Wilson Parking Dispute

Forums › Off topic › Wilson Parking Dispute

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

1726 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Chorus

#750754 25-Jan-2013 14:27

I would just collect your facts and lodge a claim with the Disputes Tribunal. You might not win but you can at least exact some revenge by wasting their time and money appearing at the hearing. It costs about $36 and as far as I know you can't be charged for any costs incurred by the other party in appearing.

And hey, if you lose, you can immediately lodge an appeal - thus wasting even more of their time.

Or alternatively, go down the Fair Go/Target route.

Stick it to the man I say.

ajobbins

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#750755 25-Jan-2013 14:28

Do you have pictures of the signage you can share with us?

They *could* block you from parking with them again but I think that's unlikely. As a private company, they could do that anyway regardless of what you do. Ultimately, it would be almost impossible for them to enforce such a thing so I wouldn't worry about them even trying.

At the disputes tribunal, they can't claim costs. All they could come after is the $65 they are asking you to pay now - and they would have to pay the DT filing fees, which are about $35 alone which they can't claim back.

Twitter: ajobbins

Archer77

131 posts

Master Geek

#750756 25-Jan-2013 14:29

In any circumstances (not just this one) if Baycorp/Veda contact you, the best thing to tell them is the fee/bill is "in dispute", and then try and sort it out with the original company (and usually avoiding collection fees).

If Wilson won't budge you can always go the Disputes Tribunal, and seek an order that you don't owe them that amount. Or alternatively pay the amount to put a stop on any penalty fees they might try to add, then go to the Disputes Tribunal to recover the $65 (that is probably a safer route as you stop the $65 increasing).

However the Disputes Tribunal is $35 (I think), which is not recoverable, so at absolute best you would be $30 better off. And you'd need to take at least a couple of hours off work to attend, possibly lose the case anyway, etc.

I'd recommend:
(1a) Keep trying to come to an arrangement with Wilson
(1b) Contact Commerce Commission for advice (there might be something on their website, or consumers website).
(2) Pay the $65 before the due date when extra fees might be added, and accept that it's a loss.
(3) Chalk it up to experience.

networkn

Networkn
32369 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#750757 25-Jan-2013 14:29

SaltyNZ:
networkn:

Could they block me from Parking at Wilsons Carparks in the future or anything like that? If they took me to disputes, could they get costs awarded (They are already warning me about $20 admin fees they will add if we don't pay in the next 10 days).

Possibly, I suppose it depends on what was in the fine print you supposedly agree to when you park there. But I doubt they hand out blacklists to every tow-truck driver in Auckland.

Having costs awarded is possible but not guaranteed. I would send them one more letter telling them you don't intend to pay, giving your reasons, and that you trust that settles the matter. That way if it comes to court you can show you did everything reasonable.

Thing is, if it was a misunderstanding, I am actually happy to pay for the time used. If they want whatever the hourly rate is, then I am happy to pay that, as I would have been at the time.

networkn

Networkn
32369 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#750758 25-Jan-2013 14:31

Archer77: In any circumstances (not just this one) if Baycorp/Veda contact you, the best thing to tell them is the fee/bill is "in dispute", and then try and sort it out with the original company (and usually avoiding collection fees).

If Wilson won't budge you can always go the Disputes Tribunal, and seek an order that you don't owe them that amount. Or alternatively pay the amount to put a stop on any penalty fees they might try to add, then go to the Disputes Tribunal to recover the $65 (that is probably a safer route as you stop the $65 increasing).

However the Disputes Tribunal is $35 (I think), which is not recoverable, so at absolute best you would be $30 better off. And you'd need to take at least a couple of hours off work to attend, possibly lose the case anyway, etc.

I'd recommend:
(1a) Keep trying to come to an arrangement with Wilson
(1b) Contact Commerce Commission for advice (there might be something on their website, or consumers website).
(2) Pay the $65 before the due date when extra fees might be added, and accept that it's a loss.
(3) Chalk it up to experience.

Hmm yah it's a tricky one. I guess I was hoping I could raise my case with an actual person, as I don't think they even LOOKED at my last complaint, they just fired me a letter which covers the most common FAQ's and the subsequent call was equally evasive. She basically wouldn't answer ANY question with a straight answer.

Archer77

131 posts

Master Geek

#750759 25-Jan-2013 14:32

They can charge "reasonable" fees to the base amount if you don't pay on time.

Yes I think you should keep trying to contact them, and also try and get CC/Consumer Affairs advice, but, if you can't get resolution before any extra fees come in to effect then just pay the $65. It is almost guaranteed to be good money after bad if you let extra fees be incurred.

ubergeeknz

3344 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Vocus

#750760 25-Jan-2013 14:33

networkn:
SaltyNZ:
ubergeeknz: Or just don't pay it. They can't really make you. Make it clear to them (preferably in writing) that it's in dispute.

This. The worst that can happen is that they take you to the disputes tribunal to get a legal judgment against you to try to collect. At which point you've got a pretty good chance of it going your way. And since the court filing fees are more than $65, they won't bother.

If it was a fine from the council/police it would be different.

Could they block me from Parking at Wilsons Carparks in the future or anything like that? If they took me to disputes, could they get costs awarded (They are already warning me about $20 admin fees they will add if we don't pay in the next 10 days).

Yeah, you might get clamped if you park at Wilsons again, a possible downside of that approach. Then again I doubt they would be within their legal rights to do so.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

gzt

17165 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#750761 25-Jan-2013 14:34

Archer77: They can charge "reasonable" fees to the base amount if you don't pay on time.

