"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 12:14:51 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Cam someone please tell me about any UK city where you can park anywhere
and traffic flows easily?

St David's?

I guess you've never been there

more double yellows that you can shake a stick at and zillions of tourists
looking for a place to park


St Asaph?

I'll give you that

tim

On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 12:50:05 +0100, tim..... wrote:

Cam someone please tell me about any UK city where you can park
anywhere and traffic flows easily?

St David's?

I guess you've never been there

more double yellows that you can shake a stick at and zillions of
tourists looking for a place to park

Not every day is a sunny summer weekend, though...

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

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

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

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

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?'.

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

Not my job to enter the details. The checkout person does this. And failed
to do so on this occasion.

as such it IS the OP's job to prove that they were otherwise entitled to
free parking, It is this mistake which has caused the company the
inconvenience of establishing this, so it is HIS task to prove it.

********. It is their job to prove an 'offence' took place. It's not my
job to prove my innocence.

--
*Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it*

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

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

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

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

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

Yup - that's them. They've got as far away from the parrot person as
possible. Who wouldn't?

--
*Of course I'm against sin; I'm against anything that I'm too old to enjoy.

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

In article ,
Chris wrote:
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.

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.


Obviously Lidl do collect and
print the name though. I've learned something.

Sorry about that. But I'm pretty certain they'd know the name too - it's
hardly a secret being printed on the card.

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?'.

--
*He who laughs last, thinks slowest.

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

In article , Chris
wrote:
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.

The Lidl receipt that I've just found does not have my name on it, but of
course, my credit card has my name embossed on it.

--
Please note new email address:

On 11/10/2015 14:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bod wrote:
On 11/10/2015 12:30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Not for those into what happens more than anywhere else.

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

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

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

Yup - that's them. They've got as far away from the parrot person as
possible. Who wouldn't?

What area are you in? We are in Langley, Berkshire.

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

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

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

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 14:11:23 +0100, michael adams wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
[quoted text muted]

There's plenty online, especially in local groups, of people who've
ignored these demands and simply thrown them away without any
consequences at all.

Dangerous advice, post Beavis. *Probably* what would happen. But the
courts have allowed it now.

As it happens I wasn't advising the OP to do anything. I was simply making
an observation.

Any advice on offer would have been in the webpage to which I left a link


http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/c...going-far.html


As to Beavis I'm not aware of any judgement being made,
and in any case with Beavis, there is no disagreement as
to fact.

Beavis has been found in favour of the parking company at the appeal court, as such
is precedence creating and applies everywhere (in England)

The Supreme count have heard Beavis' (2nd) appeal and the world is awaiting their
response.

That's what I just said, above.


(After that there's nowhere else to go - this isn't a subject likely to get a very
positive response for a hearing at the European court)

tim

Unlike in this case, AFAIUI Beavis is appealing simply on the grounds
that it's "unfair"; on a matter of principle, not on matters of fact.
And as such I'm rather surprised that he's got this far.

The principle being that the fine does not conform to the assumption that it must be a
reasonable estimate of actual loss.

The case is arguable

How ?

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.

Nobody at any time forced him to contravene those parking
regulations.


michael adams

....



(if you have unlimited pockets)

tim

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

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

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

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 14:11:23 +0100, michael adams wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
[quoted text muted]

There's plenty online, especially in local groups, of people who've
ignored these demands and simply thrown them away without any
consequences at all.

Dangerous advice, post Beavis. *Probably* what would happen. But the
courts have allowed it now.

As it happens I wasn't advising the OP to do anything. I was simply making
an observation.

Any advice on offer would have been in the webpage to which I left a link


http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/c...going-far.html


As to Beavis I'm not aware of any judgement being made,
and in any case with Beavis, there is no disagreement as
to fact.

Beavis has been found in favour of the parking company at the appeal court, as such
is precedence creating and applies everywhere (in England)

The Supreme count have heard Beavis' (2nd) appeal and the world is awaiting their
response.

