Parking ticket from ANPR / Lidl

Redx

Which he was told in my first reply , the rest is all semantics

Elhadji

Woowww.....i am overwhelmed by the information gathered here. I appreciate it all.
any info about Lidl MD email address so that I can send him one.
Also the fine stipulates that I have to pay by 3/3/20 over it goes up to £90.00
Please please I need to get the ball rolling ASAP 

Redx

Christian Haertnagel

check the ceo email.com website for details, or put his surname in the seacrh box at the top of this forum

John464

Redx said:

Which he was told in my first reply , the rest is all semantics

Correct.
Which puzzles me why you thanked D_P_Dance for starting it by stating 'It is not a fine, it is an invoice from an ex clamper claiming monetary compensation for the damage they claim they suffered when you did what you did,.'
If that were true you could get it thrown out on that basis like you used to be able to do.  Or at least get it reduced to the actual level of monetary compensation for damage which would be negligible. Some people are still under the impression you can.  But Parking Eye v Beauvis changed that.  Now it can be more than monetary compensation for the damage they claim.  (effectively a fine) Thats why I thought it worth mentioning.  Cases can  be won or lost on the 'semantics'.

D_P_Dance

John464, you seem confused. 

A fine is a penalty imposed by a body in authority,   police, magistrates  H&S etc.  This company is none of these, it has no authority.  Therefore, under no circumstances can a spurious claim for an alleged breach of contract be called a fine.,

John464

A fine is a financial penalty, irrespective of who it is imposed by.

nosferatu1001

These cannot be penalties,  because a private company cannot penalise a consumer under UK law. 

John464

nosferatu1001 said:

These cannot be penalties,  because a private company cannot penalise a consumer under UK law. 

Parking Eye v Beavis shows they can.
As they did when mill owners fined their workers for petty infringements.
English law invariably favours the landowner.
But for political reasons they wouldn't want to admit that, and that a private company can fine an individual.
Because no other country in Europe would put up with it.
If they tried it across the channel the French would be out blocking the roads.

John464

To be clearer I should have said a private company representing a landowner.
Because the more you see of English law the more you realise how much it favours the landowner.
No other country in the world would tolerate the English leasehold system for example.
England was the last country to outlaw rogue wheelclampers.
And they are taking us out of the EU whatever the cost so they can maintain their control.

nosferatu1001

Wrong. PE v Beavis *explicitly* stated the penalty rule was disengaged, due to specific reasons and in specific circumstances. 
Try again.