"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Norman Wells wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Norman Wells wrote

If you're supposed, for example, to give your registration number to
the cashier in the store, and you neglect to do so, then it's perfectly
reasonable. It's the only proof you have.

Sigh.

They ask you if you have a car in the car park. If the answer is yes,
only then ask for the number, and they type it in.

I'm not 'supposed' to give my registration number at all.

You said in your original post that you were.

He said nothing of the sort. He said that the cashier
had previously asked whether he had a car in the
carpark and what the rego number was if he said yes.

You knew the system.

He knew what the system had been, but is welcome
to assume that the system had changed and that
either Lidl no longer checked everyone because
of the clerical effort involved, or they had worked
out a better way to check if those who had parked
in their carpark had used the store, like for example
keeping track of which customers had previously told
the store of their rego number so they didn’t need
to ask all customers every time they used the store
and wore the fact that not all customers always use
the same car every time they use their carpark.


You obviously don't know Lidl very well

such a method of "proof" would give carte blanch to regular shoppers to use
Lidl car park when they aren't shopping there

that isn't going to be a very sensible thing to do at a location where
spaces are in short supply

tim

tim..... wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Ophelia wrote

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?

I'd be happy to produce the receipt if they send someone here to examine
it.

What I'm not going to do is be put to any inconvenience for something
which is in no way my fault.

but it is (your fault)

No its not. If Lidl is too stupid to have the checkout monkey
ask for the car rego number, that's Lidl's problem, not his.

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

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"michael adams" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

What I'm not going to do is be put to any inconvenience for something
which is in no way my fault.

You would prefer to waste the court's time, Lidl's time, everyone's
time,

It's Lidl's agents who are wasting everybody's time by automatically
asuming that the OP is lying.

They haven't done anything of the sort. All they appear to have done is
ask for proof of purchase on the day in question, which in fact he has
but for some bizarre reason refuses to supply. He clearly prefers
conflict and obstinacy, which helps no-one.

If Lidl insisted on frisking everyone leaving their stores (not
everyone
of whom will even have bought anything) on the assumption that some of
them will be shoplifters, then people would be up in arms.

So what's the difference here ?

What's the similarity?

If they're going to assume for no particular reason that
a person is dishonest

but in the scenario of:

I parked there and I really did shop there but I wont show you the proof,
that seems a reasonable assumption to me

More fool you, it isn't.

Why would any sensible honest person take that line?

Because they may well not have the till slip anymore,
and even if they did, they may well don't see why they
should have to prove anything to Lidl if they don't
believe them, or were too stupid to ask for the car
rego number at the time the customer was at the
checkout, or aren't prepared to automate that proof
or have a system where you can't get your car out
of the carpark unless you can wave a till slip at the
boom gate to get a refund of what you paid to
park there or to avoid paying as you leave etc.

tim..... wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Norman Wells wrote

It's Lidl's agents who are wasting everybody's time
by automatically asuming that the OP is lying.

They haven't done anything of the sort. All they appear to have
done is ask for proof of purchase on the day in question, which
in fact he has but for some bizarre reason refuses to supply.

I've told them I have it.

You told them you have it! Is that all or did you give
them a code off the receipt (or something else)

If they choose not to believe me and check up
themselves,

and how can they check up?

By checking their records and see that in the past that
car rego number was given to the checkout monkey
when he was asked for it and can see that it was him.

How can they possibly know that car number
ACB123 is responsible for the till receipt for 23.47
paid for by credit card number 123456789...?

See above.

You may think that they can match names, but quite apart from the
fact that the card and car may not be registered in the same name,

In which case they would only query the owners of cars where there is
no match between the car rego number and the name on the card used.

I would suggest that the attempt to do
this would be a data protection offence.

Not if Lidl themselves do that.

why should I believe anything they say or do?

don't get this

More fool you.

what is it that they have told you, that you need to "believe"?

That they are sensible enough to accept that
most would not have kept the till slip for so
long after the car had been in the carpark and
that if they don't have enough of a clue to
implement a much better way of checking
if those who use their carpark do in fact use
the store, that is their problem, not his.

They'll just have to accept that their very crude
way of checking that has real downsides for
them and that that's the consequence of doing
it so crudely and cheaply.

He clearly prefers conflict and obstinacy, which helps

You obviously have no notion of principle.

