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.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4
networkn
27646 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified
Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #2729565 16-Jun-2021 11:32
Send private message

Lizard1977:

 

This was what the "breach notice" wrote:

 

"As we have previously explained, The breach notice fee is the cost of enforcing the car park's terms and conditions of parking. This fee is payable under the contract and is not a penalty, a fine, nor a claim for liquidated damages."

 

So they aren't claiming for liquidated damages, presumably because they can't demonstrate that.  If it comes before the DT, one of the points I will argue is for them to demonstrate how the charge relates to the cost of enforcing the car park, when 100% compliance would mean that they are losing money to pay for enforcement.  Logically, the costs of enforcement must be built into their overall operating model.  The standard parking charges pay for their operation, which includes enforcement as that is central to their operation.

 

 

IANAL but one thing I wonder is, if there were available Car Parks for others to park in, how have they lost anything. Or would that fall under liquidated damages?

 

I'd agree that your argument could be that the costs of running their business is built into costs charged for the services. If they didn't get any breach fines on a given week due to no-one overstaying, they cannot claim they had no revenue to pay their enforcement staff.

 

 


Affiliate link
 
 
 

Affiliate link: Buy anything now at AliExpress.
shuffleboy
7 posts

Wannabe Geek


  #2735128 26-Jun-2021 18:21
Send private message

Why not? There's no requirement to go to a DT before attempting other ways of recovering their claimed debt. They can, for example, apply to the District Court for an order against you. And that can include the costs of filing, which will be substantially more than $45

There is no way a private parking will ever go to a district court. Lose, and then that will become case law.

And I imagine a District Court judge will be less than impressed knowing a defendant had offered to attend a disputes tribunal hearing (at the plaintiffs cost), to resolve the matter.

Private parking companies are toothless when you produce a robust defence.

snnet
1339 posts

Uber Geek


  #2735144 26-Jun-2021 18:57
Send private message

I agree $85 is a lot more than the $1 you could have paid but you've admitted you've done this before - this is likely to be a factor in their decision surely? It was (another) mistake, but I know I would think it's a bit cheeky if clients started dictating my prices to me after they've done something like this before... not trying to offend, just saying

 

I know a lot of people will disagree with me for siding with the evil evil parking companies (this one time) but I would have just paid the $65 and put it down to a lesson to check in the future, especially if I'd gotten away with it before

 

Edit: I have been caught out in situations where I didn't realise I was parking in a chargable timeslot, though I had thought I'd read signs correctly I had not - ended up with $60 tickets for two vehicles each after parking for about an hour and a half - just had to pay up




shuffleboy
7 posts

Wannabe Geek


  #2735154 26-Jun-2021 19:37
Send private message

Strongly disagree.

They claim to have lost $65.

We know they have lost $0

No offering to pay $5,or $1, or anything. People should never offer these.

snnet
1339 posts

Uber Geek


  #2735155 26-Jun-2021 19:40
Send private message

There are costs involved with keeping things compliant. You're contributing to covering that cost when you get a fine. People are on wages and salaries.

 

Cost of living, sick days, holidays, stat days, kiwisaver, contractor callouts... it's not $0


shuffleboy
7 posts

Wannabe Geek


  #2735157 26-Jun-2021 19:45
Send private message

Its never called a fine.

Its a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of contract.

I joined this forum to help those deal with private parking "tickets". If anyone is willing to put up a fight, you will never have to pay a private parking ticket again.

snnet
1339 posts

Uber Geek


  #2735159 26-Jun-2021 19:50
Send private message

Whatever it's called, it's to help recover costs. I think they've been pretty good if they've let it slide a couple of times already when the price has been dictated to them - I've never seen that from a council owned carpark, and they'd fight it tooth and nail all the while adding all sorts of fees - it was a $65 fee to start with, not $200 or something completely unreasonable. 




shuffleboy
7 posts

Wannabe Geek


  #2735163 26-Jun-2021 20:03
Send private message

snnet:

There are costs involved with keeping things compliant. You're contributing to covering that cost when you get a fine. People are on wages and salaries.


Cost of living, sick days, holidays, stat days, kiwisaver, contractor callouts... it's not $0



It is $0.

