Wilson's Car Park - When Free is not free

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Wilson's Car Park - When Free is not free

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

1723 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Chorus

#1683904 7-Dec-2016 13:32

timmmay:

networkn:

I have never paid a late fee because I have a letter pre-made which basically asks then to send me proof of their liquidated losses, which of course they could never prove (cost effectively).

Can you share that, perhaps via Google Docs or similar? Would be interested to see what it says.

Yes, me too!!!

The views expressed by me are not necessarily those of my employer Chorus NZ Ltd

mattwnz

20147 posts

Uber Geek

#1683906 7-Dec-2016 13:36

timmmay:

I pay for permanent parking in a parking building, unallocated parking. One day I got back to my car and it had an $80 ticket. There was a reserved sign in the space I parked in, which I'm 95% sure wasn't there when I parked in the morning. I get in really early, when there are plenty of spaces free, so why would I park in a reserved spot? They did waive the fee, but it took a bit of effort.

The point of my post though is I don't trust parking companies at all. These days I'll even take a photo of the space after I park, if it's a spot I don't park in regularly. If I went in and a barrier was open I'd take a photo. If a machine said "free" I'd take a photo.

I know of someone who also takes photos of the surrounding cars when they park, incase they get a ding on the side of their car from an opening door etc. Cameras are very handy to have.

timmmay

20578 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1683907 7-Dec-2016 13:40

mattwnz:

I know of someone who also takes photos of the surrounding cars when they park, incase they get a ding on the side of their car from an opening door etc. Cameras are very handy to have.

That's what insurance is for. You have to limit the crazy...

richms

28172 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1683910 7-Dec-2016 13:41

sonyxperiageek:

IMO I think everybody should complain even if it's a "small amount". Because if everyone keeps thinking "Oh it's just a small amount" and not do anything about it, the company is eventually making quite a bit of money based on this thinking...

I think everyone should weigh up what their time is worth to them and not bother chasing small amounts, just never do business with the place again, trash their google reviews with the story and put it on their social since the satisfaction from that is probably worth more than $10.

Richard rich.ms

networkn

Networkn
32350 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1683921 7-Dec-2016 13:53

I can't find the actual letter right this second but it is something based on this:

Wilson car park
Reporter: Kevin Milne

Viewers have complained about the Infringement Notices they get for overstaying Pay and Display Parks at Wilson Parking. One viewer, who got a $50 ticket for staying 15 minutes too long, took Wilson's to the Disputes Tribunal and won. He argued that private businesses cannot "fine" customers, only charge them Liquidated Damages representing the actual losses the infringement caused the company.

The tribunal referee found that Wilson's were attempting to claim a penalty fee which they were not entitled to. The complainant didn't have to pay Wilson's any money.

Fair Go believes that the "liquidated damages" demanded by Wilsons, and the cost of $160 to get your car back if it were towed away after 15 minutes, are a rip-off by comparison to the fines issued by local councils.

However, Wilson Parking argues that their liquidated damages do represent actual losses to the firm. They say people who overstay their pay and display parks are breaching their contract with the carpark owner and that warnings are posted on signs in the carpark.

If you've already paid out on a pay and display ticket issued by Wilsons you, also, may wish to try to get your money back from the Disputes Tribunal.

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)

"Wilson Parking refused to accept this argument, although they did not provide a rebuttal of it."

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1683957 7-Dec-2016 14:11

I had an incident where I was "fined" for parking in a mobility park in a Wilsons car park. I had my new mobility (admittedly changed from the older cards ) cards displayed. When I appealed the "fine" Wilson advised that their photo showed my card and waived the "fine", well part of it I was advised I had to pay the administration fee of from memory $25. I shamefully admit I just paid the admin fee as I was too ill at the time to pursue and argue further.

nzkiwiman

2585 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1683966 7-Dec-2016 14:47

Over on Whirlpool forums, they state that by responding to any "infringement" notices by car park operators, you do more harm than good
As a result, the reply is don't reply and wait out the the follow up letters as eventually they will give up.

Not sure if this would work in New Zealand

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

timmmay

20578 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1683972 7-Dec-2016 15:00

I expect they'd go to debt collection.

mattwnz

20147 posts

Uber Geek

#1683996 7-Dec-2016 15:06

timmmay:

mattwnz:

I know of someone who also takes photos of the surrounding cars when they park, incase they get a ding on the side of their car from an opening door etc. Cameras are very handy to have.

That's what insurance is for. You have to limit the crazy...

Although you still have to pay an excess (300-500 hundred), so often not worth claiming, so I suppose a few seconds is worth the hassle? It isn't uncommon to get a ding in a parking lot, so it makes some sense. But proving it was the car parked next to you is another issue, unless the car leaves a paint mark where you can match the paint.

mattwnz

20147 posts

Uber Geek

#1683997 7-Dec-2016 15:07

MikeB4:

I had an incident where I was "fined" for parking in a mobility park in a Wilsons car park. I had my new mobility (admittedly changed from the older cards ) cards displayed. When I appealed the "fine" Wilson advised that their photo showed my card and waived the "fine", well part of it I was advised I had to pay the administration fee of from memory $25. I shamefully admit I just paid the admin fee as I was too ill at the time to pursue and argue further.

That is terrible.

nathan

5695 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1684000 7-Dec-2016 15:11

mattwnz:
timmmay:

I pay for permanent parking in a parking building, unallocated parking. One day I got back to my car and it had an $80 ticket. There was a reserved sign in the space I parked in, which I'm 95% sure wasn't there when I parked in the morning. I get in really early, when there are plenty of spaces free, so why would I park in a reserved spot? They did waive the fee, but it took a bit of effort.

The point of my post though is I don't trust parking companies at all. These days I'll even take a photo of the space after I park, if it's a spot I don't park in regularly. If I went in and a barrier was open I'd take a photo. If a machine said "free" I'd take a photo.

I know of someone who also takes photos of the surrounding cars when they park, incase they get a ding on the side of their car from an opening door etc. Cameras are very handy to have.

I wish them good luck with that

A photo of a car parked beside you at X is no proof you have a dent at Y

richms

28172 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1684003 7-Dec-2016 15:17

Need sideways dashcam with shock sensors on the door panels.

Richard rich.ms

Batman

Mad Scientist
29762 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1684005 7-Dec-2016 15:18

richms:

sonyxperiageek:

IMO I think everybody should complain even if it's a "small amount". Because if everyone keeps thinking "Oh it's just a small amount" and not do anything about it, the company is eventually making quite a bit of money based on this thinking...

I think everyone should weigh up what their time is worth to them and not bother chasing small amounts, just never do business with the place again, trash their google reviews with the story and put it on their social since the satisfaction from that is probably worth more than $10.

It's easy to say not to use them again but if there's a park there ...

xpd

Geek @ Coastguard NZ
13765 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1684007 7-Dec-2016 15:21

sonyxperiageek:

Don't you pay at the machine before you get to your car?

This was 10 years ago at one that had a man trapped in a booth - took ticket on way in, pay on way out.

Gavin / xpd / FastRaccoon / Geek of Coastguard New Zealand

LinkTree

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1684023 7-Dec-2016 15:34

nzkiwiman: Over on Whirlpool forums, they state that by responding to any "infringement" notices by car park operators, you do more harm than good
As a result, the reply is don't reply and wait out the the follow up letters as eventually they will give up.

Not sure if this would work in New Zealand

timmmay: I expect they'd go to debt collection.

Bang on they would. If you're going to fight a parking fine respond immediately so the notice becomes 'under dispute' - collection agencies won't act on it from this point.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4