"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 21:51:51 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 20:18:45 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



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

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"ARW" wrote in message
...
"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 22:58:45 +0100, Graham. wrote:

On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 21:38:48 +0100, newshound
wrote:

On 09/10/2015 21:25, charles wrote:
In article , Tough Guy no. 1265

wrote:
On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 21:11:19 +0100, charles

wrote:

In article , Tough Guy no. 1265
wrote:
On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 16:39:24 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article , Bill Wright
wrote:
charles wrote:

How do they link your car registration with your payment
card?
Did you give them your card number in the first email?

at the branch I use, the cashier asks for your car number
but
it
doesn't end up on the receipt - but the date & time of
purchase
does.


I don't use shops that have these parking systems.

It's actually less trouble than the close by ASDA, where you
have to
get and display a free ticket from a machine.

They obviously have to control parking in some way, as it's
beside
an extremely busy station, with no car park.

Then the station should build themselves a car park. Why did
the
council approve a station with no car park?

That's rather like asking why Windsor Castle was built so
close
to
Heathrow airport.

No it isn't.

Since the station waa built before the age of the motor car -
and
Town &
Country planning did not exist - it is very similar

Yes indeed. When I was a lad (1950's) my local suburban commuter
station
(Ewell West) had a couple of dozen car parking spaces, but it was
seldom
more than half full. Most of those commuters who were lucky
enough
to
have a car left it at home with the wife.

Women driving? Next thing they'll will be smoking pipes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXzqAC_7Vxg


Blocked.

Nope.

what part of:

"This video contains content from BBC Worldwide, who has blocked it in
your country on copyright grounds"

do you not understand

;-)

Don't get anything like that. And stop that smirking
or you will be sent to your room, again.

Will there be spanking?

Nope, you enjoyed that too much the last time.

You can't have too much of a good thing.

You don't qualify.

On 11/10/2015 22:56, Rod Speed wrote:
Fredxxx wrote

snip

The matter regarding defamation was related to the consequence where
such a PCN was applied incorrectly.

Still not defamation, just a mistake.

Do you understand what defamation is? By definition, it is quite
typical for a mistaken accusation that leads to defamation.

If you had read the relevant post

I did.

you would have understood this

I understood that it had nothing whatever to do with defamation.

and its cost to Simon's company.

Still nothing to do with defamation.

That was your red herring.

You clear don't have a clue what defamation is.

They can't even demand that you tell them who was driving the car
in the Lidl car park situation.

You don't seem to understand that the law changed a couple of years
ago, where the registered keeper is responsible for providing the
name of the driver or pay the charge themselves.

It isn't that black and white with private parking.

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is not black and white.

No one ever said it was.

It clearly makes the keeper liable for parking charges incurred on
private land.

Not when the keeper is entitled to park there for free.

Perhaps you should make yourself familiar with this act

Did that long ago thanks.

before making yourself look more like an idiot.

You're the one doing that furiously digging
that hole you have dug for yourself.

snip nonsense

Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there.

Given you don't have an understanding of contractual relationships and
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, I guess is must be.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 11/10/2015 19:08, Rod Speed wrote:
Fredxxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Fredxxx wrote
wrote
Graham. wrote

Even if I successfully appeal the parking charge or Road Traffic
Act offence, the admin charge still stands

If you successfully appeal the parking charge then you should
counterclaim against them for the admin charge. It's a loss wholly
due to their pursuing an unenforceable claim against you.

That was my thought initially, but this is really defamation and its
consequences.

No its not, any more than receiving a speed camera fine is.

They can't even demand that you tell them who was driving the car in
the Lidl car park situation.

Aren't we therefore talking of High Court action?

Nope, just ignore anything they send you and see them
realise that their bluff has been called and give up.

We were talking of defamation,

Only you were, erroneously.

was talking about this aspect.

Nope, you were.

Perhaps you should get a decent newsreader,

The one I use is fine and it isn't the newsreader that shows
it was you that were silly enough to bring up defamation.

Try counting the s

or at least trouble to read the relevant posts.

Did that when I made that comment.

where Graham (I think) would suffer a £20 admin charge from the lease
company,

Nope, from his employer whose car it was.

even if the PCN was issued incorrectly.

Still not defamation. The car was in the carpark, that's
how they got the number. No defamation involved in
asking his employer who normally drives that car.

Are you really this thick?

We'll see...

Simon said
"My problem is that I drive a company (leased) car so the DVLA
search returns the leaseing company's details, and they email my
employer who pass the details on to me.
The leasing company charge my employer £20 for doing this, and my
employer in turn deducts this administration fee from my salary"

So its clearly his employer who charges him.

Do you understand the bit where Simon says "The leasing company charge my
employer £20 for doing this, and my employer in turn deducts this
administration fee from my salary"

Still the employer who charged him.

If your memory is so short or you have lack the most basic comprehension
skills, perhaps its best to give up now or forever show your lack of
intelligence.

You smokescreen to cover up the fact that
you STILL have no defamation noted.

