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
3216 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1012

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1684029 7-Dec-2016 15:41
Send private message

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.


Awesome
4839 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1094

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1684137 7-Dec-2016 18:18
One person supports this post
Send private message

Dratsab:

 

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.

 

 

One of the main reasons the Whirlpool thing cites is that they can't try and enforce a contact because they actually have no idea who the said contact is supposed to be with. You can't have a contract with someone if you don't know who that someone is.

 

In AU, they used to use (abuse) the court discovery process to get the details of the registered owner of the car and send them the breach notice (important: not a fine). They can't do that anymore in most AU states (law changed last year), but sometimes they already have details or find other ways.

 

If you must write to them, just tell them you dispute the invite and you're not a party to any contract with them. Tell them they can contact the party to which they entered into a contract with, rather than the registered vehicle owner. They have no way to identify who the actual driver was, and therefore who the contract supposedly is with, so they can't. And the registered owner is under no obligation to tell them who the driver was.





Twitter: ajobbins


 
 
 
 


705 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 104


  Reply # 1684296 7-Dec-2016 21:48
Send private message

xpd:

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some idiot thought paying on the way out was stupid so the Invercargill City Library has some 'High Tech System' that asks you to predict how long you'll be in the park and gets you to prepay.


124 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 49


  Reply # 1684422 8-Dec-2016 09:00
Send private message

Dratsab:

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

if Wilsons gets clever about this they may reply:

 

Thank you for your letter.  We consulted our legal representatives on this and you are quite correct.  Here are our new charges with stated liquidated damages:

 

$0.75  -  loss of revenue

 

$5.00  - Administration costs

 

$250   - legal fees (our lawyer's minimum charge)

 

-----------------------

 

$255.75  - Total to pay.    

 

Please pay ASAP to avoid interest being added ( which are also liquidated damages and entitled to be charged).  We thank you for pointing out our previous incorrect charge and we hope you are now satisfied.


19159 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5580

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1684434 8-Dec-2016 09:08
Send private message

They could do that once after which they could not charge the lawyers fee I believe.

3216 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1012

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1684507 8-Dec-2016 10:57
Send private message

debo:

 

Dratsab: 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. 

 

if Wilsons gets clever about this they may reply:

 

Thank you for your letter.  We consulted our legal representatives on this and you are quite correct.  Here are our new charges with stated liquidated damages:

 

$0.75  -  loss of revenue

 

$5.00  - Administration costs

 

$250   - legal fees (our lawyer's minimum charge)

 

-----------------------

 

$255.75  - Total to pay.    

 

Please pay ASAP to avoid interest being added ( which are also liquidated damages and entitled to be charged).  We thank you for pointing out our previous incorrect charge and we hope you are now satisfied. 

 

Errrm - yeah, nah.


Awesome
4839 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1094

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1684556 8-Dec-2016 12:09
Send private message

debo:

 

 

 

if Wilsons gets clever about this they may reply:

 

Thank you for your letter.  We consulted our legal representatives on this and you are quite correct.  Here are our new charges with stated liquidated damages:

 

$0.75  -  loss of revenue

 

$5.00  - Administration costs

 

$250   - legal fees (our lawyer's minimum charge)

 

-----------------------

 

$255.75  - Total to pay.    

 

Please pay ASAP to avoid interest being added ( which are also liquidated damages and entitled to be charged).  We thank you for pointing out our previous incorrect charge and we hope you are now satisfied.

 

 

Not how liquidated damages work. They can't claim damages, then incur more cost to clarify damages later if you dispute. In any case, if they tried the above they would be conceding their business model is a racket and they would have no ability to continue to issue notices of amount above what they then determined was actual liquidated damaged. Of course, that is the case anyway, but a court has never made that determination (I understand they have settled lawsuits previously to avoid having a legal precedent set).

 

But again - they don't know who you are as at best they can get the car owners details (Unless you volunteer then) so just tell them to contact the person they have the contact with (which they have no idea). 





Twitter: ajobbins


13728 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6448

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1684561 8-Dec-2016 12:21
Send private message

ajobbins:

 

debo:

 

 

 

if Wilsons gets clever about this they may reply:

 

Thank you for your letter.  We consulted our legal representatives on this and you are quite correct.  Here are our new charges with stated liquidated damages:

 

$0.75  -  loss of revenue

 

$5.00  - Administration costs

 

$250   - legal fees (our lawyer's minimum charge)

 

-----------------------

 

$255.75  - Total to pay.    

 

Please pay ASAP to avoid interest being added ( which are also liquidated damages and entitled to be charged).  We thank you for pointing out our previous incorrect charge and we hope you are now satisfied.

 

 

Not how liquidated damages work. They can't claim damages, then incur more cost to clarify damages later if you dispute. In any case, if they tried the above they would be conceding their business model is a racket and they would have no ability to continue to issue notices of amount above what they then determined was actual liquidated damaged. Of course, that is the case anyway, but a court has never made that determination (I understand they have settled lawsuits previously to avoid having a legal precedent set).

