El coche estacionado media hora más, tiene que pagar 50 euros

A man in Slovenia was charged 50 euros after parking his car for just over half an hour at a Lidl supermarket in Stožice. The charge came three months after he visited the store, and the customer was surprised to receive a demand for payment along with a letter that included his personal information. He had assumed the parking was free, given there were no physical barriers or signs indicating otherwise. The customer received the invoice three months later, according to reports, after exceeding the allowed free parking time by approximately 30 minutes. Lidl explained that its parking lot is managed by an external company called BetterPark, which uses cameras to recognize license plates. This system automatically records the entry and exit times of vehicles. According to Lidl, the parking area operates under a system that allows users to park for 90 minutes without charge. If they leave within this period, no payment is required. However, once the 90-minute limit is exceeded, a fee applies, either four or five euros per additional hour. If the parking fee is not paid within 24 hours, the manager sends a notice demanding compensation of 50 euros. Lidl stated that these terms are clearly outlined on notices placed at the entrance to the parking lot. They added that the management company ensures customers typically receive such notices within one to four weeks after the incident. The customer expressed confusion over how the parking company obtained his personal data, which was used to send him the letter. He noted that he did not expect to be charged anything, as the parking area lacked ramps or other indicators suggesting a fee. He questioned the legality of how the company acquired his contact information and whether the process followed legal procedures. According to the Information Commissioner's Office, the fourth paragraph of Article 39 of the Personal Data Protection Act allows the operator of a private parking lot to provide information about the owner or user of a vehicle to authorities who have a legitimate interest in enforcing rights against individuals in the public sector. This means that the parking operator can legally obtain the owner’s details based on this provision. This situation has occurred before, with several individuals reporting receiving similar letters and demands for payment from private parking lots. Many have wondered how the operators obtained their personal information and whether the process was lawful. The customer contacted the law firm Vanja Janžekovič, which sent him the demand for payment. When asked about the 50 euro charge and whether it included legal fees, the lawyer declined to comment due to professional confidentiality. Attempts to reach the parking operator for further clarification were unsuccessful, as no response had been received prior to publication.