That's what I just said, above.

no you didn't

you said:

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

Which is correct. The judgement in question is the one
which is yet to be announced upon which people can base
their future conduct.

Nobody is going to base their conduct on judgements
which have been appealed; and which from that moment on
are reduced to total irrelevance.

The first page of hits on google for "Beavis" "parking" mainly
features appealed judgements concerning his case. Or are you unaware
of that fact ?


michael adams

....




tim

"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.

What's more I can't see what you hope to achieve by putting
phrases in quotation marks. This is is standard practice when]
quoting some source or other, but as its clear you're simply making
things, up it merely served to weaken your case.


as such it IS the OP's job to prove that they were otherwise entitled to free parking,
It is this mistake which has caused the company the inconvenience of establishing this,
so it is HIS task to prove it.

No it isn't.

All the fannying about isn't a requirement on the part of the
customer at all, providing they have proof which would satisfy
a court or any reasonable person.

Its solely a convenience from the companies perspective which
allows them to operate the car park without an on site
attendent. The fact that they can bluff members of the public
such as yourself into believing otherwise probably accounts
for a large proportion of their profits which most likely derives
from such "fines"

michael adams

....





tim

In article ,
Bod wrote:
We get lots of Parakeets around here and they make an awful screeching
sound.

Yup - that's them. They've got as far away from the parrot person as
possible. Who wouldn't?

What area are you in? We are in Langley, Berkshire.

I'm in S London. Several colonies of them here.

--
*A dog's not just for Christmas, it's alright on a Friday night too*

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

On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 12:30:04 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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

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

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

Most trees don't have parrots in them. And the only parrot that makes an annoying noise is the conure.

--
If you were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs, you may be a Muslim.

On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 13:27:57 +0100, Bod wrote:

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

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

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

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

Which one? Rosella? Budgerigar? I know of none that make an annoying sound. And I heard none when I visited you.

--
****head Simon saw sexy Sheila sucking Stephen's stiff sperm sausage softly, so Simon sucked
Stuart's super sized sexrod savagely. Several sluts saw Stuart spraying spunk, soaking Sarah's
stockings severely. Sarah swiftly smacked Stuart's shaft sideways, sending Stuart's sticky spitting semen
sensationally soaring.

On 11/10/2015 15:08, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bod wrote:
We get lots of Parakeets around here and they make an awful screeching
sound.

Yup - that's them. They've got as far away from the parrot person as
possible. Who wouldn't?

What area are you in? We are in Langley, Berkshire.

I'm in S London. Several colonies of them here.

Righto.

On 11/10/2015 15:15, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 12:30:04 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

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

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

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

Most trees don't have parrots in them. And the only parrot that makes
an annoying noise is the conure.

You are very wrong. I thought that you knew about parrots!

"Noisy parakeets 'drive away' native birds"
"Although they are not aggressive, their noisy, squawky behaviour and
large size, makes the smaller birds wary and keen to avoid them"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ive-birds.html

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Chris wrote:
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.

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

The copy of the credit card voucher than the vendor keeps has the full card
number.

--
Please note new email address:

Bod wrote in
:

On 11/10/2015 10:21, The Todal wrote:
On 11/10/2015 08:22, MM wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 13:22:12 +0100, "ARW"
wrote:

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
MM wrote
Chris wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

The Lidl branch I most use is at Clapham Junction. They have
number recognition cameras, and ask you for your car number at
the checkout.
Which then gives you up to 90 minutes free parking.

Had a demand for a fine from the company that runs it for them.
On that
occasion, the till person obviously forgot to ask me for my
details. Not
that I noticed at the time. And they could have changed the
system anyway.

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.

Some time later, I've had an email asking me to prove
I made a purchase. They want a copy of the till receipt.

As it happens I do still have it - as I bought something with a
warranty.
But had it been just groceries, would have been junked the same
day.