Since the £20 is a contractual obligation between Graham's company and
the lease company,

You don’t know that either.

he cannot bluff anyone

It’s the operator of the car park that is attempting the bluff.

It is no bluff.

It is a complete bluff that Dave has to do a damned thing.

Why do you say otherwise?

Because it is. Novel concept I realise.

or expect the lease company to give up.

He wasn’t doing anything like that either.

And there STILL is no defamation involved.

If I suffer a loss over the claims of someone else, I assure you I can
sue.

And if you are stupid enough to claim that
any defamation is involved, you will lose.

Whether it is worthwhile is another matter.

And whether you will succeed in spades.

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 21:50:53 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 20:04:30 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 10:19:06 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Capitol" wrote in message
o.uk...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Tough Guy no. wrote:

Supermarkets should have adequate parking. They should be sited
on
large areas of ground. If they don't, they can **** off. I want
to
park my car, go shopping, then go home. I will not mess about
with
****ing tickets.

Excellent news. Means you'll not be moving to London.


Why would anyone want to from choice?

Because a lot more happens there than anywhere else.

That's one of the main reasons not to go there.

Not for those into what happens more than anywhere else.

Things cause noise.

Plenty of the stuff that happens there doesn't like art gallerys.

Most get used to that.

Easier to not have to.

They prefer to have the stuff that happens there.

What's wrong with some natural surroundings like trees?

Some find that too boring.

Some are nuts.

Yep, specially those actually stupid enough to
'live' in some tiny little hovel in some pimple
on the arse of Britain with no hot water.

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 20:15:31 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 12:30:04 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Not for those into what happens more than anywhere else.

Things cause noise. What's wrong with some natural surroundings like
trees?

They have parrots in them round here. Nasty things which make a lot of
noise. And a particularly unpleasant one.

Most trees don't have parrots in them.

And the only parrot that makes an annoying noise is the conure.

BULL****.

Birds are nice creatures.

There's a reason for that immortal phrase, bird brain.

The only annoying noise is the dog.

Your problem.

On 11/10/2015 23:16, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 11/10/2015 19:08, Rod Speed wrote:
Fredxxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Fredxxx wrote
wrote
Graham. wrote

Even if I successfully appeal the parking charge or Road Traffic
Act offence, the admin charge still stands

If you successfully appeal the parking charge then you should
counterclaim against them for the admin charge. It's a loss wholly
due to their pursuing an unenforceable claim against you.

That was my thought initially, but this is really defamation and its
consequences.

No its not, any more than receiving a speed camera fine is.

They can't even demand that you tell them who was driving the car in
the Lidl car park situation.

Aren't we therefore talking of High Court action?

Nope, just ignore anything they send you and see them
realise that their bluff has been called and give up.

We were talking of defamation,

Only you were, erroneously.

was talking about this aspect.

Nope, you were.


He said "It's a loss wholly due to their pursuing an unenforceable claim
against you."

Perhaps you can explain Graham's route of obtaining recompense?

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 22:07:25 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 17:37:23 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/10/2015 17:36, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 22:20:33 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 20:59:58 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 05:34:03 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 21:38:48 +0100, newshound
wrote:

On 09/10/2015 21:25, charles wrote:
In article , Tough Guy no. 1265

wrote:
On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 21:11:19 +0100, charles

wrote:

In article , Tough Guy no. 1265
wrote:
On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 16:39:24 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article , Bill Wright
wrote:
charles wrote:

How do they link your car registration with your
payment
card?
Did you give them your card number in the first email?

at the branch I use, the cashier asks for your car
number
but
it
doesn't end up on the receipt - but the date & time of
purchase
does.


I don't use shops that have these parking systems.

It's actually less trouble than the close by ASDA, where
you
have
to
get and display a free ticket from a machine.

They obviously have to control parking in some way, as
it's
beside
an extremely busy station, with no car park.

Then the station should build themselves a car park. Why
did the
council approve a station with no car park?

That's rather like asking why Windsor Castle was built so
close to
Heathrow airport.

No it isn't.

Since the station waa built before the age of the motor car -
and
Town
&
Country planning did not exist - it is very similar

Yes indeed. When I was a lad (1950's) my local suburban
commuter
station
(Ewell West) had a couple of dozen car parking spaces, but it
was
seldom
more than half full. Most of those commuters who were lucky
enough to
have a car left it at home with the wife.

All these problems are solved by not living so close to each
other. I
don't have parking problems in Scotland.

But you do have a hell of a problem getting
and keeping a well paid job or even one
that you would be happy to do for free.

No more than I would in London.

Much more than you would in London in fact.

Statistics show otherwise.

Like hell they do.

Don't make me google it for you. There's a map somewhere that shows
it's the same percentage throughout the UK.

And in London you need a much better paid job as the house prices
are
stupid.

And there are far more of those there than where you are now.

Why get paid more just to pay more?

Because it beats being on benefits.

In London you couldn't live on benefits.

Many do.

Impossible, the mortgage could not be paid.

They don't have a mortgage, they rent.

