Lidl parking

[Dave Liquorice]

The card voucher(*) for the transaction will have the last four digits of the card number, the type of card credit/debit visa/mastercard/why and if not contactless the expiry date and maybe the start date. Fairly minimal chance of a random voucher matching all those with the card in your wallet. Even without the voucher or goods receipt you just go to your card provider and ask for the full information on that transaction.

They don't have a foot to stand on, let them take you to court and end up paying their and your costs.

The letter from the parking co will have been sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle they think has committed an offence, sourced from the DVLA via the vehicles registration number.

(*) The "voucher" information may or may not be on the main receipt for the goods, it varies across stores, aldi and co-op have a seperate vouchers, tesco is all together, sainsbury's are double sided so effectively all together.

[Dave Liquorice]

No Lidl that is easy to get too, they are a "I'm passing, I wonder what tools/gadgets they have" store.

Aldi have recently had some "Ready to Eat" mangos and they really are ready to eat unlike any other supermarkets "ready to eat" fruit that have to sit in bag with a bunch of bananas for a week...

[tim.....]

where do the rules say "only if asked"?

As I said earlier, my experience of this method of parking with this company is that the cashier never asks

they expect you to tell them.

Let's try an analogy here:

you're in WHS and you pick up a newspaper, it's one of those shops with an honesty box (do they still have them?)

You walk out without paying.

are you going to argue that you only have to pay "if asked"?

Unfortunately it is.

no, no fault in their system

your mistake in not giving them the details (as required)

tim

[tim.....]

I accept that you could have picked up someone else's receipt

This seems a very marginal case here, so they probably just take the risk.

After all, the receipt that you pick up has to have the right time on it for the time of your parking transgression, AND it has to be one for which the actual owner hasn't already registered his car - think of the consequences if you fail the latter - potential jail time! [1]

Not too many people are going to take that risk to avoid a 20 quid fine

tim

[1] probably not for a first offence, I admit

[tim.....]

does she not know your car's reg then?

tim

[michael adams]

Irrelevant (see below). But even if it were -

In this case the penalty isn't excessive. Had the appelant made the calculation beforehand he'd have noted two things.

a) That the sum being asked is broadly comparable with parking fines and speeding tickets imposed by local authorities and

b) If anecdotal evidence is anything to go by at least ignoring these notices is far more common than is the case with local authority fines which can be backed by Court Orders and bailiffs, etc. So that just simply for expenses to be met, the level of the penalty will need to reflect this low level of compliance

But this isn't a consumer contract. This is an arrangement between three different parties; Lidl, the parco. and the parker. Lidl have an asset limited parking spaces, for use by customers of their store and nobody else. They need to police this at the lowest possible cost to themselves. Given any particular rate of non-compliance, the parco.which can generate the largest revenue from fines, will be able to charge Lidl the lowest amount to operate the car park.

Basically its Lidl, in deciding how much they're willing to pay the parco. who determine the level of the fines the parco is going to need to charge those parkers who cough up, in order to make a profit. With Beavis I'm rather surprised this matter hasn't already been raised. in i.e. who his dispute is actually with, rather than nominally with. Or maybe it has.

michael adams

...

[michael adams]

The qualification here is in the context; which you snipped.

Maybe if you weren't in the habit of snipping so much, you might get a better understanding of what is actually being argued.

Taking words or phrases out of context and then arguing the toss about their specific meaning merely goes to show that a person in question doesn't really grasp the point being made.

The above statement was made in response to Jethro UK.'s remark in respect of my observation about people ignoring letters

along the lines of "not after Beavis".

Which given that no judgement is yet forthcoming, is a complete load of old bollocks.

Maybe being too polite is my undoing.

michael adams

...

[michael adams]

And where have I claimed anything different ?

As I've said now more than once let them take him to Court if they wish. As soon as he said he's paid by CC they'll have known that if he's speaking the truth then they're stuffed basically.

No. Once he explains he paid by credit card, then assuming he's speaking the truth then they know they're on a loser.

Furthermore, being a simple soul, as are we all, given that they've tried to "fine" him already, for something he hasn't done the OP has every reason not to disclose his CC number to the parco. prior to any appearance in Court. Given that, "for all he knows "they might be able to deduct the fine without his consent.

Having a man in a kiosk issuing timed tickets and checking parkers Lidl receipts on exit would allow for free parking. No Lidl receipt and the barrier stays down and they're clamped until they cough up. Or failing that towed away. In the meantime the other barrier is used.

