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

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

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

"michael adams" wrote in message



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 where have I claimed anything different ?

Just checking

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.

Rubbish

Fact.

They have asked him to supply the details of they CC

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

Nope, he has been advised to ignore them completely.

this lack of co-operation would count against him in court

Like hell it would when he did use the shop when his car
was in their car park.

and he will (rightfully) be seen by the judge to have brought the action
upon himself.

Must explain why so few of the claims ever
end up in court.

So if he does that, he IS stuffed.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

Dave is under no legal obligation to prove anything.

Its up to Lidl to prove that he didn't use the shop when
his car was parked in their car park and they can not do that.

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

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

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

The T&Cs are completely irrelevant, there is no contract.

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

The court will realise that there is no contract.

So AISI he is in breach of the terms

Like hell he is.

and liable to the charge for being so (subject to the reasonableness of
the charge).

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

Furthermore, being a simple soul, as are we all, given that
they've tried to "fine" him already, for something he hasn't
done

But he has done it.

why do you keep on denying that

It's simple:

Nope.

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

THERE IS NO CONTRACT.

He didn't (he said so)

he's guilty

End of.

Must be why so few claims end up in court.

the OP has every reason not to disclose his CC number to the
parco.

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

And he is welcome to ignore that request.

prior to any appearance in Court. Given that, "for all he
knows "they might be able to deduct the fine without his consent.

That's unlikely



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"

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.

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

They are free to have completely automatic system where
unless you can wave the till receipt at the scanner at the
boom gate, the boom stays down.

That's how our carparks operate. Not a shred of rocket
science whatever required.