And what about those who had a mortgage and a job they lost?

The mortgage company gets the house if they
didn't have mortgage insurance that covers that.

Norman Wells wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Norman Wells wrote
Harold Davis wrote

How long a period of parking are you buying for the additional
"charge",
colloquially referred to as a "fine"? Is that specified on the
"contract"?

When you park, you are deemed to accept the conditions on whatever
notices are displayed prominently in the car park.

Its not that black and white with unreasonable conditions.

The conditions may be unreasonable. The only time they're unenforceable
is if they're entirely unconscionable.

That is not correct.

You're perfectly at liberty to contract to whatever conditions you want
to.

That is not correct either. They have to be legal for starters.

You do not contract to hand over your first born if
you don’t actually use the store as well as the carpark.

If you park there, you're accepting the terms and conditions displayed.

Nope, you are free to park there knowing that a
particular condition is not enforceable or is illegal.

By parking there, you enter into a legally binding contract, the terms
of which are those conditions.

That is just plain wrong.

No it isn't. It's absolutely right.

That is just plain wrong, most obviously
when one of the conditions isn't legal.

Same with any signs that claim that they have no liability at
all for anything that happens to your car in there. If part of
their building falls on your car, or one of their employees drives
into your car or kicks the **** out of it because it's where they
want to park themselves, that's their problem legally, not yours.

Of course, if it's a case of provable negligence on their part, then they
likely cannot escape their legal liabilities.

That isn't the only situation where what is stated on
the sign is not enforceable, particularly when what
is stated on the sign isn't legal, like with a statement
that goods will not ever be refunded.

If something happens to your car while it's there that is not their fault,
the condition is enforceable because you've agreed to it.

And if it is their fault, doesn’t matter what the sign says.

Any charges displayed are legally enforceable.

Wrong.

Yes they are.

Nope, not when they don’t spell out clearly
under what circumstance the charge is due.

And that isn't true in Dave's case because
he did use the Lidl shop when he parked there.

He has to pay whatever the conditions demand of him.

Nope, not if the conditions say that the kids must be
left locked in the car in the carpark, because that is illegal.

If that's nothing because he met the displayed condition by shopping in
the Lidl store, then he has to pay nothing.

And if he ignores the condition that the kids must be left locked
in the car in the carpark, he still doesn’t have to pay anything.

That includes any charges for overstaying your welcome, parking in the
wrong way etc etc.

But not when you used the shop while parked there.

If that is in the conditions he contracted to when parking there, then he
has to pay nothing. But that's because it's in the conditions, not
because none of the conditions are enforceable.

And if the condition is that the kids must be left
locked in the car in the carpark, he still doesn’t have
to pay anything when he ignores that condition.

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 22:41:35 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:24:59 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 11/10/2015 12:30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Not for those into what happens more than anywhere else.

Things cause noise. What's wrong with some natural surroundings
like
trees?

They have parrots in them round here. Nasty things which make a lot
of
noise. And a particularly unpleasant one.

We get lots of Parakeets around here and they make an awful screeching
sound.

We get lots of galahs in the trees here and they make a hell of a
racket.

Not just their screeching and jabbering to each other either,
I have a big line of trees along what would otherwise be the
fence line to the park next door and when there are a hundred
or more of them in those trees as there can be at times, the
sound of them all taking off at once when I come out of the
house which has the front door on that side can be amazing.

I'd like that.

I don't mind that. Not so keen on them
all jabbering at each other for hours tho.

Easy enough to frighten birds off.

Not these. My trees leave all the rest for
dead, that's why they all congregate there.

Can't legally do the same to people though.

You can actually.

I fail to see people not liking birds.

You wanna try our magpies at this time of year.

Complete pain in the arse.

No birds would ever bother me.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Norman Wells wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Norman Wells wrote
Tim Streater wrote
Norman Wells wrote
Harold Davis wrote

How long a period of parking are you buying for the additional
"charge",
colloquially referred to as a "fine"? Is that specified on the
"contract"?

When you park, you are deemed to accept the conditions on whatever
notices are displayed prominently in the car park. By parking there,
you enter into a legally binding contract, the terms of which are
those conditions. Any charges displayed are legally enforceable. That
includes any charges for overstaying your welcome, parking in the
wrong way etc etc.

That may or may not be true, IANAL. But if so, it would still require
the parking cpy to take action by taking you to court. Small Claims
Court or perhaps County Court. It's then up to them to prove that you
haven't complied with the conditions.

Hardly difficult.

Very difficult to prove that you didn’t use the shop when you used the
carpark.

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.

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

Lidl doesn’t have any of those.

Someone must have tried to impose the parking charge.

The operation that Lidl gets to run their car park.

Doesn’t necessarily involve any attendant at all.

Even the bluff letters can be completely automated.

Fredxxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Fredxxx wrote

The matter regarding defamation was related to the
consequence where such a PCN was applied incorrectly.

Still not defamation, just a mistake.

Do you understand what defamation is?

Yep.

