Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
michaelmurfy
meow
12657 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator
ID Verified
Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #3030426 1-Feb-2023 15:19
Send private message

Refer back to my post and the information within (even if there is the odd spelling mistake on the site I linked). Don't make this more complex than it has to be: https://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=48&topicid=303254&page_no=2#3028347

 

Even if there are T&C's there you can just as easily state by them contacting you they agree to your terms and conditions of charging $100 for every second you're defending the matter (ok, maybe not that far) but nobody reads the T&C's in car parks and also this doesn't change the fact they can't legally "fine" you. They're hoping to scare you into paying.

 

@halper86 $20 is too much. Cap it at $5 for a free car park if you want them to bugger off else just pay the value of the time overstayed if it is a paid park. You still don't owe them anything and if they have not sent you out a letter to your home address before you revoked your access you can pretty much ignore the breach notice entirely.





Michael Murphy | https://murfy.nz
Referral Links: Octopus Energy ($50 Credit) | Tesla | Quic Broadband (use R122101E7CV7Q for free setup)

Are you happy with what you get from Geekzone? Please consider supporting us by subscribing.
Opinions are my own and not the views of my employer.


 
 
 

Shop Mighty Ape for electronics, games, computers books and more (affiliate link).
boosacnoodle
742 posts

Ultimate Geek


  #3030443 1-Feb-2023 15:43
Send private message

Silvrav:

 

5. 9/10 its the tenants that request these services due to loss of business - on claiming damages,  the enforcement agent will not just claim their loss of revenue (as it's their revenue stream) but the tenants can lodge an amount along with them as part of the damages claim. They will use previous income streams to determine this and can be widely different.

 

 

This surely can't be the case, unless there is a claim that the entire carpark was full the entire period that you parked.


Kyanar
4002 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Subscriber

  #3030513 1-Feb-2023 19:08
Send private message

Silvrav:

 

5. 9/10 its the tenants that request these services due to loss of business - on claiming damages,  the enforcement agent will not just claim their loss of revenue (as it's their revenue stream) but the tenants can lodge an amount along with them as part of the damages claim. They will use previous income streams to determine this and can be widely different.

 

6. Debt will be handed to a registered debt collector who can lodge it against your credit score, the enforcement providers won't lodge it themselves.

 

 

5. I fail to see how. The party with whom the operator of the vehicle supposedly contracted with is the carpark provider. Third parties with whom there is no contractual relationship would not be able to just "lodge an amount along with them". I would say that whatever company you're referring to is pretty amateur hour if they actually believe that would work.

 

6. No, no they can not. Credit providers can lodge credit defaults. Debt collectors, unless acting on behalf of a credit provider or have a court judgement, can not. The clue is in the name: credit default. And even without that, the parking company has no evidence that the individual has incurred any debt, because cars cannot enter into contracts, and unconscionable terms that purport to bind a third party without authority are not valid, so there's no valid contract with the registered owner. Any attempt by a debt collector to lodge one of these spurious debts would be a violation of the Credit Reporting Privacy Code by both the debt collector and the credit reporting agency, and the fines are pretty huge. I'd go so far as to say it rises to the level of fraud and I'd love for them to try it with a bored lawyer or an off-duty cop on a bad day.

 

Silvrav:

 

9. One needs to appreciate that there are people that would park there the whole day which results in a loss of sales for tenants.

 

 

9. Then tow the vehicle. As long as that is clearly published in the terms and conditions, that is a valid and legal option available. Carparks don't do that though, because they know that spraying and praying speculative invoices is more profitable, because people are foolish enough to pay them (the fact that parking enforcement companies are sharemarket listed should tell you all you need to know about the validity of their "damages" claims) and businesses won't, because even with their sham arm's length arrangements, they know the PR fallout would basically wipe out their customer base.




Handle9
10118 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #3030516 1-Feb-2023 19:13
Send private message

boosacnoodle:

 

Silvrav:

 

5. 9/10 its the tenants that request these services due to loss of business - on claiming damages,  the enforcement agent will not just claim their loss of revenue (as it's their revenue stream) but the tenants can lodge an amount along with them as part of the damages claim. They will use previous income streams to determine this and can be widely different.

 

 

This surely can't be the case, unless there is a claim that the entire carpark was full the entire period that you parked.

 

 

Yes it can be the case but it needs to be real and actual damages, not an opaque fee. Quantifying what these damages are for one car park is practically impossible.


Kyanar
4002 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Subscriber

  #3030520 1-Feb-2023 19:18
Send private message

Handle9:

 

Yes it can be the case but it needs to be real and actual damages, not an opaque fee. Quantifying what these damages are for one car park is practically impossible.

 

 

And how does that jive with the fact that the alleged contract is between the car park operator and the driver? I have never, ever, seen on a carpark sign a claim that claims for lost revenue by a building tenant may be charged for parking in breach of the terms and conditions. Not to mention the fact that I would go so far as to say it's not just practically impossible, but actually impossible, since a carpark being full doesn't stop a person on foot entering the premises to shop, or a person being dropped off by a vehicle to shop, and there is literally no way to quantify what a person who arrived to shop but decided not to because no carparks were available would have spent.


networkn
Networkn
30811 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified
Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #3031741 4-Feb-2023 14:05
Send private message

Kyanar:

 

Handle9:

 

Yes it can be the case but it needs to be real and actual damages, not an opaque fee. Quantifying what these damages are for one car park is practically impossible.

