Stop Clampers Charging Extorionate Fees

Many reputable businesses hand car park management over to reputable clamping firms. They allow them to run car parks as a money making concession. Worse than that, the owner requires clampers to do that.

The reason is simple: the owner does not pay the clamper. The only money they get is when they actually clamp a car or van. They don't get paid for patrolling, putting up signs, deterring car thieves, etc. These routine activities are 100% cross-subsidised by clamping.

It does not cost £130 to fit a clamp when patrolling a car park anyway. It does not cost £130 to travel 100 yards and remove it. But it may cost that to employ someone full time and patrol at other times. This cross-subsidy is fundamentally wrong.

Make these contracts for no set fee illegal. Require the land owner to pay a Patrol Fee that covers the clampers day to day costs (or give them a cut of parking meter) and limit Release Fees to a cost that reflects reasonable time and effor for someone already in the area, with a mild punative element – say £20 total. Do not factor in the initial cost of clamping, as that can onlt happen if they are already in the area.

Why is this idea important?

Many reputable businesses hand car park management over to reputable clamping firms. They allow them to run car parks as a money making concession. Worse than that, the owner requires clampers to do that.

The reason is simple: the owner does not pay the clamper. The only money they get is when they actually clamp a car or van. They don't get paid for patrolling, putting up signs, deterring car thieves, etc. These routine activities are 100% cross-subsidised by clamping.

It does not cost £130 to fit a clamp when patrolling a car park anyway. It does not cost £130 to travel 100 yards and remove it. But it may cost that to employ someone full time and patrol at other times. This cross-subsidy is fundamentally wrong.

Make these contracts for no set fee illegal. Require the land owner to pay a Patrol Fee that covers the clampers day to day costs (or give them a cut of parking meter) and limit Release Fees to a cost that reflects reasonable time and effor for someone already in the area, with a mild punative element – say £20 total. Do not factor in the initial cost of clamping, as that can onlt happen if they are already in the area.

Freedom from big retailer monopolies

 

While large chains provide benefits in the form of lower prices and more services, they also have their drawbacks.  Smaller, independent stores are unable to compete and so are disappearing.  This will lead to less choice and less innovation for the consumer.  Our country will also loose these characteristic shops and see them entirely replaced with a few monotonous chains.

Big chains should be encouraged in some areas, such as out of town centres, as they lead to lower prices.  However smaller retailers need supporting.

There should be different tax brackets on the revenue for retailers based on their income.  This should be adjusted so that chains can still exist, but smaller stores can also lower their prices to compete.  

Why is this idea important?

 

While large chains provide benefits in the form of lower prices and more services, they also have their drawbacks.  Smaller, independent stores are unable to compete and so are disappearing.  This will lead to less choice and less innovation for the consumer.  Our country will also loose these characteristic shops and see them entirely replaced with a few monotonous chains.

Big chains should be encouraged in some areas, such as out of town centres, as they lead to lower prices.  However smaller retailers need supporting.

There should be different tax brackets on the revenue for retailers based on their income.  This should be adjusted so that chains can still exist, but smaller stores can also lower their prices to compete.  

Supermarkets to contribute

Instead of householders paying more in council tax to enable the councils to recycle more why not ask the Supermarkets to contribute?

We, as the consumer, buy most of our food in packaging which we end up having to recycle. This is not a bad thing in asking us to put out the right bits in the right boxes thus reducing more that goes into landfill BUT why aren't the Supermarkets being asked to contribute to the recycling schemes. For example, they could pay for all the new recycling and wheelie bins that have recently been distrubted in our area as well as part funding the contractors costs for collecting.

 

Why is this idea important?

Instead of householders paying more in council tax to enable the councils to recycle more why not ask the Supermarkets to contribute?

We, as the consumer, buy most of our food in packaging which we end up having to recycle. This is not a bad thing in asking us to put out the right bits in the right boxes thus reducing more that goes into landfill BUT why aren't the Supermarkets being asked to contribute to the recycling schemes. For example, they could pay for all the new recycling and wheelie bins that have recently been distrubted in our area as well as part funding the contractors costs for collecting.

 

SUPERMARKET HOURS RESTRICTION

I want you to imagine the situation, you walk in your supermarket on your way home from work, you've had a busy day, but need to pick up a few items for your evening meal. You walk in, your head drops with disappointment, yet again you go in to find it incredibly busy and you know it's going to take a while to get to the aisles you want, let alone actually get to the checkout to pay.

What makes it worse is the realisation that the supermarket is not full with other people in similar positions who have been at work (yes there are some), but there are large numbers of old people, and young ladies with their babies wandering through debating what they need, not rushing feeling they have all the time in the world, without a second thought for the fact you just want to get back home and eat and relax after a stressful day at work.

I therefore, must propose that a law be brought in that prevents people who do not work in the day from using supermarkets during lunchtime hours, and between 17.00 and 20.00. A small sacrifice for them, that enables people who cannot go during the quieter hours of the day due to work commitments, to be able to do their shopping quicker, and hence improving the efficiency of the country as a whole.

