Jump to content

Parking Fine Outside Sainsbury's Local on Lordship Lane


Recommended Posts

Just a warning, I stopped there for less than 3 minutes to get cough medicine with my wife and parents in the car and two lovely christmas spirited parking officers slapping a fine on my car in the allocated parking bays outside the sainsburys local on lordship lane near the library. Apparently it becomes a bus lane after 16:00 in the afternoon. So everyone be careful!


What makes matters worse is these guys hide in the shadows waiting for unsuspecting victims to park there, you pop in for a second and BAM. ?120 fine or ?60 reduced if paid within 2 weeks.


I've always seen loads of people parking there and while the guys started walking off with big smiles on their faces, another motorist parked right in front of my car so I warned him and am trying to warn others not to fall victim to these people.

I've made a similar mistake - parking there in the minutes before the bus lane restriction was lifted on the morning at the weekend. I had assumed the absence of a morning rush hour at weekends would mean the bus lane applied Mon-Fri, and others were already parked there which seemed to give credence to the theory. But I was wrong and a traffic warden was waiting for me when I came out.


Much to my shame I was a bit rude to him, though it has to be said he did seem to be enjoying writing the ticket just a little bit too much. Anyway, I don't risk parking there at any time any day of the week now just to be on safe side. Teach me to be lazy, I should walk there really!

Narnia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you had read the sign you wouldn't have parked

> there though.


The first time I parked there many moons ago, I did read it and it was fine at the time. Since then, loads of people always parked there. So I don't know if they changed the sign recently or what? Anyway, I'm just putting out a warning as I know I wont be the last person to be ticketed there, so all I'm saying is just be careful.


What gets me more is I was literally in the shop less than 3 mins, I went straight for the medicine isle, didnt see the cough medicine and came straight out, and there was a ticket on the window. I'm convinced they just wait in the shadows and pounce. A bit of decency would be for the guy to come out and say, sorry, you're not allowed to park there and I would have happily moved. Instead they were all smug about getting another victim.


So while its too late for me, I just hope I could save someone else for falling into the same trap.

PeckhamRose Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I have said it before and I shall say it again;

> parking attendants are the scum of the earth.


xxxxxx


That's not fair PeckhamRose, some of them might have a bit of an attitude but there is a reason for parking restrictions, and it's to keep traffic moving.


Hugs, however xx

I sympathise RicB if the parking wardens showed themselves you wouldn't park or you could check with them whether you were doing the right thing but they do hide in the shadows and pounce, they must be on commission to play such games.


Narnia if the warning signs were clearer one would not park in places where one is going to get fined, but they are often written so they are indecipherable so they can 'harvest' the motorist.


Missus SeanMcG you sound smugger than ever!

Big bus lane markings


Signs giving the permitted times


Busy road near a main junction where anyone parking EVEN IF ALLOWED is going to cause a problem


And people still want people standing by the side of the road with neon signs saying ?don?t park here?


So many times I?ve had to tolerate people parking in bus lanes at that very junction ? getting cash out, popping into a shop, whatever ? oblivious to the problems they cause behind them.


Buses have had to stop in the middle of the street blocking ALL traffic behind because the car is in the bus lane

People unable to use wheelchair access because the bus can?t hit the kerb


Near-daily it was when I was waiting just a few minutes at a bus stop ? so it obviously goes on all day


And all because people are too lazy to park where they should

I love the concept of Bus Lanes keeping traffic moving!


The other week in Marylebone Road the traffic barely moved for TWENTY MINUTES in the "motorist" Lane while the Bus Lane remainded virtually empty the whole time.


How many hundreds of thousands of combined hours are wasted when motorists are left immobile in "their" Lanes, all over London, during each year. Often while the Bus Lane is empty or barely used, next door.


I'm not an expert on the environment but the pollution caused by the ( often ) stationary cars can't be good for the planet can it, so do people just ( conveniently and selectively ) just ignore that side-effect of clogging up the traffic ?


