We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
LIDL Athena parking charge
LauraSt
Posts: 19 Forumite
I'd be grateful for some feedback on an appeal letter to Athena ANPR Ltd please.
I've previously had a successful POPLA appeal reagrding Parkingeye but realise that Athena are outside POPLA.
I'm appealing this on behalf of my son, the registered keeper. He's in the armed forces and out of the country at the moment. I opened his mail and discovered this. he left on exercise the day after this alleged overstay, and won't be back for 10 weeks.
I have only realised today that I should also be appealing directly to LIDL, so I will do that right away.
This is my draft letter (hopefully I have removed all reference to Parkingeye)
Thanks for any input
[FONT="]Dear Athena ANPR LTD[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
I am the representative of the registered keeper who is out of the country currently and I am appealing against the above charge. I contend that there is no liability on the following grounds and request that they are all considered.
1. Athena ANPR Ltd has not allowed reasonable Grace periods to enter and leave the car park and has supplied no evidence of actual parking overstay
2. The signage is not compliant with the IPC Code of Practice
3. ANPR Compliance and accuracy
4. Keeper Liability Requirements and POFA
5. No landowner contract or legal standing to form contracts.
6. No valid contract formed between Athena ANPR Ltc and the driver
7. Genuine Pre-estimate of loss
I decline, as is my right, to provide the name of the driver of the vehicle at the time in question.
1. Athena ANPR Ltd has not allowed reasonable Grace periods to enter and leave the car park and has supplied no evidence of actual parking overstay
The IPC Code of Practice requires operators allow drivers grace periods to enter and leave a site, with a minimum time of 10 minutes to leave after the parking contract has ended and an additional grace period of “a sufficient amount of time” should be allowed so the driver can find a space to park and read the relevant signs.
The cameras operate at the perimeter and an alleged contract cannot begin until the driver has had the opportunity to read and accept the conditions on offer.
. 15.1 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.
Add this to the required minimum recommended grace period of 10 minutes upon leaving a car park then 21.25 minutes is not in breach of an alleged contract.
The Notice from Athena ANPR Ltd states “actual duration of stay: 1:51.25 ” It includes photographs which show arrival and departure times. The photograph does not show what the traffic situation was on entry to the car park or within the car park or at the exit, or how long the driver had to queue to find a parking bay or to leave the car park. It does not show that the car was physically parked in a parking bay for longer than the allotted time, allowing time for accepting the contract
I require Athena ANPR Ltd. to supply full analysis of their calculations and the specific data used to determine this in our case.
As Athena ANPR Ltd. have failed to allow for grace periods this appeal should be upheld.
2. The signage is not compliant with the IPC Code of Practice
The signage is misleading and confusing.
The signage refers to terms and conditions but does not state where these are. The print is so small it cannot be deemed readable before parking, and is so small as to be barely legible after parking.
Signs are positioned at a height of 7+ feet that renders them unreadable under normal circumstances.
Signage within the car park states two different time periods.
One says 90 minutes stay and another up to 2 hours Parking refunded for customers paying £10.00 or more. A customer could easily confuse these signs and fall prey to parking charges.
3. ANPR compliance and accuracy Signage does not conform to the IPC Code of Practice nor the ICO which requires signs to be clearly visible and readable; they do not give clear information about the organisation operating the system or who to contact about the scheme. It is not transparent from the signage what ANPR means. Drivers are not told what ANPR stands for, and the wording “camera controlled car park” does not indicate how ANPR systems are being used within the car park. It cannot be assumed that all those who drive are familiar with abbreviation.
Nowhere at the entrance or on any other sign does it state that the permissible stay begins when the driver’s VRN is recorded at an arbitrary point prior to parking, a point at which the motorist is completely unaware.
Signage does not tell a driver how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used, which is a breach of ICO registration. Drivers are unaware that the timing is being started before they park and after they leave the parking space which is unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and a misleading business practice under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.
