What's more I can't see what you hope to achieve by putting phrases in quotation marks. This is is standard practice when] quoting some source or other, but as its clear you're simply making things, up it merely served to weaken your case.
No it isn't.
All the fannying about isn't a requirement on the part of the customer at all, providing they have proof which would satisfy a court or any reasonable person.
Its solely a convenience from the companies perspective which allows them to operate the car park without an on site attendent. The fact that they can bluff members of the public such as yourself into believing otherwise probably accounts for a large proportion of their profits which most likely derives from such "fines"
You are very wrong. I thought that you knew about parrots!
"Noisy parakeets 'drive away' native birds" "Although they are not aggressive, their noisy, squawky behaviour and large size, makes the smaller birds wary and keen to avoid them"
I've heard almost every type of parrot squawk, and I only find the conure annoying. Annoying other birds is irrelevant to us. Parrots are prettier than plain British birds.
Lidl's stored transaction will have the full number. If you tried to claim someone else's receipt as yours you wouldn't be able to fill in the rest of the blanks
OK I agree that the checkout person is responsible for entering them, but it's your responsibility to tell them the number.
You have already confessed that you "forgot" so you can't claim now that the operator entered them wrongly (at least, not in this discussion)
But they have done so.
the infringement is "parking without obtaining authorisation in the required manner" (and presumable they have the video/ANPR evidence to show it)
you did NOT do that.
They have, as a concession, given you the opportunity to have the infringement mitigated by YOU providing other proof they you were a valid customer. They do no need to offer this concession, therefore they do not need to collect the proof of this themselves if they do offer it.
You are expecting too much.
It is you who made the mistake, you then can't expect the other party to jump hoops to correct that mistake that you made, it is unreasonable.
because it is - Even though I am on the side of the parking company (having an interest in the result as an occupant of a block of flats that needs to manage errant parkers), I can see that the point is arguable.
The law does not work that way. If I created a contract that attempted to extra damages for a breach which were excessive that clause would be void in law. The consumer has every right to enter into the contract, knowing that the clause is (probably) void and challenge it should the breach occurs.
The idea that the consumer should say, "I think this company wants an excessive amount of damages therefore I wont enter into the contract at all" is recognised by the law as ridiculous.
That's a different argument entirely (and one with which I agree)
It we are going to be grammatically strict, there is no such offense as a "private parking infringement"
I was using the word loosely
replace it by "mistake that you made"
because I was making clear the point of separation.
I could have used a colon, I suppose.
But I'm crap at English, fell free to correct me any time, I don't care, I am crap at it
See my other post to Dave, I CBA to type it again
If this got to court and (Dave) was required to "provide they have proof which would satisfy a court or any reasonable person", it is he who would have to do that. Arguing that, as the shop had the details of his credit card transaction they should do the work of finding out if he really was a customer is not going to get you a "win".
In case it got lost in translation, the point I am arguing here is not whether Dave is guilty or not, but whose job it is to find the proof that he really was a customer, in the absences of his supplying his detains at the time.
And as it's Dave who forgot to do it at the time, it's Dave who has to do it afterwards.
And he didn't follow the rules, that makes him subject to the penalty
Sorry I don't see what the alternative position to:
"Its solely a convenience from the companies perspective which allows them to operate the car park without an on site attendant. "
is
Well I do, it's having a man/electronic barrier taking money. But I don't see what that's got to do with receiving a "fine" for overstaying (or whatever).
And on the contrary. Having free parking subject to "rules" seem to me to be more convenient for me that "always having to pay"
Personally I have never fallen foul of these people, but AIUI the law is on their side (subject to signage, correct processing of penalties etc etc...) and numpties from Website shouting otherwise does not make it different
I'm going to take it you mean a "Ring-Necked Parakeet" - like this, which is a lovely sound, and quite comical, like a squeaky door or someone polishing a window -
Yes - of course Lidl have the full details. Point I was making was the car park lot asked for my till receipt to prove I made a purchase. Which it on its own doesn't.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.