OT - Parking scam at Lidl

[Derek Geldard]

Can't speak for "others" Lidl are not involved in the legalities save they seem to have sold their birthright for a mess of pottage subjecting their customers to such appalling treatment at the hands of Shyster & Co

The next Lidl I see that has handed their parking control over to Shyster & Co will be the last time I go near it.

I can only assume the powers that be at Lidl don't realise they are putting their business in such jeopardy.

It takes 10x as much expenditure to keep a customer than it does to get a new one. Times are hard and freinds are few.

Derek

[Huge]

Lidl's lawyers know full well these charges are unenforcable. But most people are spineless morons (like you, for example) and pay up.

[John]

And so we come full circle.

The problem is that the OP was a customer of Lidl for a few minutes and then went off doing general shopping, leaving his car occupying a Lidl parking space when he wasn't a customer of Lidl. If the car park is/was full he is effectively blocking a _potential_ customer of Lidl from _becoming_ a customer of Lidl - ergo, potential customer doesn't get the shopping they want, Lidl lose money and decide that they need some company like UKPC to look after the car park - and before some pedant says it'll take more than the OPs car to make that situation a reality, I know. Maybe there's plenty more inconsiderate bastards around to make it a reality.

[Clive George]

I describe myself as a customer of various places, even though at the moment I'm sitting at a computer.

It's in Lidl's interest to let him do reasonable amounts of other business, otherwise there's no point in him visiting the store at all, and there goes a customer.

One could argue that if he was preventing another customer from shopping there they've lost out, but there seems to be no such indication - nobody has said the car park was full.

[Andy Burns]

I think he did it the other way round, i.e. parked, went elsewhere, came back to shop at lidl, quite likely to get caught if the sharks are on the look-out.

If he'd parked, gone to lidl then walked elsewhere (without dropping stuff into the car) they'd be far less likely to notice ...

[John]

But it might have been. How many other drivers are doing exactly the same as the OP? I just can't believe that people are trying to justify this. When going to Lidl I park at Lidl. When going to Asda I park at Asda. When going into the town centre and maybe visiting a dozen different places, I park at a public car park that is run by the council or NCP or whoever, it doesn't matter. What I don't do is to take up a parking space meant for patrons of a particular place and then go elsewhere.

[John]

Does it matter? End result is that he was using a Lidl parking space when not a customer of Lidl, that could have been used by a Lidl customer.

[pete]

I would expect Lidl's motivation to be far baser than that. Consider the following model: They get 100 vehicles an hour parking/shopping/leaving. If the shop is open for 10 hours a day, that's 1000 vehicles. If only 1% of those get a £90 penalty - and (say) 7 actually pay up, that's £630/day. I don't know what Lidl's rake would be - let's say £200. Now, to make £200 _profit_ from their commercial operation, if they make

5% margin on their sales they'd need to sell £4,000 of extra stuff each day. If a customer's average transaction is £40 that's equivalent to 100 extra punters a day - all for issuing one penalty per hour. If half their customers use the car park, then that means they get 2,000 sales each day - so they've effectively got a 5% increase in turnover but without having to do anything, except let a little plastic piggie wander around their carpark, occasionally honking off a car owner.

[Clive George]

That's not good enough. Was it? If not, you've got no point.

[John]

Let me make this clear once and for all - I'm not defending the use of UKPC or the £90 rip-off. What I'm saying is that someone - anyone - should not use a car park meant for patrons of one place and then go off to other places. Simples.

[John]

Of course it's good enough. It doesn't matter if the car park was full or empty. The whole point is that someone should not use a car parking space meant for patrons of one particular place and then go off somewhere else. It's just plain wrong and discourteous.

[Cicero]

==============================================================================

I wonder if Lidl's actions have been prompted by possible abuse by people visiting the local race course which appears to be only about half a mile away from Lidl?

My local branch of Wickes has taken similar action (about two years ago) to prevent Wolves football fans abusing their parking space.

It seems entirely reasonable to warn off (even with an empty threat of a £90-00 fine) people who are simply trying to avoid paying legitimate parking charges at another venue.

Cic.

[mike]

If corporate lawyers are always right, how come corporations sue each other? Surely they'd both know in advance who was right.

[Clive George]

There we disagree. I've explained why it's not, and indeed is in the interest of the provider of that car park to allow that to happen.

[John]

Fair enough - we disagree.

[John Rumm]

Its frequently not that clear cut anyway. For example a supermarket close to the town centre near here operates a pay on exit car park, which is free for up to two hours for customers (you get your car park ticket stamped at the checkout or show a receipt to the attendant on exit). They have no restrictions on leaving the shop etc and are happy to accept people park there and shop elsewhere even if not customers, for which they charge a fair price for the parking space.

Other branches of the same supermarket however have different policies; some allow use of the car park as long as you also shop in the store, others restrict use to only those that shop there and for no other purpose. So unless you read the small print *every* time you visit you are not always certain of what "rules" apply (its common practice for parking "enforcement" operators to modify the terms of use with some small print on a sign somewhere so as to catch regular users in a bait and switch manoeuvre, changing an allowable practice into a revenue generating one overnight with no warning or explicit signage - itself a questionable practice.

[John Rumm]

What about if you drive SWMBO to the shop, she goes in a shop and you go elsewhere to shop. You return and sit in the car, and wait for SWMBO to exit the shop?

A little common sense and flexibility is to everyone's benefit (except the private parking firms obviously).

Given the choice between two supermarkets, near a town centre. One with a relaxed attitude to people using their car park for other purposes

*and* also shopping in the store, and one which employs parking Nazi's, which do you suppose gets the most business?

[John Rumm]

It would be well worth people who have ceased being customers for these reasons letting the shops know why. Once enough do so, then the popularity of the cowboys will fall.

I think you mean that the other way round (i.e. retaining an existing customer is cheaper than recruiting a new one)

[mike]

Leaving aside the fact that the OP is a regular and long-standing customer of Lidl (which holes your ludicrous argument below the waterline), how does occupying a small amount of tarmac in an empty carpark outside an empty supermarket qualify as "just plain wrong"? What fundamental undermining of the moral rectitude of the universe has been caused by this action?

[mike]

And yet everyone but you is. If you had even a smidgeon of intelligence, that might give you pause for thought.