By definition, it is quite typical for a mistaken
accusation that leads to defamation.

But the case when all they do is ask you to prove that you
did shop in the Lidl at the time you used their carpark.

They aren't even accusing you of anything when they do that.

If you had read the relevant post

I did.

you would have understood this

I understood that it had nothing whatever to do with defamation.

and its cost to Simon's company.

Still nothing to do with defamation.

That was your red herring.

You clear don't have a clue what defamation is.

Easy to claim.

There is no defamation when they ask Dave to prove
that he did shop in the Lidl when he used the carpark.

They can't even demand that you tell them who
was driving the car in the Lidl car park situation.

You don't seem to understand that the law changed a couple
of years ago, where the registered keeper is responsible for
providing the name of the driver or pay the charge themselves.

It isn't that black and white with private parking.

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is not black and white.

No one ever said it was.

It clearly makes the keeper liable for
parking charges incurred on private land.

Not when the keeper is entitled to park there for free.

Perhaps you should make yourself familiar with this act

Did that long ago thanks.

before making yourself look more like an idiot.

You're the one doing that furiously is digging
that hole you have dug for yourself.

snip nonsense

Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there.

Given you don't have an understanding of contractual
relationships and the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012,

Easy to claim. And irrelevant to your claim about defamation.

I guess is must be.

Guess again.

Fredxxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Fredxxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Fredxxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Fredxxx wrote
wrote
Graham. wrote

Even if I successfully appeal the parking charge or Road Traffic
Act offence, the admin charge still stands

If you successfully appeal the parking charge then you should
counterclaim against them for the admin charge. It's a loss wholly
due to their pursuing an unenforceable claim against you.

That was my thought initially, but this is really defamation and its
consequences.

No its not, any more than receiving a speed camera fine is.

They can't even demand that you tell them who was driving the car in
the Lidl car park situation.

Aren't we therefore talking of High Court action?

Nope, just ignore anything they send you and see them
realise that their bluff has been called and give up.

We were talking of defamation,

Only you were, erroneously.

was talking about this aspect.

Nope, you were.

He said "It's a loss wholly due to their pursuing an unenforceable claim
against you."

That says nothing whatever about defamation.

You were the only one erroneously mentioning defamation.

Perhaps you can explain Graham's route of obtaining recompense?

I didn’t comment on that.

On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 14:27:02 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

And you're right. Just looked at the receipt and there isn't a name on
it. Or even the full card number. Which means it's of no use on its own
to prove I made a purchase when I said I did as I could simply have
picked one up from the carpark floor, or out of a trolley, etc. Unless
the receipt number is cross referenced to the actual purchase, which
then is cross referenced to me.

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.

I suppose it's easier to send out a letter saying 'Dear xxxx, you
owe
us £x for parking in Lidl's car park' than ask Lidl 'we see a car
kept
by xxxxx was parked in your car park between xx.xx and yy.yy .
Could
you look and see if a card transaction in that name was made at
that
time?'.

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.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 12/10/2015 00:38, Rod Speed wrote:
Fredxxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Fredxxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Fredxxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Fredxxx wrote
wrote
Graham. wrote

Even if I successfully appeal the parking charge or Road
Traffic Act offence, the admin charge still stands

If you successfully appeal the parking charge then you should
counterclaim against them for the admin charge. It's a loss wholly
due to their pursuing an unenforceable claim against you.

That was my thought initially, but this is really defamation and
its consequences.

No its not, any more than receiving a speed camera fine is.

They can't even demand that you tell them who was driving the car
in the Lidl car park situation.

Aren't we therefore talking of High Court action?

Nope, just ignore anything they send you and see them
realise that their bluff has been called and give up.

We were talking of defamation,

Only you were, erroneously.

was talking about this aspect.

Nope, you were.

He said "It's a loss wholly due to their pursuing an unenforceable
claim against you."

That says nothing whatever about defamation.

You were the only one erroneously mentioning defamation.

Perhaps you can explain Graham's route of obtaining recompense?

I didn’t comment on that.

You kept on commenting on this thread regarding the relevancy to
defamation. As I expected you haven'y a clue what defamation is.

If you could answer the question why all of your rambling nonsense on
this thread?

On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:43:35 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

You can't have a legally binding contract without being certain it
has
been read. Which would normally need a signature. And maybe even a
witness.

Oh yes you can.

In English law a contract can be formed by just saying in "yes".

"Dave, are you free to do Everton on Saturday?"
"Yes"

Contract is formed...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 12:37:36 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Lidl salad and fruit isn't as good as Tesco.

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...

--
Cheers
Dave.

Fredxxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Fredxxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Fredxxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Fredxxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Fredxxx wrote
wrote
Graham. wrote

Even if I successfully appeal the parking charge or Road
Traffic Act offence, the admin charge still stands

If you successfully appeal the parking charge then you should
counterclaim against them for the admin charge. It's a loss
wholly
due to their pursuing an unenforceable claim against you.

That was my thought initially, but this is really defamation and
its consequences.

No its not, any more than receiving a speed camera fine is.