Simple entry and exit photographs purported to be from the stated car park do not prove unquestionably that the vehicle actually entered and left it, parked within its boundaries, and remained parked within it for the alleged time.
There was consequently no lawful contract to breach and even if there was it was not breached, the stay did not exceed that permitted.
I request that Athena ANPR Ltd present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at LIDL Taunton Castle Street car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images.
It is vital Athena ANPR Ltd produce evidence in response to these points and explain their systems differ (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the operator in PE V Fox-Jones 8th Nov 2013. The case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence the operator produced was "fundamentally flawed" as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.
4. Keeper Liability Requirements and the Protection of Freedom Act 2012
Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act stipulates the mandatory information which must be included in the Notice to Keeper. If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Keeper is invalid and the NTK has not complied with the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4.
The Notice has no 'date sent by post' nor a 'date given' which renders it non- compliant with Schedule 4. It has what the operator describes as a ‘issue date’ which is neither of the two dates the Act requires.
The Act stipulates that the parking company must provide the registered keeper with the period the car was parked. The photographs showing the vehicle enter and leave the car park is not valid or sufficient on its own as a form of evidence of the parking period.
Failure to comply with statutory requirements prevents the operator from relying on the provisions of POFA to invoke Keeper Liability. As the operator has no evidence as to the identity of the driver I am requesting that this appeal be upheld.
The IPC Code requires the same information
5.1 (b) Specify the vehicle and the land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.
5. No landowner contract or legal standing to form contracts.
I do not believe Athena ANPR Ltd. has the authority of the landowner to issue parking charge notices, or take court action in their own name to recover them. I demand that the operator discloses a contemporaneous and unredacted copy of the contract between themselves and the landowner to show that they do. A witness statement saying that the contract exists is not an acceptable form of proof, [FONT="]nor is a site agreement with a managing agent or other party who is not the landowner.[/FONT] Failure to do so must result in this appeal being upheld.
6. Unfair/ No valid contract formed between Athena ANPR Ltd. and the driver
If a contract begins at the point of entry to the site, the driver has not been afforded the chance to read the terms and conditions before entering into a contract, nor can they read said terms at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle if the terms appear to be already applicable because they have already entered the site, which they must do in order to be able to read the terms.
A charge for an alleged breach (denied) of contract cannot be served on a driver when the terms of the contract are uncertain and unclear.
The NTK images show entry and exit times but not a period parked as per POFA
(2) The notice must— (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
Athena ANPR Ltd is applying a contract in different parameters, contravening POFA. The terms are unclear to drivers and therefore this is an Unfair Contract.
[FONT="]The legal basis of your parking charge is not clear (i.e. is it breach, trespass or a contractual fee?). [/FONT]
[FONT="]The registered keeper cannot be expected to guess the basis of your allegation.
(i) if alleging breach of contract, please supply a breakdown of your alleged 'loss' and state the intention of your enforcement (i.e. deterrent or revenue?).
(ii) if alleging trespass, enclose evidence of the perpetrator, proof of the liquidated damages alleged and the calculation of this sum by the landholder.
(iii) if alleging 'contractual fee' I request a VAT invoice by return and your explanation of how you can allow drivers to park 'in breach' for a fee when your client originally contracted you in order to disallow and deter - not allow and profit from - unauthorised parking.[/FONT]
7. Genuine Pre-estimate of loss
I require Athena ANPR Ltd to provide a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss. [FONT="]In its parking charge notice, Athena ANPR Ltd has failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the £90 loss the landowner may have incurred while the car was parked in its property. For this charge to be justified, a full breakdown of the costs Athena ANPR Ltd has suffered as a result of the car being parked at this car park, is required and should add up to £90. Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry out their business should not be included in the breakdown of the costs, as these are part of the usual operational costs irrespective of any car being parked at that car park.[/FONT]
Taking all the above into account, it is respectfully requested that this parking charge notice be cancelled immediatey.