And you are taking it too far

Like hell he is when they are clearly doing
the checking of who uses their carpark and
shop in their store as cheaply as possible
and so get to wear the fact that there will
be occasions on which the checkout monkey
forgets to ask the customer at the checkout.

tim..... wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Norman Wells wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Norman Wells wrote

I'd be happy to produce the receipt if they send someone
here to examine it. What I'm not going to do is be put to any
inconvenience for something which is in no way my fault.

You would prefer to waste the court's time, Lidl's time, everyone's
time, by not sorting something out that you could do very easily?

Oh yes. And expect vast damages for them wasting my time too.

Damages don't come into it.

That was a joke, Joyce.

Given your behaviour in this, you won't even get your costs either.

It will never get anywhere near any court, you watch.

All you're doing is causing a pointless waste
of everyone's time, including your own,

He isn't wasting any of his time not
providing them with the till receipt.

And it's Lidl wasting everyone's time including
their own, by not using their own data to see
that he did use the shop when his car was in the
carpark, from the car rego number he gave he
cashier on a previous occasion when asked for it.

but the point is:

He didn't do that last part

He ON THE PREVIOUS OCCASIONS
he use the carpark and the store.

So Lidl can see that and realise that
the stupid checkout monkey most
likely forgot to ask him this time.

tim..... wrote
Ophelia wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Ophelia wrote

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?

I'd be happy to produce the receipt if they send someone here to examine
it.

What I'm not going to do is be put to any inconvenience for something
which is in no way my fault.

One would hope they would ask to see the evidence before they went down
the court route.

They presumably have all the evidence that they need

No they don’t.

1) proof that he parked there

Yes.

2) proof that he didn't register his reg at the checkout as required

You don’t know that is required, or that
given that the checkout monkey has asked
for it in the past, that he is entitled to
assume that they had changed their
system and didn’t need to be told
all the time when they can see that
he did say he drives that car and they
can see that its in the carpark now
and so they don’t need to ask again.

(subject to all the signage etc being correct)

they need no more evidence that this

Wrong. The need evidence that he did not use the shop.

Not only has he said that he did, he said that he has
the till slip that proves that he did. They are welcome
to show up at his place and ask to see it if they want.

tim..... wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Ophelia wrote

Would you allow it to get to court?

There will be no court, you watch.

Its pure bluff.

you're probably right

I am absolutely certain I am right and that you
wont be able to cite even a single example of
that Lidl showing up in court attempting to
get the cost of using that carpark from a
customer who has told them that they
used the carpark and the shop on that
occasion and that he has proof of that.

but not everyone gets off because they are too lazy

Nothing lazy about telling them that he did
use the shop when he parked there and that
he has the proof that he did that.

tim..... wrote
Rod Speed wrote
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.

Party A - the parking place

That's not consideration. That is why since time immemorial,
the party that gets the good or service for free effectively
pays a peppercorn rent for that. THAT's the consideration.

Party B - the promise to spend some money in the adjacent shop

That's not consideration.

looks good enough to me

More fool you. And there is no promise to spend money
in the associated shop anyway, most obviously when they
don’t have what you parked there to use the shop to buy.

which is it you don't think counts as a consideration.

Neither do.

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

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"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.

I know that

but where has the contents of that sign been described to us?

That is not what you asked.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
If you're supposed, for example, to give your registration number to the
cashier in the store, and you neglect to do so, then it's perfectly
reasonable. It's the only proof you have.

Sigh.

They ask you if you have a car in the car park.

do they?

IME they don't

You haven't used that particular carpark.

Not all Lidl carparks have that requirement.

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

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
They ask you if you have a car in the car park. If the answer is
yes,
only then ask for the number, and they type it in.

I'm not 'supposed' to give my registration number at all.

You said in your original post that you were. You knew the system.
You
knew the rules. You knew the score.

I knew what it was the last time I visited them. For all I knew at the
time they might well have changed it. It's the only store I know that
uses
it.

Yeah, yeah.

It was clearly in your interest
to give it to them even if they didn't specifically request it,
otherwise it was very obvious you could be accused of parking contrary
to the terms and conditions, as indeed you have been.

But I didn't break any of their regulations or whatever. The checkout
person was at fault by not checking if I had a car.