So I've told them to check themselves.
Be interesting to see what happens next.

Just ignore the idiots is the best policy.

Private companies can't issue enforceable fines.

They're trying it on.

Harry

On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 15:55:32 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/10/2015 15:15, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 12:30:04 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

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

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

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

Most trees don't have parrots in them. And the only parrot that makes
an annoying noise is the conure.

You are very wrong. I thought that you knew about parrots!

"Noisy parakeets 'drive away' native birds"
"Although they are not aggressive, their noisy, squawky behaviour and
large size, makes the smaller birds wary and keen to avoid them"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ive-birds.html

I've heard almost every type of parrot squawk, and I only find the conure annoying. Annoying other birds is irrelevant to us. Parrots are prettier than plain British birds.

--
Mary had a little lamb, it walked into a pylon. 10,000 volts went up its arse, and turned its wool to nylon.

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

On 11/10/2015 10:21, The Todal wrote:
On 11/10/2015 08:22, MM wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 13:22:12 +0100, "ARW"
wrote:

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
MM wrote
Chris wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

The Lidl branch I most use is at Clapham Junction. They have
number recognition cameras, and ask you for your car number at
the checkout.
Which then gives you up to 90 minutes free parking.

Had a demand for a fine from the company that runs it for them.
On that
occasion, the till person obviously forgot to ask me for my
details. Not
that I noticed at the time. And they could have changed the
system anyway.

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.

Some time later, I've had an email asking me to prove
I made a purchase. They want a copy of the till receipt.

As it happens I do still have it - as I bought something with a
warranty.
But had it been just groceries, would have been junked the same
day.

So I've told them to check themselves.
Be interesting to see what happens next.

Just ignore the idiots is the best policy.

you might be right


Private companies can't issue enforceable fines.

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


They're trying it on.

No they're not

tim

On 11/10/2015 16:17, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 15:55:32 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/10/2015 15:15, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 12:30:04 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

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

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

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

Most trees don't have parrots in them. And the only parrot that makes
an annoying noise is the conure.

You are very wrong. I thought that you knew about parrots!

"Noisy parakeets 'drive away' native birds"
"Although they are not aggressive, their noisy, squawky behaviour and
large size, makes the smaller birds wary and keen to avoid them"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ive-birds.html


I've heard almost every type of parrot squawk, and I only find the
conure annoying. Annoying other birds is irrelevant to us. Parrots are
prettier than plain British birds.

So all of these people are liars then !?
You obviously haven't heard them, you are guessing.

"A lurid green tail dips down from an ash tree followed by an
ear-pulverising sqqquaarrrk!"

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...-parakeet-cull

On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 16:28:22 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/10/2015 16:17, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 15:55:32 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/10/2015 15:15, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 12:30:04 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

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

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

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

Most trees don't have parrots in them. And the only parrot that makes
an annoying noise is the conure.

You are very wrong. I thought that you knew about parrots!

"Noisy parakeets 'drive away' native birds"
"Although they are not aggressive, their noisy, squawky behaviour and
large size, makes the smaller birds wary and keen to avoid them"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ive-birds.html


I've heard almost every type of parrot squawk, and I only find the
conure annoying. Annoying other birds is irrelevant to us. Parrots are
prettier than plain British birds.

So all of these people are liars then !?
You obviously haven't heard them, you are guessing.

"A lurid green tail dips down from an ash tree followed by an
ear-pulverising sqqquaarrrk!"

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...-parakeet-cull

Some people make a fuss about nothing. They make lovely noises.

--
Two Irish couples decided to swap partners for the night.
After 3 hours of amazing sex, Paddy says "I wonder how the girls are getting on".

"tim....." wrote in
:

"Harold Davis" wrote in
message ...

Just ignore the idiots is the best policy.

you might be right

Private companies can't issue enforceable fines.

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

Penalties, then.

They're trying it on.