Am I right that Road Taxes ( paid by the motorist ) and Council Tax, contributed by motorists amongst others, actually pay for these Bus Lanes? Thats great paying for something that causes you a delay ! lol


Where I live the genius's in the local Council have introduced 2 Cycle Lanes to the High Street from our surrounding Main Road over the last 18 months. One Cycle lane is on the pavement so does not affect the traffic but the other lane has narrowed the traffic space so that the ( formerly ) free-flowing Road is now, often, at a standstill ( especially during rush hours ) and the benefit for thousands of hours being wasted over the 18 months ?.....about 30 cyclists I've seen during that whole 18 months, about 2 cyclists per month.

If you ever bothered to use a bus instead of sneering you would know full well the benefit of us lanes ? transporting many many more people per sq foot than a car can


If all of the people currently using buses started driving, THEN you would know what a delay was

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you ever bothered to use a bus instead of

> sneering you would know full well the benefit of

> us lanes ? transporting many many more people per

> sq foot than a car can

>

> If all of the people currently using buses started

> driving, THEN you would know what a delay was


Having driven in London for 20 years before Bus Lanes were introduced, I KNOW the effect of Bus Lanes in that many free-flowing ( relatively ) roads were INSTANTLY transformed and, literally, millions of hours would have been ADDITIONALLY wasted by Car Drivers and their passengers, all over London, since then.


Bus Lanes ARE beneficial for BUS USERS ! lol...


Why, hypothetically, would "all" the bus users start driving ? Only a % of people drive anyway ( for multi-farius reasons ) . So that scenario would never happen, in any event.


I do use the Bus/Tube during the week because Big Brother has forced me to as it is so much easier for users of the Buses, in particular, these days. and we have always had an excellent tube service.


Sod the poor old motorists then, after all there only helping to pay for extra delay they face, I should start laughing at them as I sail by and give them a cheery wave.(tu)


For journeys through London I wouldn't dream, these days, of driving thru' the heart of Town as it has been made a nightmare because of the Anti-Car Movement. ( Yeah! I know, "we" are not anti-car but Pro Public Transport ..:)


Just symptomatic of the lack or restriction of choice that we face in many areas these days, for example "Big Brother" has deemed that we WILL sit down at Football Matches even though the overwhelming majority of fans prefer to stand.


p.s. We must always listen to those that "know best" on our behalf.


Where's Winston Smith when you eed him ?

so you make it sound like life as a motorist is intolerable


AND


life as a bus user is intolerable (forced as you were by big brother to use it)


That's a heavy burden to be carrying around in life - how do the rest of us manage I wonder?

I got a 60 fine outside kebab and wine a few weeks ago, some street camera got me, I didn't know until letter came that it was controlled there, thought I was ok there.

Wrong.


However when I went back to check after getting the letter, the sign did say clearly.

My fault/assumption.


Read the signs.

However, I think that when NEW signs go up or they're CHANGED, the sections of the road affected should be sprayed in fluorescent day-glo pink paint (which remains for a month) to warn potential parkers and all passers by that there's money to be lost here if you don't adhere to the regs.

With current volumes of traffic, if there were no bus lanes, buses wouldn't really be useable. And obviously it makes sense to give priority to vehicles carrying 100 people, above vehicles carrying typically 1-2 people.


If you park in the bus lanes, buses have to pull out into the outside lane, not only delaying it's journey, but holding up all the other traffic behind it.


BUT - I agree that traffic wardens are bloody annoying. I don't think they're on commission, but they do have targets, which encourage these predatory tactics.

OK, so inevitably this has descended into yet another a motorists versus public transport / cyclists scrum (yawn).


As a user of public transport, daily cyclist and occasional (say twice monthly) motorist, I am going to attempt to respond to the OP without getting bogged down too much. Here goes...


Traffic wardens (IMHO) should be trying to enforce the rules in order to remove incorrectly parked cars and restore the flow of traffic / leave spaces available for residents etc.