It's always someone else's fault, isn't it.

Funny that.

And now you're acting like a total dork by not simply providing a copy
of your till receipt that would settle the matter instantly.

Good. This car park company obviously expects me to do their work for
them. And may well be thinking I don't have a receipt and will pay up.
Like so many such firms.

They took a long time to send the first letter, and a long time to
reply
to emails.

So what? All they asked for was a copy of your till receipt.

They have all the data they need.

do they

what is that data?

The previous occasions on which he used that carpark
and the checkout monkey asked for the car rego number
and punched it into their system. They also have the
details of the card used on those previous occasions too.

tim..... wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Norman Wells wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Norman Wells wrote

If you're supposed, for example, to give your registration number to
the cashier in the store, and you neglect to do so, then it's
perfectly reasonable. It's the only proof you have.

Sigh.

They ask you if you have a car in the car park. If the answer is yes,
only then ask for the number, and they type it in.

I'm not 'supposed' to give my registration number at all.

You said in your original post that you were.

He said nothing of the sort. He said that the cashier
had previously asked whether he had a car in the
carpark and what the rego number was if he said yes.

You knew the system.

He knew what the system had been, but is welcome
to assume that the system had changed and that
either Lidl no longer checked everyone because
of the clerical effort involved, or they had worked
out a better way to check if those who had parked
in their carpark had used the store, like for example
keeping track of which customers had previously told
the store of their rego number so they didn’t need
to ask all customers every time they used the store
and wore the fact that not all customers always use
the same car every time they use their carpark.

You obviously don't know Lidl very well

We'll see...

such a method of "proof" would give carte blanch to regular shoppers to
use Lidl car park when they aren't shopping there

Like hell it would. Those wouldn’t use the checkout and so
the machine wouldn’t see that that customer had previously
used their checkout and had given that car rego number
previously and that its currently in the carpark again.

that isn't going to be a very sensible thing to do at a location where
spaces are in short supply

BULL****.

In article , tim.....
wrote:

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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?

It depends on what the conditions displayed actually are.

If you're supposed, for example, to give your registration number to
the cashier in the store, and you neglect to do so, then it's
perfectly reasonable. It's the only proof you have.

And I always do in case the cashier keys it wrongly

At the Lidl that I use most, when the cashier keys in the number a picture
of your car appears on their terminal before all the characters have been
entered. "Is this yours?" is then asked.

--
Please note new email address:

On 15/10/15 01:56, Rod Speed wrote:
.....
I parked there and I really did shop there but I wont show you the
proof, that seems a reasonable assumption to me

More fool you, it isn't.

Why would any sensible honest person take that line?

Because they may well not have the till slip anymore,
and even if they did, they may well don't see why they......

Why should there even be a till receipt in the first place? You can park
up and find they don't the whatever-it-is you wanted, so you leave.
Presumably legitimate use of the car park. Or are you forced to buy
something if you park there?


--
Mike Scott (unet2 at [deletethis] scottsonline.org.uk)
Harlow Essex England

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

"Ophelia" wrote in message
...


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ophelia wrote:
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?

I'd be happy to produce the receipt if they send someone here to examine
it.
What I'm not going to do is be put to any inconvenience for something
which is in no way my fault.

One would hope they would ask to see the evidence before they went down
the
court route.

They presumably have all the evidence that they need

1) proof that he parked there
2) proof that he didn't register his reg at the checkout as required

(subject to all the signage etc being correct)

they need no more evidence that this

Quite! If they have asked for his evidence that he was a customer and he
refuses to provide it, turning up in court with it isn't going to go well
for him.


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

In article ,
tim..... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ophelia wrote:
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?

I'd be happy to produce the receipt if they send someone here to
examine it. What I'm not going to do is be put to any inconvenience
for something which is in no way my fault.

but it is (your fault)

I'll happily let a judge decide that.

--
*Sherlock Holmes never said "Elementary, my dear Watson" *

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

In article ,
tim..... wrote:
If they're going to assume for no particular reason that
a person is dishonest

but in the scenario of:

I parked there and I really did shop there but I wont show you the
proof, that seems a reasonable assumption to me

Why would any sensible honest person take that line?

I'm perfectly happy to show them the proof. But at no inconvenience to
myself.

They seem to want me to do their work for them. But the likes of you don't
seem to find anything wrong with that.

