Tournament Parking - $65 infringement notice

Forums › Off topic › Tournament Parking - $65 infringement notice

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13

3438 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#684224 11-Sep-2012 09:11

mattwnz: It maybe worth doing so others don't have the same problem, and so people are aware of it. They wouldn't interview you if they didn't think that there was a story in it. But good on TP for putting this right in your case.

I've seen plenty of non-stories on Fair Go. That's their bread and butter these days. It used to be about people getting unfairly ripped off, now it's mostly about people too stupid to look after themselves complaining until someone rewards their stupidity. A little bit like this thread...

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#684461 11-Sep-2012 16:16

i have a thing with parking bullies though ... parking bullying is different from other non stories on fair go ... but that's what i feel ...

gustov

197 posts

Master Geek

#684802 12-Sep-2012 10:37

The car parking company is essentially fining you.

I haven't gone through all 12 pages of this thread, so this might have been mentioned before, but only the Courts, Central and local Government have the legal power to impose fines.

Dont waste your time going to the Disputes Tribunal, that only gives legitimacy to the company's unlawful act. Just ignore the threat. In two months contact Veda Advantage and ask for a free copy of your credit file to ensure the car parking company has not listed a debt against your name Usually a creditor has to have a persons name and address to list a debt).

It is no longer possible to readily obtain the registered owner details of a car (there are some exemptions, I don't know if a car parking firm is one of them) so if anyone else ever finds an unlawful fine like this on your windscreen do not respond to it at all, not even by e-mail, as you don't want to give them any details that will allow them to identify you.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#684821 12-Sep-2012 10:52

http://www.tournament.co.nz/about-tournament/faq/

"are breach notices valid in law?"

"The short answer is yes. By parking a vehicle in a private car park you have entered into a contract with the car park operator and have accepted the terms and conditions displayed clearly on the notice board at the car park. A driver who uses the car park in breach of these terms and conditions, e.g. without purchasing and/or clearly displaying a valid ticket, or parking in an unauthorised bay, has also accepted the risk of being issued a notice of breach, towed or clamped, as outlined in the terms and conditions.

In contract law, parties are not entitled to impose penalties or fines for breach of contract. However, they can seek ?liquidated damages?.

Liquidated damages are defined as a reasonable estimate of the damage suffered as a result of the contract being breached.

The use of liquidated damages allows the parties to agree in advance on the damages that will be payable by the driver if they breach the obligations owed to the carpark operator under the parking contract.

We have estimated the liquidated damages arising from the breach to be up to $65. This is made up of $25 for average loss of revenue due to non-purchase/display of valid ticket, plus a $40 administration charge for the cost of monitoring the car park, issuing and processing the breach notice and dealing with any subsequent correspondence, debt collection and write-offs. We believe this amount to be fair and reasonable as it has been supported by the Disputes Tribunal. Again, these charges are stated in our terms and conditions.

The Breach Notice (or payment notice) is simply a demand for the payment of liquidated damages arising from a breach of the contract, which under contract law we are entitled to request.

This approach has been tested in court and at Disputes Tribunals and has stood up to scrutiny because it meets with the intention of the law. The law seeks to allow private parties to enter into contracts without having to rely on the law for the specifics of the contract."

ajobbins

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#685120 12-Sep-2012 17:25

They have said their admin charge includes things like cost of monitoring the car park. They can't charge you for that. It's a sunk cost and they bare it if you park without a valid ticket or not. Also, they can't charge you for 'debt collection and write-offs'. You aren't responsible for paying for other who don't pay, and debt collectors add their own fees to your bill rather than charge the creditor.

I'd say you could have it thrown out of the DT on that alone.

From a Fair Go episode in 2005, covering a similar story with Wilson Parking that went to the DT:
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/413551/500865

"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."

They lost the case

Twitter: ajobbins

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#685156 12-Sep-2012 19:36

ajobbins: They have said their admin charge includes things like cost of monitoring the car park. They can't charge you for that. It's a sunk cost and they bare it if you park without a valid ticket or not. Also, they can't charge you for 'debt collection and write-offs'. You aren't responsible for paying for other who don't pay, and debt collectors add their own fees to your bill rather than charge the creditor.

I'd say you could have it thrown out of the DT on that alone.

From a Fair Go episode in 2005, covering a similar story with Wilson Parking that went to the DT:
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/413551/500865

"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."

They lost the case

TP are claiming, I suppose, that the 'losses' extend to the cost of recovery (which would include the costs of issuing the ticket) as well as the actual lost revenue.

regardless of what the legal argument is, I can kinda see their point in this.

whilst I don't think they shoudl profit from fines, it makes little sense if the 'fine' for underpaying in a carpark is simply the money that you would have paid anyway.

If that were the case and there were no extra penalty for parking without paying then not a single person would ever voluntarily pay for parking unless they were sure to get caught since the absolute worst case if they got caught would be that they had to pay the amount they would have paid anyway.

so in order to work as a business the carparks would all have to have 24 hour monitoring, which is bloody expensive and since they couldn't recover the costs of that via fines, they would be forced to increase the regular fees for parking, which makes those of us who are honest worse off.

it would be like having the worst punishment for robbery being to simply give back the times you stole.

gustov

197 posts

Master Geek

#685198 12-Sep-2012 21:16

The bottom line is this: The Auckland Council provides the exact same service as Tournament Parking but it does not lay this sh*t on parkers.

What makes it OK for a private company to bully customers in this way?

Answer: Nothing. It's pure utter greed. It's all about making as much money as possible, and the best reason for avoiding them.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#685200 12-Sep-2012 21:20

gustov: The bottom line is this: The Auckland Council provides the exact same service as Tournament Parking but it does not lay this sh*t on parkers.

What makes it OK for a private company to bully customers in this way?

