Norman Wells wrote
Rod Speed wrote
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.

No I will not.

If you bother to do even some elementary searches.

Don’t need to do any search at all to know that if the
conditions say that you can only park there if you are
wearing matching sox, that that condition is unenforceable.

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.

Plenty have conditions on signs that are not legal
which try to claim that you have no right to a
refund when you do have a right to a refund.

Get real.

Nothing unreal about that.

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.

Doesn’t matter what you believe. What
matters is what is enforceable and legal.

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

Some are.

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.

Nothing unreal about that.

They won't be illegal.

Some are. And some are unenforceable too.

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.

Then you need to get out more.

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.

Must explain why the courts have tossed out some claims.

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.

Must explain why the court have tossed out some claims.

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

No I will not.

That's patently clear from the fact that you continually don't believe
people when they tell you

so the idea that you aren't going to go and check up for yourself, doesn't
come as the slightest bit of a surprise

tim

tim..... wrote
Rod Speed wrote
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..."

That sign doesn’t do that.

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.

It can be at times.

Provided that the conditions are sensible (which ISTM in this case, they
are),

You don’t know that.

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.

You don’t know what is in the contract.

If you don't comply with the required method,

You don’t know whether he did or not.

you don't have the argument - but they could have determined this a
different way

They STILL have to show that you did not comply with the conditions.

It isn't up to the customer to show that they did.

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"

You don’t know that that is a condition.

- 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",

Or didn’t record it at all.

but the OP has already told us that this is not the case here.

You don’t know that he remembered that
correctly, or that that is a condition there.

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.

There is no obligation on Dave to show anything.

Its up to Lidl to show that he did not shop there
when he parked there and they can not do that,
so they get to wear his costs if they are actually
stupid enough to attempt to see him in court.

They won't be that stupid, you watch.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"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.

where did I mention defamation?

tim

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
tim..... wrote
Rod Speed wrote
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..."

That sign doesn’t do that.

which sign?


tim

Norman Wells wrote
Rod Speed wrote
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.

But it doesn’t.

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

Nope.

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'.

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.

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.

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

Norman Wells wrote
Dave Liquorice wrote
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.

There is no consideration in Dave's case either.

You can fall over now you have blown both feet right off.

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

"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.

No it is not.

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

no, no fault in their system

There clearly is if they usually ask for the car rego number.

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

You don't know that that is required.

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

"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 ********

Easy to claim.

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

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

In article , tim.....
wrote:

"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

A lot of them don't even know their own car number - they know its colour,
though.


--
Please note new email address:

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

"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

There is no 20 quid fine.

[1] probably not for a first offence, I admit

No chance of jail time even if it wasn't first offence.

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

"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.

They clearly havent if Dave got those letters.

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

They do nothing of the sort.

If you don't do this - your problem!

Nope, theirs.

what do you not understand about this?

I understand that you don’t have a clue about the most basic law.

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

But it doesn’t.

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

Nope.

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'.

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.

How pleased do you expect the court to be when you could have produced your
receipt for proof before it got that far?




--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Just how many people keep grocery receipts for weeks?

[raises hand]

But I've never used that sort of car park.

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

"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).

Completely useless.

But even if it were -

In this case the penalty isn't excessive. Had the appelant

There is no appellant.

made thecalculation 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

Irrelevant. What Dave did was completely legal, he
used the store when his car was parked in the carpark.

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

There is no penalty. Dave did what he was required to
do, used the shop when he had his car in the car park.

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.

Correct.

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

Nope.

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

That's not correct either.

They need to police this at the lowest possible cost to themselves.

That's not correct either on that last.

Given any particular rate of non-compliance, the parco.
which can generate the largest revenue from fines,

They don’t get to fine anyone, least of all Dave who did
what he was supposed to do, used the shop when his car
was parked in their car park.

will be able to charge Lidl the lowest amount to operate the car park.

What they charge Lidl isn't determined by how many they
catch who used the carpark without using the shop.