Yours faithfully
I've previously had a successful POPLA appeal reagrding Parkingeye but realise that Athena are outside POPLA.
I'm appealing this on behalf of my son, the registered keeper. He's in the armed forces and out of the country at the moment. I opened his mail and discovered this. he left on exercise the day after this alleged overstay, and won't be back for 10 weeks.
I have only realised today that I should also be appealing directly to LIDL, so I will do that right away.
This is my draft letter (hopefully I have removed all reference to Parkingeye)
Thanks for any input
[FONT="]Dear Athena ANPR LTD[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
I am the representative of the registered keeper who is out of the country currently and I am appealing against the above charge. I contend that there is no liability on the following grounds and request that they are all considered.
1. Athena ANPR Ltd has not allowed reasonable Grace periods to enter and leave the car park and has supplied no evidence of actual parking overstay
2. The signage is not compliant with the IPC Code of Practice
3. ANPR Compliance and accuracy
4. Keeper Liability Requirements and POFA
5. No landowner contract or legal standing to form contracts.
6. No valid contract formed between Athena ANPR Ltc and the driver
7. Genuine Pre-estimate of loss
I decline, as is my right, to provide the name of the driver of the vehicle at the time in question.
1. Athena ANPR Ltd has not allowed reasonable Grace periods to enter and leave the car park and has supplied no evidence of actual parking overstay
The IPC Code of Practice requires operators allow drivers grace periods to enter and leave a site, with a minimum time of 10 minutes to leave after the parking contract has ended and an additional grace period of “a sufficient amount of time” should be allowed so the driver can find a space to park and read the relevant signs.
The cameras operate at the perimeter and an alleged contract cannot begin until the driver has had the opportunity to read and accept the conditions on offer.
. 15.1 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.
Add this to the required minimum recommended grace period of 10 minutes upon leaving a car park then 21.25 minutes is not in breach of an alleged contract.
The Notice from Athena ANPR Ltd states “actual duration of stay: 1:51.25 ” It includes photographs which show arrival and departure times. The photograph does not show what the traffic situation was on entry to the car park or within the car park or at the exit, or how long the driver had to queue to find a parking bay or to leave the car park. It does not show that the car was physically parked in a parking bay for longer than the allotted time, allowing time for accepting the contract
I require Athena ANPR Ltd. to supply full analysis of their calculations and the specific data used to determine this in our case.
As Athena ANPR Ltd. have failed to allow for grace periods this appeal should be upheld.
2. The signage is not compliant with the IPC Code of Practice
The signage is misleading and confusing.
The signage refers to terms and conditions but does not state where these are. The print is so small it cannot be deemed readable before parking, and is so small as to be barely legible after parking.
Signs are positioned at a height of 7+ feet that renders them unreadable under normal circumstances.
Signage within the car park states two different time periods.
One says 90 minutes stay and another up to 2 hours Parking refunded for customers paying £10.00 or more. A customer could easily confuse these signs and fall prey to parking charges.
3. ANPR compliance and accuracy Signage does not conform to the IPC Code of Practice nor the ICO which requires signs to be clearly visible and readable; they do not give clear information about the organisation operating the system or who to contact about the scheme. It is not transparent from the signage what ANPR means. Drivers are not told what ANPR stands for, and the wording “camera controlled car park” does not indicate how ANPR systems are being used within the car park. It cannot be assumed that all those who drive are familiar with abbreviation.
Nowhere at the entrance or on any other sign does it state that the permissible stay begins when the driver’s VRN is recorded at an arbitrary point prior to parking, a point at which the motorist is completely unaware.
Signage does not tell a driver how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used, which is a breach of ICO registration. Drivers are unaware that the timing is being started before they park and after they leave the parking space which is unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and a misleading business practice under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.
