The claimant says a table package was quoted in a booking message, but the final receipt included a higher minimum spend and service items that were not clearly disclosed.
The claimant completed private identity verification. This does not prove the claim.
A receipt and dated booking record plausibly connect the claimant to the visit.
A moderator reviewed relevance and redaction. Quibble did not determine truth.
The venue supplied a substantive response and counter-evidence.
I confirmed the package price in writing before arrival. The final bill was €140. I asked staff to honour the written quote and supplied the booking message, menu photograph and receipt.
Lumen Lounge says the photographed menu was from an earlier promotion and that an updated minimum-spend policy was explained at entry. The venue supplied a dated policy sheet and offered a €30 service credit.View subject record →
Raw files, private identifiers and unrelated third-party details are not exposed.
Redacted screenshot showing the quoted package price and date.
Synthetic receipt showing the final total and disputed charges.
Counter-evidence submitted by the venue with a disputed effective date.
This derivative demonstrates how useful proof can be shared without publishing phone numbers, signatures, payment credentials or raw metadata.
Identity and visit checks completed.
Proposed public wording and evidence summary sent.
Venue disputed the menu date and supplied a policy sheet.
Both positions published with equal prominence.
€30 service credit offered; claimant has not accepted.