Status: 16.01.2024, 10:38 a.m.
By: Ulrike Hagen
CommentsPrint Share
A pensioner from Bremen parks at Lidl for 39 minutes and buys for just under 34 euros. Now he is being asked to pay – because his purchase is "not in relation to the parking time".
Bremen – Parking in discount car parks can be expensive, as word has probably gotten around by now. Even at Lidl, parking is not free for all customers. But now the rip-off practice of a surveillance company commissioned by Lidl in Bremen is causing a stir: A purchase at Lidl that costs just under 34 euros is not enough to park his car for 39 minutes in the parking lot of the discounter, the service provider told a pensioner - and sent him a hefty fine. "From a legal point of view, this is the verdict of the Bremen Consumer Advice Centre when asked by kreiszeitung.de of IPPEN. MEDIA.
| Lidl | Discount store |
|---|---|
| Foundation | 1973 |
| Branches | more than 3000 in Germany |
Parking paradox: 34 euros of shopping should not be enough for 39 minutes of parking at Lidl
Many supermarkets offer their customers free parking in their parking lots. However, due to the increasing number of third-party and illegal parkers, parking time limits have been introduced, including at Lidl, as the discounter explains. "In a few branches – mostly in the city centre – we work together with various external service providers. In these parking areas, we will display clearly visible signs indicating how long parking is free for customers," it tells IPPEN. MEDIA.
The parking time is recorded by the parking disc laid out by the customers in the vehicle, with the help of sensors in the ground or by cameras.
Bremen pensioner is to pay a fine of 35 euros – because he only bought at Lidl for just under 34 euros
In the case of the Bremen Lidl store "In der Vahr", the surveillance company Park-Point ensures that the maximum parking time of 90 minutes is adhered to via video surveillance. And on top of that – as it seems – also to ensure that customers leave enough money at Lidl. Because when a pensioner used the Lidl parking lot to shop for 33.80 euros after his visit to the gym, he experienced a nasty surprise.
A pensioner from Bremen parks at Lidl for 39 minutes and buys for just under 34 euros. A surveillance company is now asking him to pay, as the amount is allegedly not enough. © Michael Gstettenbauer/imago/Symbolbild
The surveillance company, which keeps an eye on the parking lot by means of cameras, demanded a "contractual penalty" of 35 euros, since "the proven purchase amount is not in relation to the determined parking duration," as reported by the Weser-Kurier.
My news
"Shameful injustice": Pensioners in a worse position than recipients of citizens' allowance after long-term careRead more
Man Loses Six Kilos in 30 Days – And Gives Up Only One Thing
Major spice recall – long-term illnesses can read the following
No more ice scraping on the car: Home remedy frees icy windows in seconds
"I'm bursting the a****": DHL customer freaks out because of dirty transmission slip - and then will read with hostility herself
Do you know the 20-second rule? Drivers should rather stick to thisread
Pensioner parks in parking lot behind Lidl - and is asked to pay
Behind the Lidl building there is a gym and a beverage market, each with its own parking space. However, in order to reach this car park by car, it is necessary to cross the Lidl car park, the entrance to which is controlled by camera surveillance.
The pensioner, who first parked in the gym parking lot behind this Lidl, received the ticket, although he only parked his car at Lidl later and only 39 minutes. In order to take action against the punishment, the man tried to contact Park-Point, as the Weser Kurier writes. But neither phone calls nor e-mails were successful.
"Legally an absurdity": Pensioner to pay fine for Lidl parking
Finally, he sent a registered letter, accompanied by a confirmation from his gym and the Lidl receipt. Park-Point's response left him stunned: "Unfortunately, the proven purchase amount is not in relation to the determined parking time," it says, the penalty remains. Nicole Bahn, legal expert at the Bremen Consumer Advice Centre, is appalled. "From a legal point of view, this is absurd – and the legal situation is clear: the sum of the purchase is completely irrelevant."
"Complaints are piling up": Bremen consumer advice centre criticises Lidl car park operator
Bahn adds: "The punishment of parking violations on private property is not carried out according to the Highway Code, but is a contractual penalty." Accordingly, the parking and usage rules are based on the respective providers. By parking his vehicle in the area, the customer accepts the terms of the contract. In this case, this is the maximum parking time of 90 minutes, "in no case the shopping height. Even if you buy for one euro, you can stand there."
From a legal point of view, this is an absurdity – and the legal situation is clear: the sum of the purchase is completely irrelevant.
Nicole Bahn, legal expert at the Bremen Consumer Advice Centre
In any case, the consumer law consultant advises filing an objection: "If there is only one access road for both parking spaces, the operator must first prove that the customer has not used the other parking space." This is likely to be difficult. And it is simply impossible "to call up any minimum purchase values afterwards if the maximum parking time is shown as part of the contract," according to Bahn. It is actually surprising that there have not been more complaints due to the non-transparent recording mode. But recently, the inquiries have piled up.
Data protection proceedings against Lidl for camera surveillance
However, the camera control of the discounter in the parking lot at the "In der Vahr" branch, which was installed last November, is not only under the radar of consumer advocates for the reasons of access to other parking lots. As Bremen's State Data Protection Commissioner Imke Sommer confirmed in response to inquiries from the kreiszeitung.de, a data protection supervisory procedure is also underway. It is examined whether camera surveillance sufficiently complies with data protection in the sense of the EU.
.