Simple entry and exit photographs purported to be from the stated car park do not prove unquestionably that the vehicle actually entered and left it, parked within its boundaries, and remained parked within it for the alleged time.
There was consequently no lawful contract to breach and even if there was it was not breached, the stay did not exceed that permitted.
I request that Athena ANPR Ltd present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at LIDL Taunton Castle Street car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images.
It is vital Athena ANPR Ltd produce evidence in response to these points and explain their systems differ (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the operator in PE V Fox-Jones 8th Nov 2013. The case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence the operator produced was "fundamentally flawed" as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.
4. Keeper Liability Requirements and the Protection of Freedom Act 2012
Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act stipulates the mandatory information which must be included in the Notice to Keeper. If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Keeper is invalid and the NTK has not complied with the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4.
The Notice has no 'date sent by post' nor a 'date given' which renders it non- compliant with Schedule 4. It has what the operator describes as a ‘issue date’ which is neither of the two dates the Act requires.
The Act stipulates that the parking company must provide the registered keeper with the period the car was parked. The photographs showing the vehicle enter and leave the car park is not valid or sufficient on its own as a form of evidence of the parking period.
Failure to comply with statutory requirements prevents the operator from relying on the provisions of POFA to invoke Keeper Liability. As the operator has no evidence as to the identity of the driver I am requesting that this appeal be upheld.
The IPC Code requires the same information
5.1 (b) Specify the vehicle and the land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.
5. No landowner contract or legal standing to form contracts.
I do not believe Athena ANPR Ltd. has the authority of the landowner to issue parking charge notices, or take court action in their own name to recover them. I demand that the operator discloses a contemporaneous and unredacted copy of the contract between themselves and the landowner to show that they do. A witness statement saying that the contract exists is not an acceptable form of proof, [FONT="]nor is a site agreement with a managing agent or other party who is not the landowner.[/FONT] Failure to do so must result in this appeal being upheld.
6. Unfair/ No valid contract formed between Athena ANPR Ltd. and the driver
If a contract begins at the point of entry to the site, the driver has not been afforded the chance to read the terms and conditions before entering into a contract, nor can they read said terms at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle if the terms appear to be already applicable because they have already entered the site, which they must do in order to be able to read the terms.
A charge for an alleged breach (denied) of contract cannot be served on a driver when the terms of the contract are uncertain and unclear.
The NTK images show entry and exit times but not a period parked as per POFA
(2) The notice must— (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
Athena ANPR Ltd is applying a contract in different parameters, contravening POFA. The terms are unclear to drivers and therefore this is an Unfair Contract.
[FONT="]The legal basis of your parking charge is not clear (i.e. is it breach, trespass or a contractual fee?). [/FONT]
[FONT="]The registered keeper cannot be expected to guess the basis of your allegation.
(i) if alleging breach of contract, please supply a breakdown of your alleged 'loss' and state the intention of your enforcement (i.e. deterrent or revenue?).
(ii) if alleging trespass, enclose evidence of the perpetrator, proof of the liquidated damages alleged and the calculation of this sum by the landholder.
(iii) if alleging 'contractual fee' I request a VAT invoice by return and your explanation of how you can allow drivers to park 'in breach' for a fee when your client originally contracted you in order to disallow and deter - not allow and profit from - unauthorised parking.[/FONT]
7. Genuine Pre-estimate of loss
I require Athena ANPR Ltd to provide a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss. [FONT="]In its parking charge notice, Athena ANPR Ltd has failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the £90 loss the landowner may have incurred while the car was parked in its property. For this charge to be justified, a full breakdown of the costs Athena ANPR Ltd has suffered as a result of the car being parked at this car park, is required and should add up to £90. Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry out their business should not be included in the breakdown of the costs, as these are part of the usual operational costs irrespective of any car being parked at that car park.[/FONT]
Taking all the above into account, it is respectfully requested that this parking charge notice be cancelled immediatey.
