networkn: 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." 

This quite pertinent. I received a "Breach Notice" from Parking Enforcement Services New Zealand (PESNZ - a division of Wilson's Parking) a number of years back and disputed it straight away via the appeals page on their website. There's no option to have a copy of this sent to your own email address so I made a copy before I posted it. Having already read through what's posted above I simply wrote:

I am hereby disputing this charge. What you are seeking is called "liquidated damages" which pertains to an actual loss arising from a breach of contract. This is not something you are legally entitled to profit from. Please provide me with evidence of your loss to the amount claimed or of your wish to have this matter proceed to the disputes tribunal.

The fine was waived.