No they're not

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

Harry

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 12:50:05 +0100, tim..... wrote:

Cam someone please tell me about any UK city where you can park
anywhere and traffic flows easily?

St David's?

I guess you've never been there

more double yellows that you can shake a stick at and zillions of
tourists looking for a place to park

Not every day is a sunny summer weekend, though...

do they take the yellow lines away :-)

tim

On 11/10/2015 16:34, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 16:28:22 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/10/2015 16:17, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 15:55:32 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/10/2015 15:15, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 12:30:04 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

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

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

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

Most trees don't have parrots in them. And the only parrot that makes
an annoying noise is the conure.

You are very wrong. I thought that you knew about parrots!

"Noisy parakeets 'drive away' native birds"
"Although they are not aggressive, their noisy, squawky behaviour and
large size, makes the smaller birds wary and keen to avoid them"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ive-birds.html



I've heard almost every type of parrot squawk, and I only find the
conure annoying. Annoying other birds is irrelevant to us. Parrots are
prettier than plain British birds.

So all of these people are liars then !?
You obviously haven't heard them, you are guessing.

"A lurid green tail dips down from an ash tree followed by an
ear-pulverising sqqquaarrrk!"

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...-parakeet-cull


Some people make a fuss about nothing. They make lovely noises.

These ones don't. You have obviously never heard a Green Necked
parrot's screech, otherwise you would agree.

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

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

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

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.

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)


as such it IS the OP's job to prove that they were otherwise entitled to
free parking, It is this mistake which has caused the company the
inconvenience of establishing this, so it is HIS task to prove it.

********. It is their job to prove an 'offence' took place. It's not my
job to prove my innocence.

But they have done so.

the infringement is "parking without obtaining authorisation in the required
manner" (and presumable they have the video/ANPR evidence to show it)

you did NOT do that.

They have, as a concession, given you the opportunity to have the
infringement mitigated by YOU providing other proof they you were a valid
customer. They do no need to offer this concession, therefore they do not
need to collect the proof of this themselves if they do offer it.

You are expecting too much.

It is you who made the mistake, you then can't expect the other party to
jump hoops to correct that mistake that you made, it is unreasonable.

tim

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

"Harold Davis" wrote in
message ...

Just ignore the idiots is the best policy.

you might be right

Private companies can't issue enforceable fines.

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

Penalties, then.

They're trying it on.

No they're not

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

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

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

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

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

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

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

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

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 14:11:23 +0100, michael adams wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
[quoted text muted]

There's plenty online, especially in local groups, of people who've
ignored these demands and simply thrown them away without any
consequences at all.

Dangerous advice, post Beavis. *Probably* what would happen. But the
courts have allowed it now.

As it happens I wasn't advising the OP to do anything. I was simply
making
an observation.

Any advice on offer would have been in the webpage to which I left a
link


http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/c...going-far.html


As to Beavis I'm not aware of any judgement being made,
and in any case with Beavis, there is no disagreement as
to fact.

Beavis has been found in favour of the parking company at the appeal
court, as such is precedence creating and applies everywhere (in
England)

The Supreme count have heard Beavis' (2nd) appeal and the world is
awaiting their response.

That's what I just said, above.


(After that there's nowhere else to go - this isn't a subject likely to
get a very positive response for a hearing at the European court)

tim

Unlike in this case, AFAIUI Beavis is appealing simply on the grounds
that it's "unfair"; on a matter of principle, not on matters of fact.
And as such I'm rather surprised that he's got this far.

The principle being that the fine does not conform to the assumption that
it must be a reasonable estimate of actual loss.

The case is arguable

How ?

because it is - Even though I am on the side of the parking company (having
an interest in the result as an occupant of a block of flats that needs to
manage errant parkers), I can see that the point is arguable.


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.

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.


Nobody at any time forced him to contravene those parking
regulations.