They can't even demand that you tell them who was driving the car
in the Lidl car park situation.

Aren't we therefore talking of High Court action?

Nope, just ignore anything they send you and see them
realise that their bluff has been called and give up.

We were talking of defamation,

Only you were, erroneously.

was talking about this aspect.

Nope, you were.

He said "It's a loss wholly due to their pursuing an unenforceable
claim against you."

That says nothing whatever about defamation.

You were the only one erroneously mentioning defamation.

Perhaps you can explain Graham's route of obtaining recompense?

I didn’t comment on that.

You kept on commenting on this thread regarding the relevancy to
defamation.

Yes, because it was your erroneous claim about
defamation that I chose to comment on.

As I expected you haven'y a clue what defamation is.

We can all see that its you that doesn’t.

There is no defamation what so ever involved
in asking Dave for evidence that he did shop
in the Lidl store when he used their carpark.

If you could answer the question

It wasn’t a question I chose to answer.

why all of your rambling nonsense on this thread?

No nonsense whatever involved. You STILL haven't
produced a shred of evidence that there is any
defamation involved in asking Dave to show that
he did shop in the Lidl when he parked his car there.

On 11/10/2015 22:41, Rod Speed wrote:


"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:24:59 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 11/10/2015 12:30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Not for those into what happens more than anywhere else.

Things cause noise. What's wrong with some natural surroundings like
trees?

They have parrots in them round here. Nasty things which make a lot of
noise. And a particularly unpleasant one.

We get lots of Parakeets around here and they make an awful screeching
sound.

We get lots of galahs in the trees here and they make a hell of a
racket.

Not just their screeching and jabbering to each other either,
I have a big line of trees along what would otherwise be the
fence line to the park next door and when there are a hundred
or more of them in those trees as there can be at times, the
sound of them all taking off at once when I come out of the
house which has the front door on that side can be amazing.

I'd like that.

I don't mind that. Not so keen on them
all jabbering at each other for hours tho.

I fail to see people not liking birds.

You wanna try our magpies at this time of year.

Complete pain in the arse.

Agreed.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


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

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


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

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Fredxxx wrote
wrote
Graham. wrote

Even if I successfully appeal the parking charge or Road Traffic
Act offence, the admin charge still stands

If you successfully appeal the parking charge then you should
counterclaim against them for the admin charge. It's a loss wholly
due to their pursuing an unenforceable claim against you.

That was my thought initially, but this is really defamation and its
consequences.

No its not, any more than receiving a speed camera fine is.
They can't even demand that you tell them who was driving the car in
the Lidl car park situation.

they no longer need to

in the absence of proof that someone else was driving, the owner
(keeper) is now liable for "fines".

Nope, they aren't legally liable with a private car park.

when will you stop commenting upon a legal system that you obviously have
no knowledge of?

We'll see...

But,

In as far as the penalty has been legally enforced, in the absence of
information as to who was actually driving, the keeper is liable.

Not with private parking.

Yes

the law was specifically changed to make it so



I accept that there is no automatic assumption that the penalty was
legally enforced, but ISTM that was assumed at this point

Stupid assumption given what they have done.

I meant given the point that had been reached in the discussion

(but TBH I don't see what it is that they have done wrong)

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Fredxxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Fredxxx wrote
wrote
Graham. wrote

Even if I successfully appeal the parking charge or Road Traffic Act
offence, the admin charge still stands

If you successfully appeal the parking charge then you should
counterclaim against them for the admin charge. It's a loss wholly
due to their pursuing an unenforceable claim against you.

That was my thought initially, but this is really defamation and its
consequences.

No its not, any more than receiving a speed camera fine is.

They can't even demand that you tell them who was driving the car in the
Lidl car park situation.

Aren't we therefore talking of High Court action?

Nope, just ignore anything they send you and see them
realise that their bluff has been called and give up.

We were talking of defamation,

Only you were, erroneously.

where Graham (I think) would suffer a £20 admin charge from the lease
company,

Nope, from his employer whose car it was.

even if the PCN was issued incorrectly.

Still not defamation. The car was in the carpark, that's
how they got the number. No defamation involved in
asking his employer who normally drives that car.

Since the £20 is a contractual obligation between Graham's company and
the lease company,

You don’t know that either.

he cannot bluff anyone

It’s the operator of the car park that is attempting the bluff.

we know that you think that

it is completely irrelevant wrt Graham's 20 quid because that is a charge
raised by his lease company


tim

"Harold Davis" wrote in message
...
Fredxxx wrote in :

On 11/10/2015 16:34, Harold Davis wrote:
"tim....." wrote in
:

"Harold Davis" wrote in
message ...

Just ignore the idiots is the best policy.

you might be right

Private companies can't issue enforceable fines.

but not because this is true, because it isn't (provided that they
don't call then "fines", which they don't)

Penalties, then.

They're trying it on.

No they're not

They are. If they weren't, ignoring them probably wouldn't be the best
policy.

No, they are making a commercial decision where it is simply not cost
effective to pursue the debt.