 

 

And how does that jive with the fact that the alleged contract is between the car park operator and the driver? I have never, ever, seen on a carpark sign a claim that claims for lost revenue by a building tenant may be charged for parking in breach of the terms and conditions. Not to mention the fact that I would go so far as to say it's not just practically impossible, but actually impossible, since a carpark being full doesn't stop a person on foot entering the premises to shop, or a person being dropped off by a vehicle to shop, and there is literally no way to quantify what a person who arrived to shop but decided not to because no carparks were available would have spent.

 

 

Put more simply, how do you know that anyone parking in that carpark is going to spend any money at the store. Entering a store doesn't obligate someone to spend something.

 

 


Kyanar
4002 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Subscriber

  #3031904 4-Feb-2023 19:54
Send private message

networkn:

 

Put more simply, how do you know that anyone parking in that carpark is going to spend any money at the store. Entering a store doesn't obligate someone to spend something.

 

 

100%. If a carpark actually tried that, absolutely just respond "see you in court". The chances they actually file are about zero because even if DT isn't a precedent setting court, having it on public record that they were defeated would absolutely blow their entire speculative invoicing business model apart.




Wheelbarrow01
1499 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Chorus

  #3032338 6-Feb-2023 00:53
Send private message

Eva888: 

 

At least if this post gets people to revoke access to personal details then it makes their life a lot harder. I suspect however that once you are in their database, they can look you up and find your address. Wish I’d know about this sooner.

 

I don't think they retain ownership data from previous breach notices. Wilsons gained my wife's address details and sent a demand letter for an unpaid breach notice. After she paid it (and told me about it), I went online and revoked access to her details under her rego number.

 

A month or two later she got another Wilsons breach notice under her windscreen wiper. This time we did nothing and waited for the demand letter in the mail - it never came. It would seem they discard all personal details upon payment/settlement of each breach notice (which could be required under the Privacy Act - not sure on that though).

 

Another reason they might have to do a whole new search enquiry with NZTA for every breach is that any vehicle could be bought/sold at any time, so the registered owner last month (or even last week) is not necessarily the registered owner now.


Eva888

1923 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  #3032411 6-Feb-2023 09:58
Send private message

@Wheelbarrow01 good point that they would need to check each time in case car had changed ownership. Never heard back from anyone so will send my letter registered tomorrow.

Wheelbarrow01
1499 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Chorus

  #3032493 6-Feb-2023 14:30
Send private message

Eva888: @Wheelbarrow01 good point that they would need to check each time in case car had changed ownership. Never heard back from anyone so will send my letter registered tomorrow.


Remember if you supply a return address to reply to, they’ll know where to send the dogs.
Maybe tell them to reply by email. And use a fake name lol

Wellingtondave
148 posts

Master Geek


  #3033723 8-Feb-2023 20:47
Send private message

I can understand the parking issues in that area of Thorndon? and why people try it on, but pulling this crap on actual customers of Spotlight is crazy. I used to pop in for household stuff once in a while, they'll never get any more business of mine again just from reading this story. 

 

Last time I was at the Farmers carpark in Tauranga city it a 3rd party parking company attendant, show your receipt for Farmers and you get let out free, if you don't show a receipt it's $10 or whatever they charge.  


halper86
532 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

  #3033758 8-Feb-2023 22:27
Send private message

Eva888: @Wheelbarrow01 good point that they would need to check each time in case car had changed ownership. Never heard back from anyone so will send my letter registered tomorrow.

I have also sent them a letter today, I specifically mentioned ‘the actual and reasonable cost test’.

-edit. I also stated that there were no cars parked adjacent to mine, therefore there was no loss of revenue caused by me.

Eva888

1923 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  #3033760 8-Feb-2023 23:06
Send private message

Sent mine also and waiting for response. I’d rather give the money to charity.

hotsupes
161 posts

Master Geek


  #3034028 9-Feb-2023 13:43
Send private message

Won't be shopping at Spotlight while this horrendous carparking policy remains in place.


networkn
Networkn
30811 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified
Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #3034030 9-Feb-2023 13:53
Send private message

hotsupes:

 

Won't be shopping at Spotlight while this horrendous carparking policy remains in place.

 

 

Well, unless you tell them so, it won't make any difference to them. 

 

Having said that, I'd expect for the vast majority of cases, this wouldn't impact most shoppers anyways. 

 

Not saying it's right, obviously I don't think it is.

 

 


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic





News and reviews »

One New Zealand Extends 3G Switch-off Date
Posted 11-Apr-2024 08:56


Amazon Echo Hub Review
Posted 10-Apr-2024 18:57


Epson Launches New Versatile A4 Desktop Scanners
Posted 10-Apr-2024 15:31


Motorola Mobility Launches New Android Phones in New Zealand
Posted 10-Apr-2024 14:59


Logitech G Unveils the PRO X 60 Gaming Keyboard
Posted 9-Apr-2024 19:01


Logitech Unveils Signature Slim Keyboard and Combo
Posted 9-Apr-2024 13:33


ExpressVPN Launches Aircove Go Portable Router With Built-in VPN
Posted 26-Mar-2024 21:25


Shure MoveMic Review
Posted 25-Mar-2024 12:47


reMarkable 2 Launches at JB Hi-Fi New Zealand
Posted 20-Mar-2024 08:36


Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra review
Posted 19-Mar-2024 11:37


Google Nest Wifi Pro Review
Posted 16-Mar-2024 11:28


Samsung Galaxy A55 5G and Galaxy A35 5G
Posted 12-Mar-2024 12:41


Cricut EasyPress Mini Zen Blue launches at Spotlight New Zealand
Posted 12-Mar-2024 12:32


Logitech Introduces MX Brio Webcam
Posted 12-Mar-2024 12:24


HP Unveils Broadest Consumer Portfolio of AI-Enhanced Laptops
Posted 3-Mar-2024 18:09









Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.







Backblaze unlimited backup