Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I cannot stand people that park in parent and child bays. It's just pure selfishness. I have 2 very small kids. The parking bays are not always free-I frequently wait 5/10 minutes for one. I'm terrified my lo will run out in front of a car while I'm in the car park as a driver just wouldn't see my toddler as she is very little. With two one has to come out of the car at a time. Drivers expect kids near the parent and child bays. It's also closer to the door reducing the risk of a child being hit as they have physically less distance to walk to the door. It's not merely a convenience to people with kids it's also a safety issue. Walking from the rear of the park is literally multiple road crossings. When I was 9 months pregnant I had no choice but to park in a ' normal' bay as all the parent and child bays were taken and I was in a rush. When I caMe out some considerate transit van driver had parked right up against the driver door (in my space). I asked them to call him over the tannoy, and still waited 20 mins for him to come out. I physically could not get me or my lo into the car owing to my size. Seriously, you don't know how stressful shopping with kids is-I hate it which is why I only go for essentials (have most groceries delivered). Do the decent thing and park on one of the hundreds of other normal spaces.

Buddug, are you the fat bloke that (when I asked where his kids were) claimed he had to park close to the door because his weight made it too difficult to walk any further?


I've got kids but don't use those parks now that they're a bit older, we park near the recycling in the "comfort" parks which give a bit more space and walk, no big deal. Although generally I shop online, would rather pay a delivery charge than push a shopping trolley round a crowded supermarket for an hour. For parents with small babies or really young kids they're easier and safer, as pointed out before.


FWIW, they are usually full during the day, so are well used. It's the disabled ones that generally sit empty. 14 parks out of hundreds is not too many.

FIRST WORLD PROBLEM - 'Long standing customer' parks where they are not meant to; warned not to; ignores that; gets a ticket; and then is let off and still comes on the EDF and acts hard done by??? Is this a colossal wind up or actually the most pathetic thread ever on here? (and, boy that takes some doing)

???? Wrote:

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

> FIRST WORLD PROBLEM - 'Long standing customer' parks where they are not meant to; warned not to;

> ignores that; gets a ticket; and then is let off and still comes on the EDF and acts hard done

> by??? Is this a colossal wind up or actually the most pathetic thread ever on here? (and, boy that

> takes some doing)


To be fair, having to provide special parking places so people can get their fat kids out of their too-big cars was a first-world solution to a first world-problem in the first place.

Loz you're a bit ignorant. My daughter is 9th centile in weight and I drive a very old fiesta. But legally required baby seats are large, and require the doors to be opened wide to get them in and out of the cars. With all those terrible parking skills out there it literally becomes impossible to get the Los in/out of the car in a regular bay if the neighbouring car has not parked properly.


Ps we were all kids once and all had carers, so cut those that do the childminding some slack

Wow, a whole 14 parent and child parking spaces out of a car park of what, 1,000 spaces and you couldn't find a space, that makes it all right.

Plus you are supported by Louisa who in another thread thinks putting a bin in a parking space is acceptable, where are the morals now?

Cheap shot DirtyBox. Anyhow, what's morality got to do with it? A large supermarket chain has a private car park to attract more customers to spend money in its store, don't see how me pointing out a fact to the OP about the legality of a private car parking fine is in any sense immoral. It bares no resemblance at all to my situation. Totally unrelated.


Louisa.

Ok, I'll make it simple, there's a tiny number of spaces to make some peoples lives a little easier - a bit more room to get a child out the car for example - and the op has come along and thought "oooo, the nearest space is all of 100m away, I'll just park here", then they have been told they can't but they thought "f**k you, I'll do what I want" and now they are complaining they got a "ticket", enforceable or not. So basically the OP is a total and utter w*nker.

DirtyBox, unless I am mistaken, the OP claimed all the other spaces had been taken and they resorted to taking one of the 'parent & child' spaces. As I stated, rules are rules, probably not a good idea to do this, but if the rest of what they claim is true then I personally see no reason why someone who is spending money in a supermarket cannot take their chances and just do it anyway, because, it is private property, not a public road, and any action they take regarding illegal parking is not enforceable by law. The manager let them get away with it, storm in a teacup mountain out of a molehill etc.


Louisa.

buddug Wrote:

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

> Sainsbury's does seem to be clamping down now on those of us who

> are sad singles not blessed with children.


If it's any consolation, when my kids are really acting up, I sometimes think I'd prefer to be single and childless.