What would be interesting if they start a database where if you
transgress more than a couple of times whether the tables will be
turned on commercial viability and the victim find themselves in court.

The very fact it is not worthwhile to pursue these debts gives more
credibility to an increase in the parking charge if you don't pay
within a certain timescale.

How long a period of parking are you buying for the additional "charge",
colloquially referred to as a "fine"? Is that specified on the
"contract"?

No time period at all

what you are paying for is the costs involved in enforcing the parking rules

tim

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Norman Wells wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Norman Wells wrote
Harold Davis wrote

How long a period of parking are you buying for the additional "charge",
colloquially referred to as a "fine"? Is that specified on the "contract"?

When you park, you are deemed to accept the conditions on whatever notices are
displayed prominently in the car park.

Its not that black and white with unreasonable conditions.

The conditions may be unreasonable. The only time they're unenforceable is if
they're entirely unconscionable.

That is not correct.

You'll find that it is. If you bother to do even some elementary searches.

You're perfectly at liberty to contract to whatever conditions you want to.

That is not correct either. They have to be legal for starters.

Which of course they will be. Get real.

You do not contract to hand over your first born if
you don’t actually use the store as well as the carpark.

If you park there, you're accepting the terms and conditions displayed.

Nope, you are free to park there knowing that a
particular condition is not enforceable or is illegal.

You have such a poor grasp of the principles that your 'knowing' a particular
condition is not enforceable is of very dubious provenance indeed. I wouldn't
believe you for a moment.

As for conditions being 'illegal', they won't be.

By parking there, you enter into a legally binding contract, the terms of which
are those conditions.

That is just plain wrong.

No it isn't. It's absolutely right.

That is just plain wrong, most obviously
when one of the conditions isn't legal.

Get real. They won't be illegal.

Same with any signs that claim that they have no liability at
all for anything that happens to your car in there. If part of
their building falls on your car, or one of their employees drives
into your car or kicks the **** out of it because it's where they
want to park themselves, that's their problem legally, not yours.

Of course, if it's a case of provable negligence on their part, then they likely
cannot escape their legal liabilities.

That isn't the only situation where what is stated on
the sign is not enforceable, particularly when what
is stated on the sign isn't legal, like with a statement
that goods will not ever be refunded.

I don't think I've ever seen any car park sign saying anything of the sort.

If something happens to your car while it's there that is not their fault, the
condition is enforceable because you've agreed to it.

And if it is their fault, doesn’t matter what the sign says.

Any charges displayed are legally enforceable.

Wrong.

Yes they are.

Nope, not when they don’t spell out clearly
under what circumstance the charge is due.

Which they invariably do of course.

And that isn't true in Dave's case because
he did use the Lidl shop when he parked there.

He has to pay whatever the conditions demand of him.

Nope, not if the conditions say that the kids must be
left locked in the car in the carpark, because that is illegal.

If that's nothing because he met the displayed condition by shopping in the Lidl
store, then he has to pay nothing.

And if he ignores the condition that the kids must be left locked
in the car in the carpark, he still doesn’t have to pay anything.

That includes any charges for overstaying your welcome, parking in the wrong
way etc etc.

But not when you used the shop while parked there.

If that is in the conditions he contracted to when parking there, then he has to
pay nothing. But that's because it's in the conditions, not because none of the
conditions are enforceable.

And if the condition is that the kids must be left
locked in the car in the carpark, he still doesn’t have
to pay anything when he ignores that condition.

Your having to invent ever more ludicrous scenarios to support your argument is a
clear indicator that you don't in fact have one.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Norman Wells wrote
Rod Speed wrote


Very difficult to prove that you didn’t use the shop when you used the
carpark.

That depends on what exactly the displayed conditions were.

Nope.

It does where the condition is:

"to prove that you were a customer you must give you details to the cashier
as you pay for you goods..."


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

Nope. The basic law on proof still applys.

the law is not as ass Rod.

Provided that the conditions are sensible (which ISTM in this case, they
are), the law will not impose alternative methods of, in this case,
determining who is and who is not a customer, than that which is in the
contract.

If you don't comply with the required method, you don't have the argument -
but they could have determined this a different way


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

agree

in this case "show that you didn't give your details to the cashier" - I
accepts that in some cases it will be possible for the customer to say, "but
I did, the cashier must have recorded it incorrectly", but the OP has
already told us that this is not the case here.

As above, the required level of proof is not to force the company to show
that the person was not a customer, by some other means.

tim

"Jon Ribbens" wrote in message
. co.uk...
On 2015-10-11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
By parking there, you enter into a legally binding contract, the terms
of which are those conditions.

You can't have a legally binding contract without being certain it has
been read.

I'm afraid that's entirely untrue. You simply have to have the
*opportunity* to read the terms, there is no need for them to
actually have been read.

but they do need to be such that you would reasonably expect them to be
seen.