--
*The most wasted day of all is one in which we have not laughed.*

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

In article ,
tim..... wrote:
If they choose not to believe me and check up
themselves,

and how can they check up? How can they possibly know that car number
ACB123 is responsible for the till receipt for 23.47 paid for by credit
card number 123456789...?

They know the name of the registered owner of the car - me - as they sent
me a letter. So went to the effort of looking this up. So they can go to
the effort of asking Lidl if a purchase was made by me at the time.

If they have no system in place to do this, it's time they had. Would have
saved them the cost of a letter.

--
*60-year-old, one owner - needs parts, make offer

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

In article ,
tim..... wrote:
They presumably have all the evidence that they need

1) proof that he parked there
2) proof that he didn't register his reg at the checkout as required

The checkout person never asked for it. It's not something I volunteer
each time I use a store - do you? Some other stores have a machine where
you enter the car's details yourself. If that had been the case here, it
would be my 'fault'.

(subject to all the signage etc being correct)

they need no more evidence that this

--
*I got a sweater for Christmas. I really wanted a screamer or a moaner*

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

In article ,
charles wrote:
And I always do in case the cashier keys it wrongly

At the Lidl that I use most, when the cashier keys in the number a
picture of your car appears on their terminal before all the characters
have been entered. "Is this yours?" is then asked.

Yup.

The newish large Tesco in Streatham - where the ice rink was - uses a
similar system except that you key in the car number yourself at machines
in the carpark. And they show a picture of your car.

--
*Who is this General Failure chap anyway - and why is he reading my HD? *

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

In article ,
Ophelia wrote:
Quite! If they have asked for his evidence that he was a customer and
he refuses to provide it, turning up in court with it isn't going to go
well for him.

You have some odd ideas.

You seem to think it is up to me to prove my 'innocence'.

I have given them the means to prove it themselves. They seem to not want
to go to the effort of doing so - but want me to it for them. I don't want
anything from them - they are trying to obtain a 'fine' from me, and with
no legal basis.

You sound like a pushover.

--
*Do paediatricians play miniature golf on Wednesdays?

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim..... wrote:
They presumably have all the evidence that they need

1) proof that he parked there
2) proof that he didn't register his reg at the checkout as required

The checkout person never asked for it. It's not something I volunteer
each time I use a store - do you? Some other stores have a machine where
you enter the car's details yourself. If that had been the case here, it
would be my 'fault'.

We are not asked that at our local Lidl either, but this is Scotland and
perhaps different. We don't have problems in the car park either. heh you
are living in the wrong place

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ophelia wrote:
Quite! If they have asked for his evidence that he was a customer and
he refuses to provide it, turning up in court with it isn't going to go
well for him.

You have some odd ideas.

You seem to think it is up to me to prove my 'innocence'.

I have given them the means to prove it themselves. They seem to not want
to go to the effort of doing so - but want me to it for them. I don't want
anything from them - they are trying to obtain a 'fine' from me, and with
no legal basis.

You sound like a pushover.

Nahh not me, but then I never have this problem and they sound very pushy to
'get' law breakers as they see it. I just think that in your case, if you
have a receipt and know you will be taken to court if you don't produce it
.... well ... the choice is yours.


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

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

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"michael adams" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

What I'm not going to do is be put to any inconvenience for something
which is in no way my fault.

You would prefer to waste the court's time, Lidl's time, everyone's time,

It's Lidl's agents who are wasting everybody's time by automatically
asuming that the OP is lying.

They haven't done anything of the sort. All they appear to have done is ask for
proof of purchase on the day in question, which in fact he has but for some bizarre
reason refuses to supply. He clearly prefers conflict and obstinacy, which helps
no-one.

If Lidl insisted on frisking everyone leaving their stores (not everyone
of whom will even have bought anything) on the assumption that some of
them will be shoplifters, then people would be up in arms.

So what's the difference here ?

What's the similarity?

If they're going to assume for no particular reason that
a person is dishonest

but in the scenario of:

I parked there and I really did shop there but I wont show you the proof, that seems a
reasonable assumption to me

Why would any sensible honest person take that line?

So which word, words, or phrase in the 31 word phrase
which formed the 3rd paragaraph of the OP's original
post, are you having the biggest difficulty with ?