But "sad and single" were your choice of words. 'Nuf said!

Louisa Wrote:

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

> DirtyBox, unless I am mistaken, the OP claimed all

> the other spaces had been taken and they resorted

> to taking one of the 'parent & child' spaces.


Nope, check the original post, you are mistaken. There were 'hardly any spaces' - not no other spaces. If there'd been none at all then I'd have backed the OP.


What now?

In my experience the parent and child spaces are at a premium and occupied all the time (except at unsociable hours when the rest of the car park is empty too) so I find it hard to believe that the rest of the car park was full except this space, so as I have already said the OP is a total w*nker!


There are rules in our society (things like not dropping litter, not taking a p*ss in the street, being polite to people, joining a queue at the back, etc), lose these and then it's a free for all and it's all going to go to pot

Wow! I can't believe they revoked the charge. You were out of order, and rude. And lazy! Just park a bit further away and walk! I had someone dent the side of my van recently in that car park, maybe it was a parent with kids not being able to park in one of those bays because of someone like you. And you feel hard done by? Are you for real?!

Ha ha Pickle, you caught me out there! But I forgave them for the eggs and avocado debacle. And no, I'm not the "fat bloke" (that's not very kind, though, is it, to overweight people).


Dirty box: you live up to your name: "So basically the OP is a total and utter w*nker." Not once, but twice. Honestly!


Strafer Jack: Hi there! I know you're a parent, so I understand why you feel strongly about this, but I did write: "I do think it's good to have parent and child bays nearer to the entrance though, so parents don't have to struggle so much." So I'm not a completely lost cause! And it was a good truce, although also, I think, more an acceptance that despite the fact we will not always see eye to eye, we are both still quite decent human beings when all's said and done. Unlike many here today who have resorted to personal insult bordering on hatred. Over what, an opinion. The ED forum is a microcosm of the world...


And Shaunag: It's interesting to hear your take on the safety aspect. To be honest, I'm always nervous when reversing out of any bay of running a little one over. I shall think about this.


Do you know what, I think I'm just extremely anti-authoritarian. Most of the time I wouldn't park in parent/child bays and never in disabled bays - but that's not obeying authority, it's simply being courteous. My gripe, really, is that I don't think this should be enforced via ?60 fines. If you spend so much money in a shop and are a loyal customer the last thing on their mind should be fining you!

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

    • I see a gap in the market and a stall in North Cross Road...
    • The lack of affordable housing is down to Thatcher's promoting sale of council properties. When I was working, I had to deal with many families/older folk/ disabled folk in inferior housing. The worst ones were ex council properties purchased by their tenants  with a very high discount who then sold on for a profit. The new owners frequently rented out at exorbitant prices and failed to maintain the properties. I remember a gentleman who needed to be visited by a district nurse daily becoming very upset as he rented a room in an ex council flat and shared kitchen and bathroom with 6 other people  (it was a 3 bed flat) the landlord did not allow visitors to the flat and this gut was frightened he would be evicted if the nurse visited daily. Unfortunately, the guy was re admitted to hospital and ended up in a care home as he could not receive medical help at home.   Private developers  are not keen on providing a larger percentage of 'social housing' as it dents their profits. Also a social rent is still around £200 plus a week
    • Hello, I was wondering if others have had experience of roof repairs and guarantees. A while back, we had a water leak come through in our top floor room.  A roofer came and went out on the roof to take a look - they said it was to do with a leak near the chimney.   They did some rendering around the chimney and this cost £1800 plus £750 for scaffolding (so £2,550 total).  They said the work came with a 10 year guarantee. About a year later, there was another leak on the same wall, which looked exactly the same size and colour as the previous leak. But it was about 2 metres away from it, on the other side of a window.  I contacted the roofer about this new leak, thinking it would be covered by the guarantee. However, he said the new leak was due to a different and unrelated problem, and so was not covered by the guarantee. This new leak, he said, was due to holes in the felt underneath the tiles. He said there are holes in the felt all over the roof (so if this was the cause, I expect the first leak may have been caused by that too - but he didn't mention the holes in the felt for the first repair). It feels like the 10-year guarantee doesn't mean much at all.  I realise that the guarantee couldn't cover all future problems with the roof, but where do you draw the line with what's reasonable?  Is it that a leak is only covered if an identical leak happens in exactly the same place?  There were no terms and conditions with the guarantee, which I didn't question at the time.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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