Hiding them away in the furthest corner is not going to cut it

tim

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Norman Wells wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Norman Wells wrote
Tim Streater wrote
Norman Wells wrote
Harold Davis wrote

How long a period of parking are you buying for the additional "charge",
colloquially referred to as a "fine"? Is that specified on the "contract"?

When you park, you are deemed to accept the conditions on whatever notices
are displayed prominently in the car park. By parking there, you enter into a
legally binding contract, the terms of which are those conditions. Any
charges displayed are legally enforceable. That includes any charges for
overstaying your welcome, parking in the wrong way etc etc.

That may or may not be true, IANAL. But if so, it would still require
the parking cpy to take action by taking you to court. Small Claims
Court or perhaps County Court. It's then up to them to prove that you haven't
complied with the conditions.

Hardly difficult.

Very difficult to prove that you didn’t use the shop when you used the carpark.

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.

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

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

Lidl doesn’t have any of those.

Someone must have tried to impose the parking charge.

The operation that Lidl gets to run their car park.

Doesn’t necessarily involve any attendant at all.

Even the bluff letters can be completely automated.

They're not 'bluff letters'. The parking company is fully entitled to the charges
it displays, and has a legal right to recover them from non-payers.

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:43:35 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

You can't have a legally binding contract without being certain it
has
been read. Which would normally need a signature. And maybe even a
witness.

Oh yes you can.

In English law a contract can be formed by just saying in "yes".

"Dave, are you free to do Everton on Saturday?"
"Yes"

Contract is formed...

Actually, that's not a contract at all. There's no offer. There's no acceptance of
any offer. And there's no consideration.

And you need all of those.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim..... wrote:
Not my job to enter the details. The checkout person does this. And
failed to do so on this occasion.

OK I agree that the checkout person is responsible for entering them,
but it's your responsibility to tell them the number.

Only if asked. Which I wasn't.

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 he

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"?


You have already confessed that you "forgot" so you can't claim now that
the operator entered them wrongly (at least, not in this discussion)

They could easily have changed the system. Not my business if they have.

Unfortunately it is.



They are the ones demanding a penalty. Due to a fault in their system. Not
my problem.

no, no fault in their system

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

tim

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


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

"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"

He made no mistake. It isn't up to him to prove anything.

Its up to Lidl to keep track of who used their store and who did not.

what a load of old ********

on the basis that that's a load of old crap, I assume the rest of you post
must be as well

tim

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim..... wrote:
I hadn't realised that banks passed the cardholder's name to the
retailer as part of the transaction and don't recall ever having had a
receipt of this kind showing my name.

And you're right. Just looked at the receipt and there isn't a name on
it. Or even the full card number. Which means it's of no use on its
own to prove I made a purchase when I said I did as I could simply
have picked one up from the carpark floor, or out of a trolley, etc.
Unless the receipt number is cross referenced to the actual purchase,
which then is cross referenced to me.

Lidl's stored transaction will have the full number. If you tried to
claim someone else's receipt as yours you wouldn't be able to fill in
the rest of the blanks

Yes - of course Lidl have the full details. Point I was making was the car
park lot asked for my till receipt to prove I made a purchase. Which it on
its own doesn't.

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

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Chris" wrote in message
...
On 11/10/2015 12:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Chris wrote:
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

(a) his bank provided the name and address associated with his card to
Lidl and they passed them to the parking enforcers who obtained those
associated with his car registration from the DVLA and matched the two
up

or

(b) he told the parking enforcers his card number and they got Lidl to
confirm from their records that he made a purchase at the relevant
time.

They have my name (obviously) and the time and date. Both appear on my
till receipt. All that's needed is look up the branch records
corresponding to those. After all they will likely have logged what was
bought for marketing purposes. Do you really thing they can't do
something
as simple as this? After all, it's hardly going to be the first time it
was needed.


I hadn't realised that banks passed the cardholder's name to the retailer
as part of the transaction and don't recall ever having had a receipt of
this kind showing my name. Obviously Lidl do collect and print the name
though. I've learned something.

I suppose it's easier to send out a letter saying 'Dear xxxx, you owe us
£x for parking in Lidl's car park' than ask Lidl 'we see a car kept by
xxxxx was parked in your car park between xx.xx and yy.yy . Could you
look and see if a card transaction in that name was made at that time?'.

I'm not sure its even legal under the data privacy law to ask that or
for Lidl to provide them with that information even if they wanted to.

That is Lidl's problem basically. If they can't work out some reliable
way to see if someone who has parked in their carpark has actually
used their supermarket,

They have.

insisting they you give your details to the cashier as you pay.

If you don't do this - your problem!

what do you not understand about this?

tim

"polygonum" wrote in message
...
On 11/10/2015 12:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Chris wrote:
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

(a) his bank provided the name and address associated with his card to
Lidl and they passed them to the parking enforcers who obtained those
associated with his car registration from the DVLA and matched the two
up

or

(b) he told the parking enforcers his card number and they got Lidl to
confirm from their records that he made a purchase at the relevant time.

