Re: Tesco parking : Thu May 26, 2011 4:14 am  

Pieman wrote:

Not at all fella, I stated what actually happens. You are just finding loopholes and trying to exploit them.

not a loop hole at all, you wuite clearly stated they would be able to track down the driver which clearly isn't true!

and what are loopholes for if not to exploit, your just pee'd off cause your team get caught for trying to break the rules rather than exploit loopholes!

Re: Tesco parking : Thu May 26, 2011 4:48 am  

SLIMply a treble! wrote:

not a loop hole at all, you wuite clearly stated they would be able to track down the driver which clearly isn't true!

and what are loopholes for if not to exploit, your just pee'd off cause your team get caught for trying to break the rules rather than exploit loopholes!

again not at all. They arent breaking the rules in fact its the other way around. They have notices and you are choosing tom ignore them. I said they can and do chase the owned of the car which is correct.

Re: Tesco parking : Thu May 26, 2011 5:26 am  

Pieman wrote:

again not at all. They arent breaking the rules in fact its the other way around. They have notices and you are choosing tom ignore them. I said they can and do chase the owned of the car which is correct.

now this is where you prove how stupid you truly are, you have agreed there is a loop hole in the system, i've given you evidence of this and yet you continue to argue for the sake of it! they cannot prosecute the owner of the car if he / she was not driving the car at the time of the offence... end of, no if buts or cheap crusty pies, there is no way they can do it by law. you may have been told something else but who ever told you is wrong. go back and check the link i posted earlier, read it properly (or get your mum to read it to you) then come back and apologise. (which you won't, you'll just come back without any proof claiming your right!)

oh i love the smell of a back tracking wigganer in the morning, it reminds me of victory!

Re: Tesco parking : Thu May 26, 2011 8:35 am  

SLIMply a treble! wrote:

now this is where you prove how stupid you truly are, you have agreed there is a loop hole in the system, i've given you evidence of this and yet you continue to argue for the sake of it! they cannot prosecute the owner of the car if he / she was not driving the car at the time of the offence... end of, no if buts or cheap crusty pies, there is no way they can do it by law. you may have been told something else but who ever told you is wrong. go back and check the link i posted earlier, read it properly (or get your mum to read it to you) then come back and apologise. (which you won't, you'll just come back without any proof claiming your right!)

oh i love the smell of a back tracking wigganer in the morning, it reminds me of victory!

So again I will put it in plain english for you and I can do it without insults. Its a civil case, you can fine the owner of the car. Its if the dispute it that the grey areas come out? Can you understand that now?

Re: Tesco parking : Thu May 26, 2011 9:49 am  

SLIMply a treble! wrote:

now this is where you prove how stupid you truly are, you have agreed there is a loop hole in the system, i've given you evidence of this and yet you continue to argue for the sake of it! they cannot prosecute the owner of the car if he / she was not driving the car at the time of the offence... end of, no if buts or cheap crusty pies, there is no way they can do it by law. you may have been told something else but who ever told you is wrong. go back and check the link i posted earlier, read it properly (or get your mum to read it to you) then come back and apologise. (which you won't, you'll just come back without any proof claiming your right!)

oh i love the smell of a back tracking wigganer in the morning, it reminds me of victory!

Slim. Technically you're right, but I would sooner back Pieman than you on this. If you want to cause yourself a shedfull of worry and hassle, and then drag a really minor matter through the courts, then it's up to you, but I would much rather take Pieman's attitude.

Re: Tesco parking : Thu May 26, 2011 10:00 am  

Pieman wrote:

So again I will put it in plain english for you and I can do it without insults. Its a civil case, you can fine the owner of the car. Its if the dispute it that the grey areas come out? Can you understand that now?

I can't understand the underlined bit. Can you? I doubt Stanley Unwin could, either. WIGANERS Who'd 'ave 'em?

The simple way of clearing this arguement up....park sensibly, think about where you're parking...am I liable to get a ticket if I overstay my allotted time? Use your noggin!

Re: Tesco parking : Thu May 26, 2011 11:26 am  

lefty goldblatt wrote:

I can't understand the underlined bit. Can you? I doubt Stanley Unwin could, either. WIGANERS Who'd 'ave 'em?

The simple way of clearing this arguement up....park sensibly, think about where you're parking...am I liable to get a ticket if I overstay my allotted time? Use your noggin!

Its when you dispute the whole Im not driving like stated before it becomes grey. I agree with the latter part.

Re: Tesco parking : Thu May 26, 2011 12:01 pm  

If its private land that its contract law that applies.

It will be the driver of the car that enters into the contract to park the vehicle there and therefore it is the driver who will be liable for any penalty not the vehicle owner.

As this is a contract then it is "private" between the parties and therefore the vehicle owner is under no obligation to divulge the name of the driver of the vehicle (infact technically as the contract is private, the owner of the vehicle will be deemed not to know the parties of the contract).

IF the vehicle owner claims not to be the driver and it can be shown they were, THEN the owner/driver COULD be accused for fraud (ie:- obtaining services without the due consideration being paid) which will then become a criminal offense. (If the owner keeps quiet then no action can be taken to force them to divulge and they committ no further offence).

Re: Tesco parking : Tue May 31, 2011 6:15 am  

mikej wrote:

If its private land that its contract law that applies.

It will be the driver of the car that enters into the contract to park the vehicle there and therefore it is the driver who will be liable for any penalty not the vehicle owner.

As this is a contract then it is "private" between the parties and therefore the vehicle owner is under no obligation to divulge the name of the driver of the vehicle (infact technically as the contract is private, the owner of the vehicle will be deemed not to know the parties of the contract).

IF the vehicle owner claims not to be the driver and it can be shown they were, THEN the owner/driver COULD be accused for fraud (ie:- obtaining services without the due consideration being paid) which will then become a criminal offense. (If the owner keeps quiet then no action can be taken to force them to divulge and they committ no further offence).

that's all i was saying, thank you.

this has happened to me, and to date (over 3 years ago now) i have not been found guilty of any offence as i was truly not driving my car at the time. tesco would need to prove i was the driver or they would be unable to persue the claim further, the delusional belief that they would chase the driver as stated by pieman earlier is made up rubbish!

and yes i do watch where i park/ use my "noggin" but as stated before i was not driving my car