 

But again - they don't know who you are as at best they can get the car owners details (Unless you volunteer then) so just tell them to contact the person they have the contact with (which they have no idea). 

 

 

 

 

Wilson T&C's for parking refers the 'you' or 'the car' or words to like that from memory so given that my totally untrained mind tells me they can charge the car owner for loss.





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

A Tiger in Africa, probably escaped from the Zoo.

 

 


21839 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4570

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1684575 8-Dec-2016 12:38
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

Wilson T&C's for parking refers the 'you' or 'the car' or words to like that from memory so given that my totally untrained mind tells me they can charge the car owner for loss.

 

 

The car owner has not entered into any contract. The car owner is not under any obligation to provide details of who they think _may_ have been operating the car at the time.

 

Its up to wilson to identify the correct person and try to get money out of them. How they do that is up to them, but from past views of grabs of their CCTV I dont think that will be much help to them.





Richard rich.ms

13728 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6448

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1684580 8-Dec-2016 12:42
Send private message

I would like to see a legal opinion on this.





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

A Tiger in Africa, probably escaped from the Zoo.

 

 


3216 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1012

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1684604 8-Dec-2016 13:02
Send private message

richms:

 

MikeB4: Wilson T&C's for parking refers the 'you' or 'the car' or words to like that from memory so given that my totally untrained mind tells me they can charge the car owner for loss. 

 

The car owner has not entered into any contract. The car owner is not under any obligation to provide details of who they think _may_ have been operating the car at the time.

 

Its up to wilson to identify the correct person and try to get money out of them. How they do that is up to them, but from past views of grabs of their CCTV I dont think that will be much help to them. 

 

MikeB4: I would like to see a legal opinion on this. 

 

You've gotta be kidding right? You can't be seriously entertaining the notion that a car is a legal entity and is capable of entering into a binding contract?

 

richms is quite correct. From memory, Fair Go covered exactly this point a month or two back - complete with legal opinion on the status of a car. Perhaps take a look at their website?


121 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 42


  Reply # 1684606 8-Dec-2016 13:05
Send private message

Next time they do this as someone else suggested, take a photo of the barrier up, and lack of ticket. Then, when trying to leave, stay parked at the exit in front of the barrier.. until they "help" you leave.


13728 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6448

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1684607 8-Dec-2016 13:05
Send private message

Dratsab:

 

richms:

 

MikeB4: Wilson T&C's for parking refers the 'you' or 'the car' or words to like that from memory so given that my totally untrained mind tells me they can charge the car owner for loss. 

 

The car owner has not entered into any contract. The car owner is not under any obligation to provide details of who they think _may_ have been operating the car at the time.

 

Its up to wilson to identify the correct person and try to get money out of them. How they do that is up to them, but from past views of grabs of their CCTV I dont think that will be much help to them. 

 

MikeB4: I would like to see a legal opinion on this. 

 

You've gotta be kidding right? You can't be seriously entertaining the notion that a car is a legal entity and is capable of entering into a binding contract?

 

richms is quite correct. From memory, Fair Go covered exactly this point a month or two back - complete with legal opinion on the status of a car. Perhaps take a look at their website?

 

 

 

 

No I am not kidding, an opinion of a suitably trained legal professional would be very useful. If any one has links to a court case where the legal position has been ruled on would also be useful





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

A Tiger in Africa, probably escaped from the Zoo.

 

 


3216 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1012

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1684611 8-Dec-2016 13:14
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

Dratsab:

 

richms:

 

MikeB4: Wilson T&C's for parking refers the 'you' or 'the car' or words to like that from memory so given that my totally untrained mind tells me they can charge the car owner for loss. 

 

The car owner has not entered into any contract. The car owner is not under any obligation to provide details of who they think _may_ have been operating the car at the time.

 

Its up to wilson to identify the correct person and try to get money out of them. How they do that is up to them, but from past views of grabs of their CCTV I dont think that will be much help to them. 

 

MikeB4: I would like to see a legal opinion on this. 

 

You've gotta be kidding right? You can't be seriously entertaining the notion that a car is a legal entity and is capable of entering into a binding contract?

 

richms is quite correct. From memory, Fair Go covered exactly this point a month or two back - complete with legal opinion on the status of a car. Perhaps take a look at their website?

 

 

 

 

No I am not kidding, an opinion of a suitably trained legal professional would be very useful. If any one has links to a court case where the legal position has been ruled on would also be useful

 

 

Cool, I'll send my Ford Focus to the bank to sign the papers next time I buy a house.


21839 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4570

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1684612 8-Dec-2016 13:16
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

No I am not kidding, an opinion of a suitably trained legal professional would be very useful. If any one has links to a court case where the legal position has been ruled on would also be useful

 

 

They are not going to let it get to that.

 

If it goes to court and there is a ruling then their whole business model for casual parking turns to crap.





Richard rich.ms

1 | 2 | 3 | 4
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



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

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


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



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.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.