Their behaviour of "waiting in the wings" for motorists to make an error, disappear into a shop and then issue a PCN serves to increase the length of time that vehicles are in violation of the rule. They are representatives of the Council and should first and foremost inform the public of the rules in a helpful way to prevent the offence / restore the situation as expediently as possible.


This never (seldom?) happens. By waiting until the motorist has gone, they are prioritising fee income over rules enforcement. This is just wrong.


I once had a similar situation where despite my usual paranoia about where to park, I parked with a pay and display ticket incorrectly in a "resi only" bay that was adjacent to a P&D bay. Clearly an honest mistake. The warden saw me park where I did, waited until I left and issued a ticket 2 mins later when I was around the corner. I was in violation of the rules, but I argued my case and won at adjudication.


This was in Wandsworth where the traffic wardens (as a matter of policy) are required to give motorists the opportunity to move vehicles before issuing a PCN and I had a good case that the warden had been there at the time (takes a couple of mins to issue a ticket and I had the time on the parking ticket and on my P&D ticket as evidence) and had not followed their own policy.


I had a quick look on the Southwark site and can unfortunately see nothing about wardens giving the public an opportunity to move first.


RB - Doubt you'd have a case here. I was fuming as I had seen the warden looking at my car whilst I was posting my P&D ticket and he had said nothing, whereas I don't think your warden was necesarily there as you had parked.


Still it is a bit of an outrage that fines are prioritised over informing and upholding rules. You could write to the Council and ask a closed question re policy - is it (a) to inform and enforce or (b) to allow rules to be broken and fees to be issued.


Anyway a good reminder to motorists to remain absolutely paranoid about where to park at all times.

Simply look at the parking restrictions before you leave your car anywhere, its common sense.


Bus Lanes have different effects on traffic and buses all over London. For instance on East Dulwich Road going towards Nunhead the Bus Lane and lane markings cause more problems for cars and buses than the bus lane solves, the bus lane causes everyone to be in the right hand lane but 99% of the traffic is going straight on or left. This causes a massive tailback, to where there is only a single lane and no bus lane. This then causes buses to get stuck in the queue further back. If there was no bus lane there I think all forms of traffic would move much more freely and reduce queues.


This is the same in a variety of places across London where they have put in a very small chunk of bus lane without looking at all the implications.

Simonet Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Am I right that Road Taxes ( paid by the motorist

> ) and Council Tax, contributed by motorists

> amongst others, actually pay for these Bus Lanes?

> Thats great paying for something that causes you a

> delay ! lol

>


No, you are wrong. There's no such thing as 'Road Tax'. As a driver of 20 years, I'm surprised you didn't know that already.


Nice rant though.

If it was just about keeping the bus lane free, then seeing the warden there would be enough to keep people from parking - he could just move people along or warn them they are due a fine for parking there and point out parking restricitions (which are not always clear whatever anyone says!). It is obviously about revenue as they fine rather than explain/give warning.

What Lane?


A Bus Lane has been in Lordship Lane,

park there, and its only you is to blame.

You get a Ticket so pay up the fine,

no use saying ?I didn't see the sign?


Obstruct a bus passing near the curb,

just to think of this, is quite absurd.

The Traffic Warden you must heed,

in your opinion is a different breed.


Next time you park to take the chance,

think of the casualty in that ambulance.

Take a moment think of what you do,

an occupant in Ambulance could be you.


Topaz

pearl1 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If it was just about keeping the bus lane free,

> then seeing the warden there would be enough to

> keep people from parking - he could just move

> people along or warn them they are due a fine for

> parking there and point out parking restricitions

> (which are not always clear whatever anyone

> says!). It is obviously about revenue as they fine

> rather than explain/give warning.


They are always completely clear unless you can't read English. Also I don't think it is a parking wardens job to stand by parking bays and inform ignorant drivers that they can't park there. You don't get warnings because its patently obvious when you are parking illegally.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...