That's a different argument entirely (and one with which I agree)

tim

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

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

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

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

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 14:11:23 +0100, michael adams wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
[quoted text muted]

There's plenty online, especially in local groups, of people who've
ignored these demands and simply thrown them away without any
consequences at all.

Dangerous advice, post Beavis. *Probably* what would happen. But the
courts have allowed it now.

As it happens I wasn't advising the OP to do anything. I was simply
making
an observation.

Any advice on offer would have been in the webpage to which I left a
link


http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/c...going-far.html


As to Beavis I'm not aware of any judgement being made,
and in any case with Beavis, there is no disagreement as
to fact.

Beavis has been found in favour of the parking company at the appeal
court, as such is precedence creating and applies everywhere (in
England)

The Supreme count have heard Beavis' (2nd) appeal and the world is
awaiting their response.

That's what I just said, above.

no you didn't

you said:

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

Which is correct.

Without further qualification it is not

so far, two judgements against Beavis have been made:

one in the lower courts and one in the appeal courts

If you meant a judgement other than these two, you should not have used the
word "any"

The judgement in question is the one
which is yet to be announced upon which people can base
their future conduct.

A judgement is any judgment historically made.

It doesn't "disappear" just because an appeal is made.

Nobody is going to base their conduct on judgements
which have been appealed; and which from that moment on
are reduced to total irrelevance.

Million of people did on the basis of "winning" the bank charge cases in the
lower courts

The first page of hits on google for "Beavis" "parking" mainly
features appealed judgements concerning his case. Or are you unaware
of that fact ?

An appealed judgement is still a judgement

tim

"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"


What's more I can't see what you hope to achieve by putting
phrases in quotation marks. This is is standard practice when]
quoting some source or other, but as its clear you're simply making
things, up it merely served to weaken your case.

because I was making clear the point of separation.

I could have used a colon, I suppose.

But I'm crap at English, fell free to correct me any time, I don't care, I
am crap at it

as such it IS the OP's job to prove that they were otherwise entitled to
free parking, It is this mistake which has caused the company the
inconvenience of establishing this, so it is HIS task to prove it.

No it isn't.

See my other post to Dave, I CBA to type it again


All the fannying about isn't a requirement on the part of the
customer at all, providing they have proof which would satisfy
a court or any reasonable person.

If this got to court and (Dave) was required to "provide they have proof
which would satisfy a court or any reasonable person", it is he who would
have to do that. Arguing that, as the shop had the details of his credit
card transaction they should do the work of finding out if he really was a
customer is not going to get you a "win".

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.

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

The fact that they can bluff members of the public
such as yourself into believing otherwise

Sorry I don't see what the alternative position to:

"Its solely a convenience from the companies perspective which allows them
to operate the car park without an on site attendant. "

is

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"


probably accounts
for a large proportion of their profits which most likely derives
from such "fines"

Personally I have never fallen foul of these people, but AIUI the law is on
their side (subject to signage, correct processing of penalties etc etc...)
and numpties from Website shouting otherwise does not make it different

tim

On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 16:44:40 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/10/2015 16:34, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 16:28:22 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/10/2015 16:17, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 15:55:32 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/10/2015 15:15, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 12:30:04 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

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

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

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

Most trees don't have parrots in them. And the only parrot that makes
an annoying noise is the conure.

You are very wrong. I thought that you knew about parrots!

"Noisy parakeets 'drive away' native birds"
"Although they are not aggressive, their noisy, squawky behaviour and
large size, makes the smaller birds wary and keen to avoid them"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ive-birds.html



I've heard almost every type of parrot squawk, and I only find the
conure annoying. Annoying other birds is irrelevant to us. Parrots are
prettier than plain British birds.

So all of these people are liars then !?
You obviously haven't heard them, you are guessing.

"A lurid green tail dips down from an ash tree followed by an
ear-pulverising sqqquaarrrk!"