Basically its Lidl, in deciding how much they're willing to pay the parco.

That isn't how it works either.

who determine the level of the fines the parco

The parco doesn’t get to fine anyone, least of all Dave who
did use the shop when his car was parked in the Lidl carpark.

is going to need to charge those parkers who cough up, in order to make a
profit.

That mangles the real story utterly. There is no
requirement that the carpark produce its own 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.

Irrelevant to what is being discussed.

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

"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.

No it isn't. No consideration involved.

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

No consideration involved.

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.

But the lack of consideration does.

(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

In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
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. Parking attendants all over the country do so
successfully all the time.

A parking attendant can be questioned in court.

--
*If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Birds are nice creatures. The only annoying noise is the dog.

They make a very nice crunching noise when eating a parrot.

--
*I have plenty of talent and vision. I just don't care.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"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.

In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
The conditions may be unreasonable. The only time they're unenforceable
is if they're entirely unconscionable. You're perfectly at liberty to
contract to whatever conditions you want to. If you park there, you're
accepting the terms and conditions displayed.

OK then. The conditions say you will be beheaded if you outstay the
prescribed times. Would that be a legal contract?

At the end the day it comes down to whether the conditions are reasonable
or not.

--
*Sometimes I wake up grumpy; Other times I let him sleep.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

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

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

No I will not.

That's patently clear from the fact that you continually don't believe
people when they tell you

Because it is obvious that they are wrong.

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

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"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.

where did I mention defamation?

You are completely irrelevant. It is clear what was being discussed before
you showed up.

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

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
tim..... wrote
Rod Speed wrote
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..."

That sign doesn’t do that.

which sign?

The one that Dave purportedly agreed to when he used the carpark.

In article o.uk,
Dave Liquorice wrote:
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...

Different sort of thing. The decider would be if the employer could sue
and win if you didn't turn up. But obviously in this case it is in the
interests of both parties to observe a verbal agreement.

Many of the jobs I did as freelance issued a written contract.

--
*Beware - animal lover - brakes for pussy*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
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.

So you think it perfectly reasonable to expect a customer to keep a
receipt for groceries for a couple of weeks?

--
*No radio - Already stolen.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
tim..... wrote:
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"?

Not really interested in their rules. If unreasonable.

As I said earlier, my experience of this method of parking with this
company is that the cashier never asks

And my experience of this system at this particular branch is always being
asked if I have a car in the car park, and for its number.

they expect you to tell them.

The car parking restrictions are principally for the benefit of the store.
If the park is full (with non customers) so real customers can't park they
may loose that sale. Which is a bit obvious.

It costs the store to install and police some form of control. Again
obvious, as they don't have it at other stores with larger car parks and
less chance of non customers using it.

So since it is primarily for the benefit of the store, it's up to them to
operate it in the most customer friendly way. If they have any sense.

--
*If you don't pay your exorcist you get repossessed.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
tim..... wrote:
Its up to Lidl to keep track of who used their store and who did not.

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

May not be *up to* them - but are you saying they don't?

Be very a pretty poor business that didn't correlate all such information
these days.

--
*Atheism is a non-prophet organization.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
tim..... wrote:
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]

Don't be silly.

Oh - if the parking company is going to check any receipt provided is in
fact the correct one, based on details not on the receipt, they might as
well check with no receipt at all. Which is just my point.

--
*The older you get, the better you realize you were.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
tim..... wrote:
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.

I'd actually love to see them try.

Plenty of people of my age have no means of copying a receipt and sending
it to the carpark company - without involving both a deal of time and
expense. And would be mad to post them the original.

So why should they be penalised for what in this case is a failure of the
checkout person to carry out the correct procedure?

--
*Don't use no double negatives *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
charles wrote:
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

A lot of them don't even know their own car number - they know its
colour, though.

In this case you don't actually need the exact number of your car, as they
can show you a picture of it if the number doesn't match. That does of
course assume the driver would recognise his own car. I'd guess several
here wouldn't.

