Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Excellent news! Thread title updated. Please do consider a donation in light of the help received here. The help we give is free, but try telling that to our server hosts!
    • Hello dx100uk, After months of waiting for a response I finally got a reply and I must say it was the worst 4 months of my life the - fear of the unknown. So, they wrote back and said I was in the wrong BUT on this occasion they  would not take action but keep me on file for the next 12 months. It. was the biggest relief of my life a massive weight lifted -  I would like to thank you and the team for all your support
    • I have contacted the sofa shop who are sending someone out tomorrow to inspect the furniture. I suspect if anything a replacement will be offered although I would prefer a refund. Few photos of the wear in the material, this is how it was delivered.  
    • Yup, for goodness sake she needs to stop paying right now, DCA's are powerless, as .  Is it showing on their credit file? Best to use Check my file. All of the above advice is excellent, definitely SAR the loan company as soon as possible.
    • Hi all, I am wandering if this is appealable. It has already been through a challenge on the Islington website and the it was rejected. Basically there was a suspended bay sign on a post on Gee st which was obscured by a Pizza van. The suspension was for 3 bays outside 47 Gee st. I parked outside/between 47 & 55 Gee st. I paid via the phone system using a sign a few meters away from my car. When I got back to the car there was a PCN stuck to the windscreen which I had to dry out before I could read it due to rain getting into the plastic sticky holder.  I then appealed using the Islington website which was then rejected the next day. I have attached a pdf of images that I took and also which the parking officer took. There are two spaces in front of the van, one of which had a generator on it the other was a disabled space. I would count those as 3 bays? In the first image circled in red is the parking sign I read. In the 2nd image is the suspension notice obscured by the van. I would have had to stand in the middle of the road to read this, in fact that's where I was standing when I took the photo. I have pasted the appeal and rejection below. Many thanks for looking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my appeal statement: As you can see from the image attached (image 1) I actually paid £18.50 to park my car in Gee st. I parked the car at what I thought was outside 55 Gee st as seen in image 2 attached. When I read the PCN issued it stated there was a parking suspension. There was no suspension notice on the sign that I used to call the payment service outside number 55 Gee st. I looked for a suspension notice and eventually found one which was obscured by a large van and generator parked outside 47 Gee st. As seen in images 3 and 4 attached. I am guessing the parking suspension was to allow the Van to park and sell Pizza during the Clerkenwell design week. I was not obstructing the use or parking of the van, in fact the van was obstructing the suspension notice which meant I could not read or see it without prior knowledge it was there. I would have had to stand in the road to see it endangering myself as I had to to take images to illustrate the hidden notice. As there was no intention to avoid a parking charge and the fact the sign was not easily visible I would hope this challenge can be accepted. Many thanks.   This is the text from the rejection: Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay or space. I note from your correspondence that there was no suspension notice on the sign that you used to call the payment serve outside number 55 Gee Street. I acknowledge your comments, however, your vehicle was parked in a bay which had been suspended. The regulations require the suspension warning to be clearly visible. It is a large bright yellow sign and is erected by the parking bay on the nearest parking plate to the area that is to be suspended. Parking is then not permitted in the bay for any reason or period of time, however brief. The signs relating to this suspension were sited in accordance with the regulations. Upon reviewing the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) images and notes, I am satisfied that sufficient signage was in place and that it meets statutory requirements. Whilst I note that the signage may have been obstructed by a large van and generator at the time, please note, it is the responsibility of the motorist to locate and check the time plate each time they park. This will ensure that any changes to the status of the bay are noted. I acknowledge that your vehicle possessed a RingGo session at the time, however, this does not authorize parking within a suspended bay. Suspension restrictions are established to facilitate specific activities like filming or construction, therefore, we anticipate the vehicle owner to relocate the vehicle from the suspended area until the specified date and time when the suspension concludes. Leaving a vehicle unattended for any period of time within a suspended bay, effectively renders the vehicle parked in contravention and a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) may issue a PCN. Finally, the vehicle was left parked approximately 5 metres away from the closest time plate notice. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they park in a suitable parking place and check all signs and road markings prior to leaving their vehicle parked in contravention. It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally at all times. With that being said, I would have to inform you, your appeal has been rejected at this stage. Please see the below images as taken by the CEO whilst issuing the PCN: You should now choose one of the following options: Pay the penalty charge. We will accept the discounted amount of £65.00 in settlement of this matter, provided it is received by 10 June 2024. After that date, the full penalty charge of £130.00 will be payable. Or Wait for a Notice to Owner (NtO) to be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is legally responsible for paying the penalty charge. Any further correspondence received prior to the NtO being issued may not be responded to. The NtO gives the recipient the right to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If we reject those representations, there will be the right of appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.   Gee st pdf.pdf
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Parking Eye PCN for shopping over 1 hr - Lidl carpark Worthing ***Cancelled by Lidl***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 363 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