Surely not if there is a genuine dispute which will take time to resolve.

Archer77

131 posts

Master Geek

#750781 25-Jan-2013 14:38

gzt:
Archer77: They can charge "reasonable" fees to the base amount if you don't pay on time.

Surely not if there is a genuine dispute which will take time to resolve.

This is from the Ministry of Conumer Affairs website

Late fees and collection feesThe creditor can charge you late fees and collection fees if they told you about the fees before you made the agreement with the creditor. These cover the costs of contacting you and trying to collect the money. These fees should be reasonable.

I'm sure there would be conditions displayed at the Parking building saying something like "you agree to our terms and conditions if you park here". Honestly, there is nearly no chance this is worth the fight.

ajobbins

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#750782 25-Jan-2013 14:39

Have a look at the story titled 'Wilson car park' on this page:
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/413551/500865

The arguments put to the Tribunal by Dr Roderick Mulgan in his successful challenge are as follows:

"Liquidated Damages may only be claimed for the actual loss arising from a contractual breach, even where the amount is specified in a contract, or in this case, a sign. It is a basic legal principle that an injured party in a contract may only seek what they have lost: they may not make a profit from he situation."

"As the parking company had not lost $50 for my extra fifteen minutes of parking time, it seemed to me that their claim was invalid. The cost of the attendant was a fixed one, and had to be met whether I or anyone else parked in their park or not. The only identifiable loss was for the extra time in the parking space. (i.e. 75cents in a $3 per hour park)"

EDIT: Link fixed

Twitter: ajobbins

ubergeeknz

3344 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Vocus

#750786 25-Jan-2013 14:42

redundant...

SaltyNZ

8241 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#750789 25-Jan-2013 14:44

ajobbins: Have a look at the story titled 'Wilson car park' on this page:
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/413551/500865

The arguments put to the Tribunal by Dr Roderick Mulgan in his successful challenge are as follows:

"Liquidated Damages may only be claimed for the actual loss arising from a contractual breach, even where the amount is specified in a contract, or in this case, a sign. It is a basic legal principle that an injured party in a contract may only seek what they have lost: they may not make a profit from he situation."

"As the parking company had not lost $50 for my extra fifteen minutes of parking time, it seemed to me that their claim was invalid. The cost of the attendant was a fixed one, and had to be met whether I or anyone else parked in their park or not. The only identifiable loss was for the extra time in the parking space. (i.e. 75cents in a $3 per hour park)"

Bookmarked!

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

wellygary

8345 posts

Uber Geek

#750808 25-Jan-2013 15:18

ajobbins: Have a look at the story titled 'Wilson car park' on this page:
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/413551/500865

The arguments put to the Tribunal by Dr Roderick Mulgan in his successful challenge are as follows:

"Liquidated Damages may only be claimed for the actual loss arising from a contractual breach, even where the amount is specified in a contract, or in this case, a sign. It is a basic legal principle that an injured party in a contract may only seek what they have lost: they may not make a profit from he situation."

"As the parking company had not lost $50 for my extra fifteen minutes of parking time, it seemed to me that their claim was invalid. The cost of the attendant was a fixed one, and had to be met whether I or anyone else parked in their park or not. The only identifiable loss was for the extra time in the parking space. (i.e. 75cents in a $3 per hour park)"

EDIT: Link fixed

Although that article is quite old,
Wilson's no longer seek "liquidated damages" as a specific infringement,

( I can remember lots of activity with new clauses and terms being tapped over their parking signs just after this ruling, )

For everyone's information here are wilson's terms and conditions

http://www.wilsonparking.co.nz/index.cfm?objectid=482F4F07-C29E-198E-8CACB9293D182BE3#sec1

gzt

17165 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#750817 25-Jan-2013 15:29

Archer77:
gzt:
Archer77: They can charge "reasonable" fees to the base amount if you don't pay on time.

Surely not if there is a genuine dispute which will take time to resolve.

This is from the Ministry of Conumer Affairs website

Late fees and collection feesThe creditor can charge you late fees and collection fees if they told you about the fees before you made the agreement with the creditor. These cover the costs of contacting you and trying to collect the money. These fees should be reasonable.

I'm sure there would be conditions displayed at the Parking building saying something like "you agree to our terms and conditions if you park here". Honestly, there is nearly no chance this is worth the fight.

If you are saying that late fees can be charged for an amount in dispute and keep ticking up for as long as that dispute takes to resolve, that has got to be incorrect. That would be the same as saying if you dispute the bill we can charge you extra. That is not the intent of that advice.

Archer77

131 posts

Master Geek

#750820 25-Jan-2013 15:37

Their terms and conditions, which the OP or anyone else who parks there agreed to, says they can charge those fees. I think Wilson could argue that that makes the fees reasonable, and, to be expected.

DT is the course of action to solve this (if Wilson don't come to a resolution), BUT, is it worth it to fill out the forms, post/drop them off, attend a district court on the hearing day (giving up a few hours or work/wages), maybe attened a second hearing if a rehearing is requested etc, wait for the result. etc all to save $30.

I've been through the DT process to defend a bill claimed against me that I did not agree with, and I won. I then had to attend a rehearing when the other party didn't like the first result, and I won again. The amount was for over a grand but honestly if it was for $65 I would have just paid the bill rather than go through that crap.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5