Yours faithfully
0
Comments
-
It's not an appeal it's a complaint to the CEO of Lidl. That person is no longer Ronny Gottsclich but you can still use his email address which will be picked up by Customer Services staff. Search the forum for 'Ronny Lidl' to find examples and threads all about it.I have only realised today that I should also be appealing directly to LIDL, so I will do that right away.
There is no point sending that appeal to Athena. Not only is it an old out of date POPLA-style appeal (so not right for the case) but you can't argue 'no GPEOL' (point #7) any more. The rest will get you nowhere fast - so make the complaint (NOT appeal) to Lidl.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Thanks Coupon-mad
Is there a particular reason why there is no point sending appeal to Athena?
The letter says they accept appeals. Sorry if I'm asking a stupid question.
I will complain to Lidl. Thank you0 -
Because they are in the IPC:
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/independent-parking-committee-kangaroo.html
Wins by consumers are as rare as hen's teeth and although we had one reported on the forum today it was the first win reported this month at IAS! Also as we know Lidl WILL cancel it, why waste your time on 'going through the motions':
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/is-independent-appeal-service-kangaroo.html
See why it is 99% certainly futile to appeal to the IAS?! No need. Just get Lidl to handle it, complain.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Would you mind having a look at my complaint letter before I send it off, please?
Thank you in advance
[FONT="]Dear Mr Gottschlich[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]Parking Charge Notice :
I am writing to you as the representative of my son, who is the registered keeper of a vehicle issued with a Civil Parking Charge Notice relating to your Taunton Castle Street store. [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]My son is a Royal Marine and is currently out of the country on military business and therefore unable to reply to this notice himself. I have authority to respond.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]The shopper is a regular customer of Lidl, spending considerable sums of money (thousands of pounds) in Lidl stores annually. On the day in question, the shopper paid cash, but did not keep the receipt.
Signage at Lidl Taunton Castle Street is confusing as you will see from the attached photograph. One states a 90 minute stay while the other, in Lidl colours, states 2 hours. The alleged overstay is 21.25 minutes longer than one sign, but within the time limit on the second sign. This alleged overstay takes no account of grace periods which are required by the IPC code of practice.
[FONT="]I have visited the Martin Lewis Money Saving Expert forum and it is awash with complaints by legitimate LIDL customers who have had similar treatment.
I was shocked to find that by contracting athena-parking.com, you have engaged the services of a company that has removed itself from the BPA and no longer offer a fair appeals system (POPLA). Are you aware that your customers will now have no access to a fair appeal that would be possible to win? [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]Up till now, I have always been a loyal customer of Lidl, and have recommended your stores to many people. I am shocked to discover that a store that champions shopper's rights to value and good service actually employs a rogue outfit which removed itself from the BPA and directly profits from your loyal customers. All of my family, my extended family and all my friends have been regular shoppers in Lidl stores. This includes my son, the registered keeper of the vehicle. [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]I am requesting that this unfair 'PCN' invoice is cancelled immediately. This has put us off ever shopping in Lidl again. It is absolutely shocking to treat paying customers like this, and punish customers for taking time shopping and spending money at your store. [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]I will certainly re-consider visiting your stores if this charge is not cancelled and I will let my reasons for taking my custom elsewhere be widely known.[/FONT][FONT="]
Yours Faithfully[/FONT]0 -
Would you mind having a look at my complaint letter before I send it off, please?
Thank you in advance
[FONT="]Dear Mr Gottschlich[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]Parking Charge Notice :
I am writing to you as the representative of my son, who is the registered keeper of a vehicle issued with a Civil Parking Charge Notice relating to your Taunton Castle Street store. [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]My son is a Royal Marine and is currently out of the country on military business and therefore unable to reply to this notice himself. I have authority to respond.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]The shopper is a regular customer of Lidl, spending considerable sums of money (thousands of pounds) in Lidl stores annually. On the day in question, the shopper paid cash, but did not keep the receipt.