So is there any point in continuing to try to make Lidl change their mind at all ? What other reasonings could I invoke ? 
 

should I just wait a reply from the one addressed to the CEO? 
 

also, a lot of threads here are missing an outcome. How many of those ( and who agreed to do nothing) get dragged into court? The majority ? Some ? Or all of them ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

People seem to be pretty quick to come back if a problem arises but I agree it's frustrating when there's no outcome shown. Hopefully you will keep us updated to the end. :)

 

For more reading, have a look at our Successes thread. Start with the most recent.

 

 

HB

  • Thanks 1

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes the rogues don't take motorists to court at all-probably because they think they will probably lose. Unlikely to be the fact that they don't need the money.🙂

Another reason could be that the motorist has won and doesn't want to come back and tell us to avoid making a contribution. Other times they have missed the Court hearing and lost or just lost anyway- perhaps the Judge took a contrary view. These are just some of the reasons but it is frustrating when we don't know the outcome.  

 

It is good to get the feedback from the hearing win or lose. If a win then we know that a particular reason that didn't appear to us to be the strongest argument was the winner. Equally we can glean reasons how to improve cases that were lost so the next similar case can be more successful.

 

We cannot win them all but that is what we aim to do. In your case you have three options.

1] pay them

2] appeal to Lidl

3' wait and see if the have the courage to take you to court. They don't always and there doesn't seem much point in poking them to take you to Court. Just keep your head down and hope they ignore you. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, lfi. Great points. Totally agree that knowing the outcome-good or bad is invaluable to the remarkable job you and the other selfless people do on this forum. It’s frustrating for passive readers so it must be even more so for you who dedicate your time and knowledge. 
 

As for my 3 options you listed: 

1 paying them feels so wrong 

2 what else could I say when appealing to Lidl? 
3 worst case scenario: they take me to court and I lose- will they be adding costs, interest and other made up charges or did I read right that P-eye don’t usually do that ?
 
 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Nicky Boy said:

Out of interest,  I know it's been suggested before,  but is there any mileage in threatening to add Lidl as a 3rd party to any legal action?

Sorry if it's a stupid question, but I'm currently on holiday and had a few drinks...😁

We've threatened it a few times to try to push some of the organ grinders into action, but that's it, it's only ever been a threat.

 

I'm not sure how it would work, despite me having actually added someone as a third party to a claim ... but in 1982 so the old memory is playing up!

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about one last email with a strong suggestion that if the fleecers do court and lose, you will then make a gdpr claim against themselves as the fleecers are their agents.

Also ask for a copy of their contract with the fleecers, to allow you to consider whether to appeal or not.

A contract could be VERY useful later on.

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are a regular visitor to Lidl and often pay by card you can show that you are a good customer that they should want to keep. 

That you were there to shop  and therefore a good customer. you were not parked there to go shopping somewhere else.

You like shopping there but as there are so many items of of interest  one hour is not long enough especially  if  a] you are no longer as young as you were or b] disabled in some way that slow you down or c ] you were unwell when there   or d] you weren't even there as you weren't the driver and give reason why the driver overstayed.

Politicians have brought out a new Code of Conduct for what they call "the rogues" but you know one of them as Parking Eye who are more interested in making money out of Lidl customers than running a proper monitoring system  to control non Lidl shoppers.

