"michael adams" wrote in message
...

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

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...
On 10/10/2015 16:31, michael adams wrote:

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

As I posted further up the thread, I'm not sure how this proves that
the OP made a purchase at the relevant time unless

Unless nothing.

The CC transaction will give the location and exact time and date.

You can't really get a much better standard of proof than that.

The fact that the claimant may have to jump through hoops to
satisfy themselves that the OP is speaking the truth as he
claims, or in the end find themselves unable to do so, is
entirely their problem. Not his.

I don't agree

the offence is one of "forgetting to enter his details at the time"

There is no such offence.

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"


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.

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

as such it IS the OP's job to prove that they were otherwise entitled to
free parking, It is this mistake which has caused the company the
inconvenience of establishing this, so it is HIS task to prove it.

No it isn't.

See my other post to Dave, I CBA to type it again


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.

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.

Its solely a convenience from the companies perspective which
allows them to operate the car park without an on site
attendent.

And he didn't follow the rules, that makes him subject to the penalty

The fact that they can bluff members of the public
such as yourself into believing otherwise

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"


probably accounts
for a large proportion of their profits which most likely derives
from such "fines"

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

tim