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

" Emailed the car park company and said I'd paid by plastic so they could
check with the store easily that I'd used the store on the date and time
in question."

hint:the OP has shopped there before, using the same car, and presumably
using the same CC.


michael adams

....

In article ,
Ophelia wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim..... wrote:
They presumably have all the evidence that they need

1) proof that he parked there
2) proof that he didn't register his reg at the checkout as required

The checkout person never asked for it. It's not something I volunteer
each time I use a store - do you? Some other stores have a machine
where you enter the car's details yourself. If that had been the case
here, it would be my 'fault'.

We are not asked that at our local Lidl either, but this is Scotland and
perhaps different. We don't have problems in the car park either. heh
you are living in the wrong place

It's the only Lidl round here that uses this system. Just happens to be
the most convenient one for me.

I've no complaint against Lidl - even although the mistake was made by a
checkout person. It's the company running the carpark I'm not keen on.

--
*Confession is good for the soul, but bad for your career.

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

"Mike Scott" wrote in message
...
On 15/10/15 01:56, Rod Speed wrote:
....
I parked there and I really did shop there but I wont show you the
proof, that seems a reasonable assumption to me

More fool you, it isn't.

Why would any sensible honest person take that line?

Because they may well not have the till slip anymore,
and even if they did, they may well don't see why they......

Why should there even be a till receipt in the first place? You can park
up and find they don't the whatever-it-is you wanted, so you leave.
Presumably legitimate use of the car park. Or are you forced to buy
something if you park there?

at a limited number of shops with very popular parking spaces, yes you are

tim

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ophelia wrote:
Quite! If they have asked for his evidence that he was a customer and
he refuses to provide it, turning up in court with it isn't going to go
well for him.

You have some odd ideas.

You seem to think it is up to me to prove my 'innocence'.

you're not being asked to prove innocence', you're being asked to prove that
you were a customer.

You are not disputing that fact that it was your car, only that you were
entitled to free parking because of some extra condition

I have given them the means to prove it themselves.

what was that, I've lost track

The last I recall was that you were reluctant to hand over a credit card
number. What else is there, other than the receip,t that you could have
given them?

tim

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ophelia wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim..... wrote:
They presumably have all the evidence that they need

1) proof that he parked there
2) proof that he didn't register his reg at the checkout as required

The checkout person never asked for it. It's not something I volunteer
each time I use a store - do you? Some other stores have a machine
where you enter the car's details yourself. If that had been the case
here, it would be my 'fault'.

We are not asked that at our local Lidl either, but this is Scotland and
perhaps different. We don't have problems in the car park either. heh
you are living in the wrong place

It's the only Lidl round here that uses this system. Just happens to be
the most convenient one for me.

I've no complaint against Lidl - even although the mistake was made by a
checkout person. It's the company running the carpark I'm not keen on.

But they're acting in your interests. If they didn't enforce the restrictions
against those not using the store, in time there wouldn't be any spaces for you to
use when you have a legitimate need.

Yours is a very strange way of helping them do that.

Especially when you say it's not actually their fault.

You're acting like a dork and need to get over yourself.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim..... wrote:
If they're going to assume for no particular reason that
a person is dishonest

but in the scenario of:

I parked there and I really did shop there but I wont show you the
proof, that seems a reasonable assumption to me

Why would any sensible honest person take that line?

I'm perfectly happy to show them the proof. But at no inconvenience to
myself.

They seem to want me to do their work for them. But the likes of you don't
seem to find anything wrong with that.

It's how it is with this sort of thing

you get a council parking ticket which you think you shouldn't have got

to appeal, you have to turn up at some office somewhere, very probably some
time during the working day and argue your case with the independent
adjudicator

and do you gets costs for this inconvenience

Nope!

tim

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim..... wrote:
If they choose not to believe me and check up
themselves,

and how can they check up? How can they possibly know that car number
ACB123 is responsible for the till receipt for 23.47 paid for by credit
card number 123456789...?

They know the name of the registered owner of the car - me - as they sent
me a letter. So went to the effort of looking this up. So they can go to
the effort of asking Lidl if a purchase was made by me at the time.

How would Lidl know that Mr Plowman made a purchase..

As you have already said, the receipt does not have your name on it

If they have no system in place to do this, it's time they had. Would have
saved them the cost of a letter.