--
*Real women don't have hot flashes, they have power surges.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Norman Wells wrote

The conditions may be unreasonable. The only time they're
unenforceable is if they're entirely unconscionable. You're
perfectly at liberty to contract to whatever conditions you
want to. If you park there, you're accepting the terms and
conditions displayed.

OK then. The conditions say you will be beheaded if you
outstay the prescribed times. Would that be a legal contract?

At the end the day it comes down to whether
the conditions are reasonable or not.

And legal too.

But he's blown both feet off completely now that
he has admitted that there is no contract if there
is no consideration, and there isn't in your case.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote

Oh - if the parking company is going to check any receipt
provided is in fact the correct one, based on details not on
the receipt, they might as well check with no receipt at all.

They can't necessarily do that given the data privacy law.

Which is just my point.

You don’t have a point there.

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

"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"


How exactly has a non Lidl customer, parking in their car park
entered into any contract with Lidl or their agent ?

And what consideration or fee has he paid so as to fulfil his side
of this supposed contract ?



michael adams

....

"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

They have asked him to supply the details of they CC



But given that, in his view, they're already trying to
"fine" him for something he hasn't done, why should he
necessarily trust them with details of his CC ?
Not being an expert in such matters he might suspect that
once having his CC number they might interpret that as an
admission of guilt on his part and deduct the "fine".
Thus putting him to the trouble of trying to recover
the money.



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.



You are aware of the maxim "innocent until proven guilty" I take
it ? Witholding evidence when being cautioned and arrested
for a criminal offence is an entirely different matter; as the
police need to have grounds before arresting anyone in the
first place.

On 12/10/15 12:46, michael adams wrote:
"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

They have asked him to supply the details of they CC



But given that, in his view, they're already trying to
"fine" him for something he hasn't done, why should he
necessarily trust them with details of his CC ?
Not being an expert in such matters he might suspect that
once having his CC number they might interpret that as an
admission of guilt on his part and deduct the "fine".
Thus putting him to the trouble of trying to recover
the money.


Which would be an unauthorised transaction and a) would be reversed by
the CC company and b) be theft and/or fraud.

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.

On 09/10/2015 17:10, Brian-Gaff wrote:
Most of the local hospitals use this sort of system these days, but what
throws a lot of them is blind people with blue badges,

That threw me for a second!

Norman Wells wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Norman Wells wrote
Dave Liquorice wrote
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.

There is no consideration in Dave's case either.

There is, actually.

Like hell there is.

It's been well established.

Like hell it has.

You can fall over now you have blown both feet right off.

I appear to be standing on them still quite firmly.

Then you need new glasses, BAD.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 12/10/15 12:46, michael adams wrote:
"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

They have asked him to supply the details of they CC



But given that, in his view, they're already trying to
"fine" him for something he hasn't done, why should he
necessarily trust them with details of his CC ?
Not being an expert in such matters he might suspect that
once having his CC number they might interpret that as an
admission of guilt on his part and deduct the "fine".
Thus putting him to the trouble of trying to recover
the money.


Which would be an unauthorised transaction and a) would be reversed by the CC company
and b) be theft and/or fraud.

Indeed. But the customer might not necessarily be aware of that
fact; that's the point.

What's being considered here are grounds which he might reasonably
give, for not wanting to disclose his CC card details.

The fact that in not so doing he may be gravely inconveniencing the
parkco, deeply regrettable though that might be, is their problem,
not his.


michael adams

....

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:

The conditions may be unreasonable. The only time they're unenforceable
is if they're entirely unconscionable. You're perfectly at liberty to
contract to whatever conditions you want to. If you park there, you're
accepting the terms and conditions displayed.

OK then. The conditions say you will be beheaded if you outstay the
prescribed times. Would that be a legal contract?

At the end the day it comes down to whether the conditions are reasonable
or not.

Did you actually read what I said above?

The only time they're unenforceable is if they're entirely unconscionable.