PE have not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which means they cannot transfer the charge from the driver to me the keeper. I was not the driver so am very unhappy at being pursued by PE for something I am not liable for.

There is very little point in appealing to PE since they are reluctant to cancel PCNs .

Suggest that you show the letter to your CEO since you would hope that he would see the common sense in cancelling the PCN for a genuine regular customer.

 

Something along those lines.  I am not fond of threatening them when hoping to get a positive result.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s the reply to my last e-mail to Lidl where I pointed out all those things suggested by lfi. 

Re: Parking Charge Notice

Thank you for getting in touch again. 

I appreciate this is an upsetting matter and I am sorry that you were unhappy with our previous response. 

As advised all correspondence to our CEO is dealt with by us at Customer Services. I must again reiterate we are unable to cancel parking charges at Lidl. 

This is now our final response on this matter and we will not be responding further. 

Thank you again for contacting us. 
 

 
Yours sincerely, 
For and on behalf of Lidl Great Britain Limited 

Kim Richmond
Customer Service
Link to post
Share on other sites

The staff are obviously reading from a script forced on them by a higher boss. 

 

The Lidl route is closed.

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well well well.. an unexpected surprise following the e-mail to Lidl’s CEO. 
A happy ending to the little fight I embarked  on a few weeks ago.

Thank you all for your great advice along the way. 

Re: Lidl Store: 34 North Street Worthing


Thank you for taking the time to contact our GEO. I have been asked to respond on his behalf as a member of our Customer Service Management Team.


I would like to apologise for the upset caused due to receiving a parking charge while shopping at your store. I would like to assure you these restrictions are not in place to penalise genuine customers like yourself.


I have been in touch with our Regional Office regarding your parking charge and I am please to advise you that this has now been cancelled .


I hope th is assures you of our best intentions at Lidl and that you will remain a valued Lidl customer.


We look forward to welcoming you in our store again in the near future.


Yours sincerely,


For and on behalf of lidl Great Britain limited
Beth Gallagher
Customer Service

IMG_3469.pdf

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Which idiot wrote -

On 12/05/2023 at 23:38, FTMDave said:

The staff are obviously reading from a script forced on them by a higher boss.

The Lidl route is closed.

- shows how much he knows!

Well done with persevering for so long!

So how did you manage to turn "no, no, no, no, no" into "yes"?

 

 

  • Haha 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • FTMDave changed the title to Parking Eye PCN for shopping over 1 hr - Lidl carpark Worthing ***Cancelled by Lidl***

Ahh.. that guy! 🤓😅

Not sure what exactly helped swaying them but in the last e-Mail to my mate Ryan 😂, I appealed to his sense of justice🤓 in reference to the company’s pledge to their customers. But who knows.. 

See E-mail below 

Dear Ryan
 
Please see attached the latest e-mail received from Lidl Customer Service who has refused for the 6th time to act on a genuine loyal customer’s plea to cancel a PCN received as a result of doing a weekly shop where £105 was spent. 
 
I can understand if the driver had parked in Lidl carpark and shopped elsewhere but to be a customer spending over £100 in store and then to receive a fine of £90 for not getting out of the carpark fast enough is incredibly unfair and upsetting. 
 
Does this treatment to a genuine customer align with Lidl’s mission: 
 
To deliver outstanding customer satisfaction
 
Please take the time and respond compassionately by rectifying this injustice and instruct Parking Eye to cancel the PCN Ref :..
Link to post
Share on other sites

Refer your friends and relatives here if they face similar situations.

 

Also, I see no-one has mentioned it yet... Everyone here are volunteers.

The only funding for the website comes from the ads you see and donations using the "donate" button further down the page. 😉

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points well made, NB

I will always refer people in need to this amazing site. 
 

the fact that those who restlessly help here are volunteers is even more admiring. 
 

I have just made a small donations. Thank you for your prompt. Really appreciate all the help. Keep doing what you do best. X

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Superb result well done.

 

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...