Re: B&Q car park overstay charge £50 -> £80 -> £110 -> ...

All these so-called fines should be ignored. Don't waste your time communicating with these scammers Nothing will come of it except a few threatening letters.

See

There's a local 'retail park' with a carpark common to all the shops. There's a PC World, a Marks & Spencer, an Argos, a Wickes, a Comet, a large pet shop, a furniture shop, a burger joint and (one or two other establishments. If you were doing some serious shopping, you could easily spend most of the day there. I've got a feeling that the parking time limit is 2 hours. Next time I visit, I suppose I'd better check.

Oh dear. I'll often visit a B&Q looking for something, then drive to the Homebase nearby, to compare price, then back to the B&Q to buy. Or the other way round. The stores are not 4 hours drive apart...

That's a good one. Or better if it was faulty. I'd love to see them try to defend charging someone for exercising their statutory right to return faulty goods!

Mike

--

Right across the road from each other in fact, right?

;-)

But before anyone goes on about saving the planet by walking I'm always going to buy something too bulky to carry...

When in the past I've received such nastygrams I've replied referring the appellants to

"The Reply Given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971)"

::::::::::::::::: Solicitor (Goodman Derrick & Co.): We act for Mr Arkell who is Retail Credit Manager of Granada TV Rental Ltd. His attention has been drawn to an article appearing in the issue of Private Eye dated 9th April 1971 on page 4. The statements made about Mr Arkell are entirely untrue and clearly highly defamatory. We are therefore instructed to require from you immediately your proposals for dealing with the matter. Mr Arkell's first concern is that there should be a full retraction at the earliest possible date in Private Eye and he will also want his costs paid. His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply.

Private Eye:

We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell. We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: f*ck off.

You have no statutory right to park for free or to disregard any parking signs just because you are returning goods.

It would be bad publicity for them, but so are most of these cases.

IMO these companies are only one step above the 'car clampers' operating in my area and throughout the rest of England. They are illegal in Scotland! The only difference is that the clampers make it impossible to move your car until you pay their extortionate fees while the more 'hi-tec' companies send you bullying letters, threatening all sorts of penalties which they cannot legally enforce. Both of these use the same scam of putting up notices which most people don't even notice in the normal run of events. Take the advice of previous posters and ignore them!

I've noticed that ANPR is being increasingly used, so labour costs are minimal - They only need a few percent hit rate of gullible mugs to pay up to make the scam viable.

You reckon Homebase charge the same prices in all of their stores? I've got news for you...

Hell, John Lewis don't charge the same prices in all their stores. And they'll price match against themselves, if you find out!

..but you could offe to supply the information for a fee...!

No need - you can see plenty of sample letter chains here