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...-parakeet-cull


Some people make a fuss about nothing. They make lovely noises.

These ones don't. You have obviously never heard a Green Necked
parrot's screech, otherwise you would agree.

I'm going to take it you mean a "Ring-Necked Parakeet" - like this, which is a lovely sound, and quite comical, like a squeaky door or someone polishing a window - https://youtu.be/Z27jgDIOE5w

--
Statistics show that 25% of all women are on medication for mental illness.
That's scary! It means 75% are running around with no bloody medication at all!!!

On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 22:21:29 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 21:01:45 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 05:30:54 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 21:25:52 +0100, charles
wrote:

In article , Tough Guy no. 1265

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

wrote:

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

In article , Bill Wright
wrote:
charles wrote:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

No it isn't.

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

And everything nearby is equally old is it?

Irrelevant.

See below.

Useless.

When a building is knocked down, a car park should be made if there
aren't enough already.

Pity about who owns that building and the land
its on and why the knocked the building down
and what they replaced it with.

The council is in control of what is allowed to be built where.

But has to pay for what they take over
to turn into a carpark for the local station.

That's their job.

But they aren't necessarily allowed to do that.

They make the rules.

--
During the weekly Lamaze class, the instructor emphasized the importance of exercise, hinting strongly that husbands need to get out and start walking with their wives.
From the back of the room one expectant father inquired, "Would it be okay if she carries a bag of golf clubs while she walks?"

So all of these people are liars then !?
You obviously haven't heard them, you are guessing.

"A lurid green tail dips down from an ash tree followed by an
ear-pulverising sqqquaarrrk!"

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...-parakeet-cull



Some people make a fuss about nothing. They make lovely noises.

These ones don't. You have obviously never heard a Green Necked
parrot's screech, otherwise you would agree.

I'm going to take it you mean a "Ring-Necked Parakeet" - like this,
which is a lovely sound, and quite comical, like a squeaky door or
someone polishing a window - https://youtu.be/Z27jgDIOE5w

Yes, Green Ring Necked Parakeets. That clip sounds nothing like them in
the wild when they are calling to each other.

On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 22:20:33 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



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



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



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

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

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

wrote:

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

In article , Bill Wright
wrote:
charles wrote:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

No it isn't.

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

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

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

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

No more than I would in London.

Much more than you would in London in fact.

Statistics show otherwise.

Like hell they do.

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

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

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

Why get paid more just to pay more?

Because it beats being on benefits.

In London you couldn't live on benefits.

--
Customer explaining flooded car to insurance claim investigator:
"It didn't look that deep at first glance - it only came half way up the ducks."

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



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



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

wrote:



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

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

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

wrote:

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

In article , Bill Wright
wrote:
charles wrote:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

No it isn't.

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

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

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

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

No more than I would in London.

Much more than you would in London in fact.

Statistics show otherwise.

Like hell they do.

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

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

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

Why get paid more just to pay more?

Because it beats being on benefits.

In London you couldn't live on benefits.

Many do.

On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 17:37:23 +0100, Bod wrote:

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



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



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

wrote:



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

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

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

wrote:

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

In article , Bill Wright
wrote:
charles wrote:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

No it isn't.

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

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

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

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

No more than I would in London.

Much more than you would in London in fact.

Statistics show otherwise.

Like hell they do.

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

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

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

Why get paid more just to pay more?

Because it beats being on benefits.

In London you couldn't live on benefits.

Many do.

Impossible, the mortgage could not be paid.

--
More and more cities are instituting a 10:30 PM curfew for everyone younger than 18.
Experts say keeping teens indoors at night is the only way to make the streets safe for adults.

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.

--
Rod

Fredxxx wrote in :

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

"Harold Davis" wrote in
message ...

Just ignore the idiots is the best policy.

you might be right

Private companies can't issue enforceable fines.

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

Penalties, then.

They're trying it on.

No they're not

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

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

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

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

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

Harry