I suspect there are going to be too many case of "keeper of car" does not
equal "name on credit card" for this to be useful


tim

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim..... wrote:
They presumably have all the evidence that they need

1) proof that he parked there
2) proof that he didn't register his reg at the checkout as required

The checkout person never asked for it. It's not something I volunteer
each time I use a store - do you?

Every time I got to a store with such a system - Yes.

tim

Ophelia wrote
tim..... wrote
Ophelia wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Ophelia wrote

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?

I'd be happy to produce the receipt if they send someone here to
examine it.

What I'm not going to do is be put to any inconvenience for something
which is in no way my fault.

One would hope they would ask to see the evidence before they went down
the court route.

They presumably have all the evidence that they need

1) proof that he parked there
2) proof that he didn't register his reg at the checkout as required

(subject to all the signage etc being correct)

they need no more evidence that this

Quite! If they have asked for his evidence that he was a customer and he
refuses to provide it,

No he has not. He has said that he is happy
for them to show up at his place and look
at or take a photo of the till slip.

turning up in court with it isn't going to go well for him.

It's never going to get to court, you watch.

And even if it did because some complete bone head in
Lidl insists on that, the court will be royally ****ed off that
Lidl is wasting the court's time when they were free to show
up at Dave's if they believe that he is lying about having
used the store at that time and are too stupid to ask him
to tell them the transaction number on the till slip by email.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ophelia wrote:
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?

I'd be happy to produce the receipt if they send someone here to
examine it. What I'm not going to do is be put to any inconvenience
for something which is in no way my fault.

but it is (your fault)

I'll happily let a judge decide that.

There won't be any judge, you watch.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim..... wrote:
If they're going to assume for no particular reason that
a person is dishonest

but in the scenario of:

I parked there and I really did shop there but I wont show you the
proof, that seems a reasonable assumption to me

Why would any sensible honest person take that line?

I'm perfectly happy to show them the proof. But at no inconvenience to
myself.

They seem to want me to do their work for them. But the likes of you don't
seem to find anything wrong with that.

Looks much more like some complete bonehead in the parking
operation is just being a complete bonehead. Did that ask you
for the transaction number on the till slip ? Maybe they can't
use that due to the data privacy law tho. The whole thing
should be being done by Lidl, not the parking company.

"Ophelia" wrote in message
...


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ophelia wrote:
Quite! If they have asked for his evidence that he was a customer and
he refuses to provide it, turning up in court with it isn't going to go
well for him.

You have some odd ideas.

You seem to think it is up to me to prove my 'innocence'.

I have given them the means to prove it themselves. They seem to not want
to go to the effort of doing so - but want me to it for them. I don't
want
anything from them - they are trying to obtain a 'fine' from me, and with
no legal basis.

You sound like a pushover.

Nahh not me, but then I never have this problem and they sound very pushy
to 'get' law breakers as they see it. I just think that in your case, if
you have a receipt and know you will be taken to court if you don't
produce it

He knows no such thing. There won't be any court, you watch.

... well ... the choice is yours.

And he's made that choice, made an obscene gesture in their
general direction because he, rightly or wrongly, believes that
they are running a scam, demanding till slips LONG after most
would have kept them, to bluff people into paying for the
parking they they are legally entitled to have for free.

I'd make an obscene gesture in their general direction
too if I believed they were doing that deliberately.

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

"Mike Scott" wrote in message
...
On 15/10/15 01:56, Rod Speed wrote:
....
I parked there and I really did shop there but I wont show you the
proof, that seems a reasonable assumption to me

More fool you, it isn't.

Why would any sensible honest person take that line?

Because they may well not have the till slip anymore,
and even if they did, they may well don't see why they......

Why should there even be a till receipt in the first place? You can park
up and find they don't the whatever-it-is you wanted, so you leave.
Presumably legitimate use of the car park. Or are you forced to buy
something if you park there?

at a limited number of shops with very popular parking spaces, yes you are

That last is very arguable indeed if they don’t
happen to have what you entered the store to buy.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ophelia wrote:
Quite! If they have asked for his evidence that he was a customer and
he refuses to provide it, turning up in court with it isn't going to go
well for him.

You have some odd ideas.

You seem to think it is up to me to prove my 'innocence'.

you're not being asked to prove innocence', you're being asked to prove
that you were a customer.