The above is irrelevant and unnecessary noise. Those costs exist regardless of who parks where and when.

They claim a loss financially to them of $65 (or whatever).

Anyone can see they actually lost $0. Nada. Nil. Zip.

And when you know how to beat them, thats what they shall receive.





shuffleboy
7 posts

Wannabe Geek


  #2735176 26-Jun-2021 20:17
Send private message

snnet:

Whatever it's called, it's to help recover costs. I think they've been pretty good if they've let it slide a couple of times already when the price has been dictated to them - I've never seen that from a council owned carpark, and they'd fight it tooth and nail all the while adding all sorts of fees - it was a $65 fee to start with, not $200 or something completely unreasonable. 



Again unfortunately you are clouding the waters.

Council and private parking issues should never be compared. They are completely different.

Also it is not to recover costs. Its to recover loss. In this instance the loss to Wilson parking by the OP not correctly completing their parkmate transaction. The loss to them on this, and on very other private car parking ticket is $0.


snnet
1339 posts

Uber Geek


  #2735184 26-Jun-2021 21:19
Send private message

Good luck to the OP

 

I disagree about private/council not being the same, and that the true cost is $0. But instead of talking to a brick wall over and over I'm going to leave it there


eracode
Smpl Mnmlst
6381 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

  #2735212 27-Jun-2021 04:50
Send private message

shuffleboy: Its never called a fine.

Its a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of contract.

I joined this forum to help those deal with private parking "tickets". If anyone is willing to put up a fight, you will never have to pay a private parking ticket again.

 

Just out of interest, are you a lawyer?





Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.


SirHumphreyAppleby
1987 posts

Uber Geek


  #2735217 27-Jun-2021 07:21
Send private message

snnet:

 

I disagree about private/council not being the same, and that the true cost is $0.

 

 

One is empowered by an Act of Parliament or Regulations to be able to issue fines. The other is a civil matter. These two are very different.


shuffleboy
7 posts

Wannabe Geek


  #2735260 27-Jun-2021 09:41
Send private message

eracode:

shuffleboy: Its never called a fine.

Its a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of contract.

I joined this forum to help those deal with private parking "tickets". If anyone is willing to put up a fight, you will never have to pay a private parking ticket again.


Just out of interest, are you a lawyer?



Fortunately I'm not a lawyer!

I spent years in the UK fighting both Council and private tickets, for myself and others.

My claim to fame came when a colleague had his work van towed by the City of London Council. I won the adjudication and all monies returned with an apology.

I also helped many defeat UK private parking tickets. The concept for beating them is actually even easier in NZ as Wilson, secure, tournament etc are spineless after you take them on a ride.

I have helped collegues and friends beat Wilson and their pretend company parking enforcement services. Its all about playing the game correctly from the start,and they will trip themselves up even further. It can feel threatening if you allow yourself to be scared by them, and understandingly most average folk will be scared into paying.


shuffleboy
7 posts

Wannabe Geek


  #2735269 27-Jun-2021 10:07
Send private message

Lizard1977:

networkn:


So the original defence of 'show me liquidated damages' no longer applies?



This was what the "breach notice" wrote:


"As we have previously explained, The breach notice fee is the cost of enforcing the car park's terms and conditions of parking. This fee is payable under the contract and is not a penalty, a fine, nor a claim for liquidated damages."


So they aren't claiming for liquidated damages, presumably because they can't demonstrate that.  If it comes before the DT, one of the points I will argue is for them to demonstrate how the charge relates to the cost of enforcing the car park, when 100% compliance would mean that they are losing money to pay for enforcement.  Logically, the costs of enforcement must be built into their overall operating model.  The standard parking charges pay for their operation, which includes enforcement as that is central to their operation.



I would like to see this contract.

Any chance of an uploaded photo of the signage?

They can only claim for actual "losses". Which technically was $1 at the time. But because their entire request is $65 the whole claim is fraudulent. The "fee" they state sounds punitive in nature to me, and probably anyone else reading this. Punitive fees are not allowed in contract law.

Therefore their response has just shot themselves in the foot.

If i was the OP i would again reply and tell them they have not demonstrated any loss, and thus their invoice is now going to be used to make a paper plane.