Why is this idea important?

I want you to imagine the situation, you walk in your supermarket on your way home from work, you've had a busy day, but need to pick up a few items for your evening meal. You walk in, your head drops with disappointment, yet again you go in to find it incredibly busy and you know it's going to take a while to get to the aisles you want, let alone actually get to the checkout to pay.

What makes it worse is the realisation that the supermarket is not full with other people in similar positions who have been at work (yes there are some), but there are large numbers of old people, and young ladies with their babies wandering through debating what they need, not rushing feeling they have all the time in the world, without a second thought for the fact you just want to get back home and eat and relax after a stressful day at work.

I therefore, must propose that a law be brought in that prevents people who do not work in the day from using supermarkets during lunchtime hours, and between 17.00 and 20.00. A small sacrifice for them, that enables people who cannot go during the quieter hours of the day due to work commitments, to be able to do their shopping quicker, and hence improving the efficiency of the country as a whole.

Prevent ‘stealth’ rises in foodstuffs and other products

All too often we see the contents of food stuffs packages reduced whilst the price remains the same.  This is a price increase by stealth and shouldn't be allowed to happen in this manner.  We consumers need protection and the way to do it is to force food (and other) producers to make it plain in a standard and consistent manner that the package contents have been reduced. 

It should be made illegal to operate in the manner they currently do so.

 

Why is this idea important?

All too often we see the contents of food stuffs packages reduced whilst the price remains the same.  This is a price increase by stealth and shouldn't be allowed to happen in this manner.  We consumers need protection and the way to do it is to force food (and other) producers to make it plain in a standard and consistent manner that the package contents have been reduced. 

It should be made illegal to operate in the manner they currently do so.

 

Stop supermarkets charging exorbitantly for plastic carrier bags

My problem is the hypocrisy of some supermarkets charging way over the odds for plastic bags to up their 'green' credentials whilst flogging their own goods in overwhelming amounts of both rigid & soft plastic, dyes etc.

Sainsburys use eco-friendly plastic bags…..so why can't others follow suit?

The small handled, square paper 'bag for life' types are not strong, cut into your hands, are unwealdy, & impossible to use for those with certain conditions like RA, whereas plastic ones are flexible & can be hung over the wrist.  

Why is this idea important?

My problem is the hypocrisy of some supermarkets charging way over the odds for plastic bags to up their 'green' credentials whilst flogging their own goods in overwhelming amounts of both rigid & soft plastic, dyes etc.

Sainsburys use eco-friendly plastic bags…..so why can't others follow suit?

The small handled, square paper 'bag for life' types are not strong, cut into your hands, are unwealdy, & impossible to use for those with certain conditions like RA, whereas plastic ones are flexible & can be hung over the wrist.  

Transparancy in nutritional labeling standards for food

Currently supermarkets are getting away with making food seem healthier by bunging in whey powder, cheese powder etc into products that never traditionally had them (bread/crackers etc) so as to make the protein ratio higher, thereby making the fat & sugar percentages look lower. This is hoodwinking the public & completely unnacceptable. It's also making things more difficult for those with dairy allergies, vegans etc as they have to scrutinise ingredient lists for milk products where they would never before expect to find them.

Why is this idea important?

Currently supermarkets are getting away with making food seem healthier by bunging in whey powder, cheese powder etc into products that never traditionally had them (bread/crackers etc) so as to make the protein ratio higher, thereby making the fat & sugar percentages look lower. This is hoodwinking the public & completely unnacceptable. It's also making things more difficult for those with dairy allergies, vegans etc as they have to scrutinise ingredient lists for milk products where they would never before expect to find them.

Stop noise pollution from Fridge wagons

Fridge wagons, whilst needed to move food around country can be a nuisance if parked near housing, this needs to be stopped. Especially development within 2 miles of housing if fridge wagons will be going to and from the development

 

Example supermarket distribution centre.

 

My proposal is to fine wagons £2000 for parking within audible range of housing, a fine of £2000 if complaints are made about wagons visiting a business and the noise is audible within your garden or house, a fine of £100,000 for distribution centres or commercial centres causing a noise nuisance, if the noise can be heard in your garden or house.

Why is this idea important?

Fridge wagons, whilst needed to move food around country can be a nuisance if parked near housing, this needs to be stopped. Especially development within 2 miles of housing if fridge wagons will be going to and from the development

 

Example supermarket distribution centre.

 

My proposal is to fine wagons £2000 for parking within audible range of housing, a fine of £2000 if complaints are made about wagons visiting a business and the noise is audible within your garden or house, a fine of £100,000 for distribution centres or commercial centres causing a noise nuisance, if the noise can be heard in your garden or house.

Legislate against BUY ONE GET ONE FREE offers

In the UK we throw away 8 millions tonnes of food a year just from households.  This is £12 billion retail value equivelent, more than the entire Department of Transports Budget!!!