When Lidl have all the proof that that is necessary already.

You are not disputing that fact that it was your car, only that you were
entitled to free parking because of some extra condition

I have given them the means to prove it themselves.

what was that, I've lost track

He told them that he had used that store in the past
with that car and had paid by card this time, so they
have all the data they need to check that he did use
the store when his car was in the carpark this time.

The last I recall was that you were reluctant to hand over a credit card
number.

Yes, but he did tell them that he had paid by card and
that he had previously supplied the car number plate
number when he had shopped in the store before.

What else is there, other than the receip,t that you could have given
them?

The fact that he had previously shopped in that store
and had given the car number to the checkout monkey
when asked for it and that it was the same car and that
he had paid by card this time so they can check for
themselves with the records they have that he did
use the checkout in the store this time.

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ophelia wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim..... wrote:
They presumably have all the evidence that they need

1) proof that he parked there
2) proof that he didn't register his reg at the checkout as required

The checkout person never asked for it. It's not something I volunteer
each time I use a store - do you? Some other stores have a machine
where you enter the car's details yourself. If that had been the case
here, it would be my 'fault'.

We are not asked that at our local Lidl either, but this is Scotland and
perhaps different. We don't have problems in the car park either. heh
you are living in the wrong place

It's the only Lidl round here that uses this system. Just happens to be
the most convenient one for me.

I've no complaint against Lidl - even although the mistake was made by a
checkout person. It's the company running the carpark I'm not keen on.

But they're acting in your interests.

He believes, rightly or wrongly, that the parking operation
is deliberately engaging in a scam, demanding to see till
strips LONG after most would have thrown them away.

If they didn't enforce the restrictions against those not using the store,
in time there wouldn't be any spaces for you to use when you have a
legitimate need.

Yes, but if they had a better system for enforcing that,
like charging you when you enter the carpark and then
giving you a refund when you wave the till receipt at
the scanner as you leave the carpark, or make you pay
for your stay in the carpark as you leave the park if you
can't wave a current till slip at the exit boom gate, that
would not only save the parking operation the cost of
all that farting around chasing people they believe did
not use the store when they had a car in the carpark,
it wouldn’t need the customers to remember to enter
their car plate number at the checkout either.

Yours is a very strange way of helping them do that.

Not if he believes it’s a scam by the carpark operation.

Especially when you say it's not actually their fault.

It is their fault for having such a crude and primitive system.

You're acting like a dork and need to get over yourself.

You need to get a clue about the basics.

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


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim..... wrote:
They presumably have all the evidence that they need

1) proof that he parked there
2) proof that he didn't register his reg at the checkout as required

The checkout person never asked for it. It's not something I volunteer
each time I use a store - do you? Some other stores have a machine
where you enter the car's details yourself. If that had been the case
here, it would be my 'fault'.

We are not asked that at our local Lidl either, but this is Scotland and
perhaps different. We don't have problems in the car park either. heh
you are living in the wrong place

It's the only Lidl round here that uses this system. Just happens to be
the most convenient one for me.

I've no complaint against Lidl - even although the mistake was made by a
checkout person. It's the company running the carpark I'm not keen on.

Ok. So to whom are you supposed to provide evidence that you were shopping
at that time? Lidl or the car park bods? But just think on ... you could
be blamed for allowing it to get to court

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

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim..... wrote:
If they're going to assume for no particular reason that
a person is dishonest

but in the scenario of:

I parked there and I really did shop there but I wont show you the
proof, that seems a reasonable assumption to me

Why would any sensible honest person take that line?

I'm perfectly happy to show them the proof. But at no inconvenience to
myself.

They seem to want me to do their work for them. But the likes of you
don't
seem to find anything wrong with that.

It's how it is with this sort of thing

Like hell it is. Its perfectly possible to have a system that
doesn't require the customer to do their work for them.

you get a council parking ticket which you think you shouldn't have got

He has got no ticket this time, and wont, you watch.

to appeal, you have to turn up at some office somewhere, very probably
some time during the working day and argue your case with the independent
adjudicator

Doesn't happen like that here, you can do it all online
at any time that is convenient to you, or by phone.

and do you gets costs for this inconvenience

Nope!

Irrelevant to the situation being discussed.