The next you hear will be from a debt collection agency, with close alliance to Wilson. They will add a scary admin fee on top, and threaten credit ratings. All boloney.

You reply and tell them the debt is denied, and does not exist. Please refer back to your client and do not contact me again. Add that you reserve the right to ahare any future communications from the debt collection agency with media outlets. Take them for a ride too,as punishment for being involved with leaches.

Then move on with your life and they will disappear. You're too hard. If they rear their ugly heads again then push them for a trip to the DT. They will fold before getting there.










Fred99
13684 posts

Uber Geek


  #2751068 28-Jul-2021 09:43
Send private message

 

This was the wording on an "infringement notice" that was bunged on my car.  Not Wilsons.

 

Of course we all know they're "fines", but the industry has already been warned to be very careful to never use that term or imply in any way that the charges are punitive.  Private companies cannot impose punitive financial penalties (aka "fines") on anybody.  Only courts can.  They seriously goofed - and there's no going back.

 

I've lodged a formal complaint with the Commerce Commission. I'm pretty sure they've issued at least $30,000 worth of these invalid "fines" over the past few weeks in just one location, and I'm going to do my best to try to get them forced to repay everyone they've illegally fleeced.  It's kind of like a hobby or a sport, nothing in particular in it for me except satisfaction. 

 

I did have a run in Wilsons a long time ago. They posted me two notices in two days.  I disputed their outrageous "fees" which I think were also $65 each at that time, and paid $15 IIRC into their account to cover two missed parking fees of $5 and $5 for their inconvenience and sent them a note saying I thought that was a good estimate of any losses they could have suffered.  They came back to me saying they "disputed" that was reasonable and asked for my account number so that they could pay the $15 back - seemed a bit weird.  So I went back thanking them for agreeing that it was a dispute, as such it was not a "debt", and so it would be fraudulent for them to pass on the claim to a debt collection or credit ratings agency, and invited them to provide me with evidence of how they calculated whatever fee they thought would be adequate compensation, and keep the $15 for now. I never heard back from them.  It's been about 5 years. Did I do the right thing legally?  I think I did, on the very slim chance, even if they took you to the DT, they'd lose. If they could "prove" their loss, they'd do it - so as they don't it's pretty reasonable to assume they can't - or can't be bothered maybe.

 

IANAL, but suggest fighting these "fines" issued by private companies.  There's nothing to lose by trying. But do not ignore any notice, you must respond one way or another.  If you want to pay them - do it. I don't - but that's me.


1 | 2 | 3 | 4
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic





News and reviews »

Samsung Introducing Galaxy Z Flip4 and Galaxy Z Fold4
Posted 11-Aug-2022 01:00


Samsung Unveils Health Innovations with Galaxy Watch5 and Galaxy Watch5 Pro
Posted 11-Aug-2022 01:00


Google Bringing First Cloud Region to Aotearoa New Zealand
Posted 10-Aug-2022 08:51


ANZ To Move to FIS Modern Banking Platform
Posted 10-Aug-2022 08:28


GoPro Hero10 Black Review
Posted 8-Aug-2022 17:41


Amazon to Acquire iRobot
Posted 6-Aug-2022 11:41


Samsung x LIFE Picture Collection Brings Iconic Moments in History to The Frame
Posted 4-Aug-2022 17:04


Norton Consumer Cyber Safety Pulse Report: Phishing for New Bait on Social Media
Posted 4-Aug-2022 16:50


Microsoft Announces New Solutions for Threat Intelligence and Attack Surface Management
Posted 3-Aug-2022 21:54


Seagate Addresses Hyperscale Workloads with Enterprise-Class Nytro SSDs
Posted 3-Aug-2022 21:50


Visa Launching Eco-friendly Payment Solutions in New Zealand
Posted 3-Aug-2022 21:48


NCR Delivers Services to Run Bank of New Zealand ATM Network
Posted 30-Jul-2022 11:06


New HP Portfolio Supports New Era of Hybrid Work
Posted 28-Jul-2022 17:14


Harman Kardon Launches Citation MultiBeam 1100 Soundbar
Posted 28-Jul-2022 17:10


Nanogirl Labs Launches Creator Project
Posted 28-Jul-2022 17:05









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.







GoodSync is the easiest file sync and backup for Windows and Mac