This also costs councils and therefore council tax payers another £1 billion per annum to landfill or treat all this food waste!

Its a complex area, but one reason is because people just buy to much when they are shopping in a hurry and never get round to eating it, this is exacerbated by BOGOF offers which make you get twice as much as you really needed. 

In New Zealand a private members bill – the waste minimisation act – requires amongst other things that supermarkets doing BOGOF to offer you a single unit for 50% of the price.  This is a simple measure which combined with public education and awareness of cooking, shopping, storage and home composting could help save the UK billions of pounds and make us leaner, greener, meaner and better off

Why is this idea important?

In the UK we throw away 8 millions tonnes of food a year just from households.  This is £12 billion retail value equivelent, more than the entire Department of Transports Budget!!!

This also costs councils and therefore council tax payers another £1 billion per annum to landfill or treat all this food waste!

Its a complex area, but one reason is because people just buy to much when they are shopping in a hurry and never get round to eating it, this is exacerbated by BOGOF offers which make you get twice as much as you really needed. 

In New Zealand a private members bill – the waste minimisation act – requires amongst other things that supermarkets doing BOGOF to offer you a single unit for 50% of the price.  This is a simple measure which combined with public education and awareness of cooking, shopping, storage and home composting could help save the UK billions of pounds and make us leaner, greener, meaner and better off

End misleading supermarket “special offers”

Consumers need a masters degree in shopping to negotiate the often confusing and misleading special offers in the big supermarkets.

Two-for-one, three-for-two, buy-one-get-one-free deals work if they are honest and straightforward..

But, all too often, consumers only discover that they have been ripped off when they later check their till receipts. Most are too busy to check, which means extra profits for the supermarket giants.

Some deals are so confusing that even the supermarket staff themselves find it difficult to interpret them when challenged.

Point out a mistake and the managment invariably quotes "human error.". This is hard to accept when the shelves are carefully stacked in line with special "planograms" sent out by head office.

It is common to find an end-of-aisle shelf stacked with "special offers" with one or two items expressly excluded from the deal – a sure fire way of confusing busy mums and pensioners.

Consumer law should be amended to force the big supermarkets to be honest and fair with their customers. The new test should be – if a special offer is capable of being misunderstood by anybody, it is illegal. It should be as simple as that.
 

Why is this idea important?

Consumers need a masters degree in shopping to negotiate the often confusing and misleading special offers in the big supermarkets.

Two-for-one, three-for-two, buy-one-get-one-free deals work if they are honest and straightforward..

But, all too often, consumers only discover that they have been ripped off when they later check their till receipts. Most are too busy to check, which means extra profits for the supermarket giants.

Some deals are so confusing that even the supermarket staff themselves find it difficult to interpret them when challenged.

Point out a mistake and the managment invariably quotes "human error.". This is hard to accept when the shelves are carefully stacked in line with special "planograms" sent out by head office.

It is common to find an end-of-aisle shelf stacked with "special offers" with one or two items expressly excluded from the deal – a sure fire way of confusing busy mums and pensioners.

Consumer law should be amended to force the big supermarkets to be honest and fair with their customers. The new test should be – if a special offer is capable of being misunderstood by anybody, it is illegal. It should be as simple as that.
 

Restrict the buying of Alcohol to support smaller businesses

I feel that the buying of alcohol has turned into a complete buyers market, I do not think that it is good for society on this scale and the supermarket giants are simply profiting from the general public's use.

My initiative would be to reduce the buying hours of alcohol as well as restricting the sale of it through licensed vendors only. I would suggest that it becomes only available for sale at registered off-licences of which have only a certain square footage of shop space and being only within a reasonable distance from each other. This would give the business back to the smaller companies and possibly start to encourage less drinking nationally.

As a separate idea which I would also like comment on, I think that we want to encourage more drinkers to use pubs and clubs rather than drinking on the streets and at home. Perhaps a tax incentive to make drinking in pubs cheaper would be a great option; this could be combined with making drinks available from off licenses more expensive as to keep the levels of tax received at a current level. This other idea would massively help landlords and ladies.

Rob

Why is this idea important?

I feel that the buying of alcohol has turned into a complete buyers market, I do not think that it is good for society on this scale and the supermarket giants are simply profiting from the general public's use.

My initiative would be to reduce the buying hours of alcohol as well as restricting the sale of it through licensed vendors only. I would suggest that it becomes only available for sale at registered off-licences of which have only a certain square footage of shop space and being only within a reasonable distance from each other. This would give the business back to the smaller companies and possibly start to encourage less drinking nationally.

As a separate idea which I would also like comment on, I think that we want to encourage more drinkers to use pubs and clubs rather than drinking on the streets and at home. Perhaps a tax incentive to make drinking in pubs cheaper would be a great option; this could be combined with making drinks available from off licenses more expensive as to keep the levels of tax received at a current level. This other idea would massively help landlords and ladies.

Rob