park there.

Jake