Signage at Lidl Taunton Castle Street is confusing as you will see from the attached photograph. One states a 90 minute stay while the other, in Lidl colours, states 2 hours. The alleged overstay is 21.25 minutes longer than one sign, but within the time limit on the second sign. This alleged overstay takes no account of grace periods which are required by the IPC code of practice.
[FONT="]I have visited the Martin Lewis Money Saving Expert forum and it is awash with complaints by legitimate LIDL customers who have had similar treatment.
I was shocked to find that by contracting athena-parking.com, you have engaged the services of a company that has removed itself from the BPA and no longer offer a fair appeals system (POPLA). Are you aware that your customers will now have no access to a fair appeal that would be possible to win? [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]Up till now, I have always been a loyal customer of Lidl, and have recommended your stores to many people. I am shocked to discover that a store that champions shopper's rights to value and good service actually employs a rogue outfit which removed itself from the BPA and directly profits from your loyal customers. All of my family, my extended family and all my friends have been regular shoppers in Lidl stores. This includes my son, the registered keeper of the vehicle. [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]I am requesting that this unfair 'PCN' invoice is cancelled immediately. This has put us off ever shopping in Lidl again. It is absolutely shocking to treat paying customers like this, and punish customers for taking time shopping and spending money at your store. [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]I will certainly re-consider visiting your stores if this charge is not cancelled and I will let my reasons for taking my custom elsewhere be widely known.[/FONT][FONT="]
Yours Faithfully[/FONT]
Mr Gottschlich has been replaced by Christian Hartnagel. CEO
With all respect to you, there is no need to write such a long letter.
Lidl knows already all the problems associated with Athena and are probably signed into a long contract.
The answer is as a complaint......
I am disgusted that Lidl use Athena parking who abuse Lidl customers by penalising them for the pleasure of shopping and spending money with Lidl.
As a regular shopper with your company, I now expect you to cancel this charge.
You will appreciate that I am at liberty to spend my money where I wish and that applies to friends and family.
It appears to me that whilst you offer cheaper prices, this becomes a nonsense when I receive a ticket for £xxx
I overstayed my welcome in your car park by 21.25 minutes and there is a grace period of 10 mins when entering and leaving.
You will already know that there is a lack of staff at your check outs meaning a queue develops and your customers are also being penalised by this as well.
I therefore look forward to receiving confirmation that this ticket will be duly cancelled
PS: don't forget to send a copy of the ticket0 -
Is it true that Lidl gets some sort of 'kick-back' from every ticket issued by Athena?
And is it true that the system used by Athena to log number plates can 'accidentally' loss data when a customer scans their receipt and inputs the number plate, claiming it is the customer's fault for not inputting the number plate correctly
Even if they cancel the ticket, consider spending your money elsewhere, at a retailer who doesn't employ a company who skipped the BPA, that is the only way Lidl will feel the pain.0 -
Just a quick note to say I've received the standard cancellation letter from Lidl.
Thank you for your help with this.0 -
Hi LauraSt,
I am pleased to see that you managed to successfully get your Lidl parking charge cancelled!
Having also received a parking charge notice in the post from Lidl (Athena) in similar circumstances to yourself, I am considering going down the same route of making a direct complaint to Lidl in order to seek a cancellation.
Who did you address the letter of complaint to and what address did you post it to?
Look forward to hearing from you.0 -
There is no letter to post.
It done by one email (which you write yourself, no template) to the CEO himself, this is covered in 'SUCCESSFUL COMPLAINTS AGAINST PPCS' which is the first link given in 'NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST' (sticky thread, top of this board).
The Successful Complaints thread was updated only this month with the CEO's email address. Don't read from the first pages, start at the end, obviously, just read the March postings on that thread and you will see the Lidl CEO's email was confirmed.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 349.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 452.9K Spending & Discounts
- 242.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 619.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.3K Life & Family
- 255.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards