Norman Wells wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Norman Wells wrote

That depends on what exactly the displayed conditions were.

Nope.

They determine what has to be proved, and where the burden of proof
lies.

Nope. The basic law on proof still applys.

They still have to prove that you didn’t comply with the conditions.

Which might include, for example, retaining your receipt from the shop,
or producing it on demand.

But it doesn’t.

Were you there?

Don’t have to be there.

How do you know the conditions if you weren't?

We could get real radical and ask someone who has been there.

If they do, the burden of proof that you used the shop shifts to you.

Nope.

It certainly can.

Nope.

And often does.

Nope.

You don't understand civil actions at all, do you?

There will be no civil action, you watch.

Parking attendants all over the country do so successfully all the
time.

Even the bluff letters can be completely automated.

They're not 'bluff letters'.

Corse they are. Dave is under no legal obligation to prove anything.

They are free to take him to court and wear his costs when he
shows that he did use the store when he parked in their car park.

If he has proof that he did shop there which he could have produced
earlier when asked, he won't be awarded his costs because, amongst other
things, he will have wasted the court's time.

There will be no court, you watch.

The parking company is fully entitled to the charges it displays,

Dave gets to park there for free, because he used the shop when he parked
there.

and has a legal right to recover them from non-payers.

Dave is not a non payer, he owes Lidl nothing, because
he used the shop when he had parked in the car park.

But he didn't tell the store at the time.

The store didn’t ask him at the time.

So that is their problem.

Maybe that's relevant, maybe it isn't.

It isn't.

It all depends on the displayed conditions,

Nope.

which I suggest you have no idea about.

You are free to suggest anything you like.

Lidl's system failed ? That's Lidl's problem, not his.

They have deeper pockets than he does.

They won't be stupid enough to compare
the depth of their pockets, you watch.

If they fail in their action, they won't be too concerned.

They wont be stupid enough to end up in court, you watch.