Having a physical presence alone along with clamps etc and stories in the local paper of cars being towed away would soon deter most of the abuse.

michael adams

...

[Andy Burns]

No longer permitted.

[tim.....]

I have no idea what point you thought I was making]

none of the above is relevant to it

(though I don't disagree with it)

Yes it is.

The product is parking, the consumer is "the customer" and the business is "Lidl represented by their agent AN Other"

So what that doesn't stop the primary contract being a B2C contract.

(FWIW Beavis tried arguing this "owned by/managed by relationship tainted the legality of the "fine" in their original submission. It was so roundly dissed by the Judge that they don't bother to take this point to appeal)

Yes which prove whwat?

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

It was

the judge threw it out

tim

[tim.....]

That's all irrelevant

the quote that I replied to was

"As to Beavis I'm not aware of any judgement being made, and in any case with Beavis, there is no disagreement as to fact.

In this case there most certainly is. It's for the complainant to prove that the OP hadn't shopped in Lidl at the appropriate times, not for him to prove that he had."

The fact that you nay have said something different before then is just tough,

it's what happens in usenet, get used to it

it doesn't entitle you to be rude to future respondents

tim

"

[tim.....]

Just checking

Rubbish

They have asked him to supply the details of they CC

He is being advise to tell them to look for it themselves

this lack of co-operation would count against him in court and he will (rightfully) be seen by the judge to have brought the action upon himself.

So if he does that, he IS stuffed.

The T&Cs are that he must give his details to the cashier. he did not do that.

The court will not inset in the T&S ("or we well look the details up for you")

So AISI he is in breach of the terms and liable to the charge for being so (subject to the reasonableness of the charge).

But he has done it.

why do you keep on denying that

It's simple:

"YOU MUST SUPPLY YOUR CAR'S DETAILS TO THE CASHIER AT CHECKOUT..."

He didn't (he said so)

he's guilty

End of.

Actually, they didn't ask him for that, they asked for a copy of the receipt

Not going to happen though, is it? There's no-one to pay the wages of the "little guy".

tim

[charles]

A lot of them don't even know their own car number - they know its colour, though.

>

[Mike Barnes]

[raises hand]

But I've never used that sort of car park.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Not really interested in their rules. If unreasonable.

And my experience of this system at this particular branch is always being asked if I have a car in the car park, and for its number.

The car parking restrictions are principally for the benefit of the store. If the park is full (with non customers) so real customers can't park they may loose that sale. Which is a bit obvious.

It costs the store to install and police some form of control. Again obvious, as they don't have it at other stores with larger car parks and less chance of non customers using it.

So since it is primarily for the benefit of the store, it's up to them to operate it in the most customer friendly way. If they have any sense.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Don't be silly.

Oh - if the parking company is going to check any receipt provided is in fact the correct one, based on details not on the receipt, they might as well check with no receipt at all. Which is just my point.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

I'd actually love to see them try.

Plenty of people of my age have no means of copying a receipt and sending it to the carpark company - without involving both a deal of time and expense. And would be mad to post them the original.

So why should they be penalised for what in this case is a failure of the checkout person to carry out the correct procedure?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In this case you don't actually need the exact number of your car, as they can show you a picture of it if the number doesn't match. That does of course assume the driver would recognise his own car. I'd guess several here wouldn't.

[michael adams]

How exactly has a non Lidl customer, parking in their car park entered into any contract with Lidl or their agent ?

And what consideration or fee has he paid so as to fulfil his side of this supposed contract ?

michael adams

...

[michael adams]

But given that, in his view, they're already trying to "fine" him for something he hasn't done, why should he necessarily trust them with details of his CC ? Not being an expert in such matters he might suspect that once having his CC number they might interpret that as an admission of guilt on his part and deduct the "fine". Thus putting him to the trouble of trying to recover the money.

You are aware of the maxim "innocent until proven guilty" I take it ? Witholding evidence when being cautioned and arrested for a criminal offence is an entirely different matter; as the police need to have grounds before arresting anyone in the first place. .

He's explained to them that he paid by credit card. As noted above he can can give reasonable grounds for his not wanting to disclose his CC number to them. Not that that is even necessary.

If they chose to disbelieve him then is they who are bringing the action. It is they who need to give reasonable grounds as to why they chose to disbelieve him.

Not the other way round.

michael adams

...