"tim....." wrote in message
...

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 14:11:23 +0100, michael adams wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
[quoted text muted]

There's plenty online, especially in local groups, of people who've
ignored these demands and simply thrown them away without any
consequences at all.

Dangerous advice, post Beavis. *Probably* what would happen. But the
courts have allowed it now.

As it happens I wasn't advising the OP to do anything. I was simply making
an observation.

Any advice on offer would have been in the webpage to which I left a link


http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/c...going-far.html


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.

Beavis has been found in favour of the parking company at the appeal court, as such is
precedence creating and applies everywhere (in England)

The Supreme count have heard Beavis' (2nd) appeal and the world is awaiting their
response.

That's what I just said, above.


(After that there's nowhere else to go - this isn't a subject likely to get a very
positive response for a hearing at the European court)

tim

Unlike in this case, AFAIUI Beavis is appealing simply on the grounds
that it's "unfair"; on a matter of principle, not on matters of fact.
And as such I'm rather surprised that he's got this far.

In this case the OP is in the right, he shopped at Lidl and
didn't exceed the limit. And there's proof of this as he paid
by credit card and his car was filmed by the CCTV both
in and out. So he doesn't need to do anything or explain
himself in any way. As it happens he helpfully explained to
them that he'd paid by CC, which is more than I'd have done.


michael adams

....