Answer: Nothing. It's pure utter greed. It's all about making as much money as possible, and the best reason for avoiding them.

No, you're right. The council charges arbitrary fines depending on where and for how long you overparked. The parking spots by the Greenlane Hospital, for example, will nett you fines of $12 per 2 hour block you overpark for. The council fine is actually greater than the full day fee for parking in the hospital grounds (which is Wilson Parking).

richms

28168 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#685388 13-Sep-2012 10:08

Council are worse IME.

For those unhappy at the costs consider that they could just have had you towed instead.

Richard rich.ms

gustov

197 posts

Master Geek

#685443 13-Sep-2012 11:02

richms: Council are worse IME.

For those unhappy at the costs consider that they could just have had you towed instead.

Ah that's the point. They don't tow because there is no money in it for them!

You can be certain that if Tournament Parking could arrange to get a slice of the towing fee off the two company then they would be calling the tow truck pronto.

shreyas

80 posts

Master Geek

#685493 13-Sep-2012 11:39

TournamentGeek: The breach has been waived - if you haven't received an email already you'll receive it today.

Cheers,

Chief Tournament Geek

Tournament Geek, I am yet to receive any sort of confirmation that the fine has been waived. Why is it taking so long?

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#686450 15-Sep-2012 14:58

NonprayingMantis:
ajobbins: They have said their admin charge includes things like cost of monitoring the car park. They can't charge you for that. It's a sunk cost and they bare it if you park without a valid ticket or not. Also, they can't charge you for 'debt collection and write-offs'. You aren't responsible for paying for other who don't pay, and debt collectors add their own fees to your bill rather than charge the creditor.

I'd say you could have it thrown out of the DT on that alone.

From a Fair Go episode in 2005, covering a similar story with Wilson Parking that went to the DT:
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/413551/500865

"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."

They lost the case

TP are claiming, I suppose, that the 'losses' extend to the cost of recovery (which would include the costs of issuing the ticket) as well as the actual lost revenue.

regardless of what the legal argument is, I can kinda see their point in this.

whilst I don't think they shoudl profit from fines, it makes little sense if the 'fine' for underpaying in a carpark is simply the money that you would have paid anyway.

If that were the case and there were no extra penalty for parking without paying then not a single person would ever voluntarily pay for parking unless they were sure to get caught since the absolute worst case if they got caught would be that they had to pay the amount they would have paid anyway.

so in order to work as a business the carparks would all have to have 24 hour monitoring, which is bloody expensive and since they couldn't recover the costs of that via fines, they would be forced to increase the regular fees for parking, which makes those of us who are honest worse off.

it would be like having the worst punishment for robbery being to simply give back the times you stole.

As I mentioned a few pages back and ajobbins has now reiterated, they can't claim their admin costs. That's how the contract law wording works and this is what case law affirms. It doesn't matter a fig what anyone "thinks" - this is how it is.

MartyP

4 posts

Wannabe Geek

#686481 15-Sep-2012 16:59

earlier poster is correct stating that Tournament have no legal authority to impose fines or penalties. These companies like to issue v official looking parking infringement notices but they have no legal status. All they can charge you is amount of actual damage they have suffered through your infringement. Given that they would have accepted $8 for 12 hrs parking from anyone I would say 50c is it! Ask them to send an itemised list of actual losses suffered, and point out that yr ticket says 50c transaction fee is included. I doubt you'd hear from them again. I have successfully argued against these so called tickets before.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#686502 15-Sep-2012 18:02

Dratsab:
NonprayingMantis:
ajobbins: They have said their admin charge includes things like cost of monitoring the car park. They can't charge you for that. It's a sunk cost and they bare it if you park without a valid ticket or not. Also, they can't charge you for 'debt collection and write-offs'. You aren't responsible for paying for other who don't pay, and debt collectors add their own fees to your bill rather than charge the creditor.

I'd say you could have it thrown out of the DT on that alone.

From a Fair Go episode in 2005, covering a similar story with Wilson Parking that went to the DT:
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/413551/500865

"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."

They lost the case

TP are claiming, I suppose, that the 'losses' extend to the cost of recovery (which would include the costs of issuing the ticket) as well as the actual lost revenue.

regardless of what the legal argument is, I can kinda see their point in this.

whilst I don't think they shoudl profit from fines, it makes little sense if the 'fine' for underpaying in a carpark is simply the money that you would have paid anyway.

If that were the case and there were no extra penalty for parking without paying then not a single person would ever voluntarily pay for parking unless they were sure to get caught since the absolute worst case if they got caught would be that they had to pay the amount they would have paid anyway.

so in order to work as a business the carparks would all have to have 24 hour monitoring, which is bloody expensive and since they couldn't recover the costs of that via fines, they would be forced to increase the regular fees for parking, which makes those of us who are honest worse off.

it would be like having the worst punishment for robbery being to simply give back the times you stole.

As I mentioned a few pages back and ajobbins has now reiterated, they can't claim their admin costs. That's how the contract law wording works and this is what case law affirms. It doesn't matter a fig what anyone "thinks" - this is how it is.

so why haven't they been shut down and the owners arrested for illegal business practices?

why aren't the commerce commission all over them for overcharging customers. On this forum we regularly see issues where ISPs have overcharged customers. When it is an isolated incident then fine, but sometimes we have seen fundamentally wrong charging practices and the commerce commission is very quick to chastise them, fine them, force them to refund EVERY customer overcharged (not just the ones who complain), and force them to change the way they charge.

so why does TP (and the other parking companies) continue to get away with this supposedly illegal charging, particularly when case law apparently demonstrates the precedent??

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#686516 15-Sep-2012 19:17

well i don't know the answer to this question but you are talking about the difference between criminal law and civil law for a start

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13