They have my name (obviously) and the time and date. Both appear on my
till receipt. All that's needed is look up the branch records
corresponding to those. After all they will likely have logged what was
bought for marketing purposes. Do you really thing they can't do
something
as simple as this? After all, it's hardly going to be the first time it
was needed.

There would be a mismatch in my case - mostly I drive and partner pays at
checkout.

does she not know your car's reg then?

tim

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

"michael adams" wrote in message
If the level of the fine was known beforehand then it was open to the
appelant to make that calculation beforehand and decide whether to
risk incurring the fine or not.

The law does not work that way. If I created a contract that attempted to extra
damages for a breach which were excessive that clause would be void in law. The
consumer has every right to enter into the contract, knowing that the clause is
(probably) void and challenge it should the breach occurs.

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


The idea that the consumer should say, "I think this company wants an excessive amount
of damages therefore I wont enter into the contract at all" is recognised by the law as
ridiculous.

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

....

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

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"As to Beavis I'm not aware of any judgement being made"

Which is correct.

Without further qualification it is not

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 ********.

Maybe being too polite is my undoing.


michael adams


....

"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 ?

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.


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.

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.


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.

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

....

michael adams wrote:

along with clamps

No longer permitted.

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

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

"michael adams" wrote in message
If the level of the fine was known beforehand then it was open to the
appelant to make that calculation beforehand and decide whether to
risk incurring the fine or not.

The law does not work that way. If I created a contract that attempted
to extra
damages for a breach which were excessive that clause would be void in
law. The
consumer has every right to enter into the contract, knowing that the
clause is
(probably) void and challenge it should the breach occurs.

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

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)




The idea that the consumer should say, "I think this company wants an
excessive amount
of damages therefore I wont enter into the contract at all" is recognised
by the law as
ridiculous.

But this isn't a consumer contract.

Yes it is.

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

This is an arrangement between three
different parties; Lidl, the parco. and the parker.

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)

Lidl have an asset
limited parking spaces, for use by customers of their store and nobody
else.

Yes which prove whwat?

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.

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

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.

It was

the judge threw it out

tim

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

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


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

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


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

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Fredxxx wrote
wrote
Graham. wrote

Even if I successfully appeal the parking charge or Road Traffic
Act offence, the admin charge still stands

If you successfully appeal the parking charge then you should
counterclaim against them for the admin charge. It's a loss wholly
due to their pursuing an unenforceable claim against you.

That was my thought initially, but this is really defamation and its
consequences.

No its not, any more than receiving a speed camera fine is.
They can't even demand that you tell them who was driving the car in
the Lidl car park situation.

they no longer need to

in the absence of proof that someone else was driving, the owner
(keeper) is now liable for "fines".

Nope, they aren't legally liable with a private car park.

when will you stop commenting upon a legal system that you obviously
have no knowledge of?

We'll see...

But,

In as far as the penalty has been legally enforced, in the absence of
information as to who was actually driving, the keeper is liable.

Not with private parking.

Yes

Nope.

the law was specifically changed to make it so

Not unless it has been established that whoever drove that car into
that car park did not comply with the conditions specified on the sign.

I accept that there is no automatic assumption that the penalty was
legally enforced, but ISTM that was assumed at this point

Stupid assumption given what they have done.

I meant given the point that had been reached in the discussion

Still a stupid assumption.

(but TBH I don't see what it is that they have done wrong)

Asking Dave to show that he did do what the
sign said qualified for using the carpark for free.

He is under no legal obligation to do anything of the sort.

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

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Fredxxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Fredxxx wrote
wrote
Graham. wrote

Even if I successfully appeal the parking charge or Road Traffic Act
offence, the admin charge still stands

If you successfully appeal the parking charge then you should
counterclaim against them for the admin charge. It's a loss wholly
due to their pursuing an unenforceable claim against you.

That was my thought initially, but this is really defamation and its
consequences.

No its not, any more than receiving a speed camera fine is.

They can't even demand that you tell them who was driving the car in
the Lidl car park situation.

Aren't we therefore talking of High Court action?

Nope, just ignore anything they send you and see them
realise that their bluff has been called and give up.

We were talking of defamation,

Only you were, erroneously.

where Graham (I think) would suffer a £20 admin charge from the lease
company,

Nope, from his employer whose car it was.

even if the PCN was issued incorrectly.

Still not defamation. The car was in the carpark, that's
how they got the number. No defamation involved in
asking his employer who normally drives that car.

Since the £20 is a contractual obligation between Graham's company and
the lease company,

You don’t know that either.

he cannot bluff anyone

It’s the operator of the car park that is attempting the bluff.

we know that you think that

it is completely irrelevant wrt Graham's 20 quid because that is a charge
raised by his lease company

Take that up with Fredxxx. I was JUST commenting on his completely
silly claim that it had anything to do with defamation there.

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

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

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"As to Beavis I'm not aware of any judgement being made"

Which is correct.

Without further qualification it is not

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 ********.

Maybe being too polite is my undoing.

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

"

"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

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.




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 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).

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:

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

He didn't (he said so)

he's guilty

End of.

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

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".

tim