PSENZ parking "infringement"

Forums › Off topic › PSENZ parking "infringement"

1 | 2

Basil12

124 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 74

#3329303 8-Jan-2025 18:59

We went through similar fun and games when older daughter parked in the Wellington City New World on Wakefield Street for longer than the allowed 90 minutes. I took objection to their letters / emails to me (as the registered driver) as I had not parked at the site and certainly had not given anyone else permission to park there.

PESNZ are the R soles in the relationship. When they passed it on to Baycorp I was then able to put my argument to Baycorp, who are held to a higher standard of care given their privileged position as a debt collector. I was subsequently advised by PESNZ that the debt had been booked in error, i.e. Baycorp can't been happy with the legality of going after the debt.

I treated it as a bit of fun. Your case is a bit different though as you were there and so apparently subject to their rules. Arguably if you had already withdrawn access to your NZTS details then you can't have agreed to their Ts and Cs (assuming they're the same as at NW) as they include allowing access to NZTA info.

Good luck.

Quik internet referral link

Goosey

3016 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 871

Subscriber

#3329614 9-Jan-2025 16:31

Well the op sounds like they are experienced with parking infringements and dislike the “system”.

my two cents…

1) you seem like you have a poor excuse to not have noticed that you should pay by plate at the machine in advance (as that’s how most car parks work unless it’s controlled by a barrier arm system) - fact.

2) as they say in the movies, suck it up cupcake and pay the fine as deep down under you know you did wrong. Infact you could have simply called the friendly folk whilst you were at the car park to explain your situation….

my two cents, you don’t have to agree but it is what it is regardless about your feelings about the parking industry.

(I’m not big parking, I’m just Jo average).

johno1234

3357 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2843

#3329620 9-Jan-2025 16:59

Goosey:

Well the op sounds like they are experienced with parking infringements and dislike the “system”.

my two cents…

1) you seem like you have a poor excuse to not have noticed that you should pay by plate at the machine in advance (as that’s how most car parks work unless it’s controlled by a barrier arm system) - fact.

2) as they say in the movies, suck it up cupcake and pay the fine as deep down under you know you did wrong. Infact you could have simply called the friendly folk whilst you were at the car park to explain your situation….

my two cents, you don’t have to agree but it is what it is regardless about your feelings about the parking industry.

(I’m not big parking, I’m just Jo average).

It is not a fine. They have no legal right to fine anyone. They do attempt to portray themselves as having such a right. All they are entitled to do is claim any loss they have incurred. So the question is - what is the amount of loss? If you overstayed a 60min park by 15min then that loss would be 25% of a 1 hour parking charge.

Wilson Parking are attempting to generate revenue rather than recover losses.

SomeoneSomewhere

1882 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1086

Lifetime subscriber

#3329625 9-Jan-2025 17:19

SomeoneSomewhere:

I believe there have been changes in case law on this that imply Wilsons can charge a reasonable penalty (such as the $85 ticket) to deter evasion.

See this post: https://old.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/12sjwjo/how_to_beat_a_parking_ticket_101/?limit=500

But payments for damages have to match the actual loss to the company?

Not any more. The law changed in 2019 as the Supreme Court ruled in Honey Bees that it's OK to charge a fee in excess of the actual loss in order to deter customers from breaking the rules.

No comment on the legal accuracy of this.

It appears the advice is still to dispute the debt with the collector and hope it's not worth their time to take you to Disputes Tribunal over it.

Ruphus

469 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 181

#3329636 9-Jan-2025 18:04

johno1234:

Goosey:

Well the op sounds like they are experienced with parking infringements and dislike the “system”.

my two cents…

1) you seem like you have a poor excuse to not have noticed that you should pay by plate at the machine in advance (as that’s how most car parks work unless it’s controlled by a barrier arm system) - fact.

2) as they say in the movies, suck it up cupcake and pay the fine as deep down under you know you did wrong. Infact you could have simply called the friendly folk whilst you were at the car park to explain your situation….

my two cents, you don’t have to agree but it is what it is regardless about your feelings about the parking industry.

(I’m not big parking, I’m just Jo average).

It is not a fine. They have no legal right to fine anyone. They do attempt to portray themselves as having such a right. All they are entitled to do is claim any loss they have incurred. So the question is - what is the amount of loss? If you overstayed a 60min park by 15min then that loss would be 25% of a 1 hour parking charge.

Wilson Parking are attempting to generate revenue rather than recover losses.

There are plenty of dispute tribunal decisions which go against your opinion. Based on the decisions I have researched, the range of infringements that were required to be paid are between $65 and $160.

Basil12

124 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 74

#3329651 9-Jan-2025 18:59

Ruphus: There are plenty of dispute tribunal decisions which go against your opinion. Based on the decisions I have researched, the range of infringements that were required to be paid are between $65 and $160.

That was what I found too. The only benefit of going the disputes tribunal routed seemed to be to get the cost down to the original $65 from the "you didn't pay by X date" higher amount of $85. There seems to be a lot out there to support the approach PESNZ takes, unfortunately.

Quik internet referral link

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

johno1234

3357 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2843

#3329656 9-Jan-2025 19:13

Basil12:
Ruphus: There are plenty of dispute tribunal decisions which go against your opinion. Based on the decisions I have researched, the range of infringements that were required to be paid are between $65 and $160.

That was what I found too. The only benefit of going the disputes tribunal routed seemed to be to get the cost down to the original $65 from the "you didn't pay by X date" higher amount of $85. There seems to be a lot out there to support the approach PESNZ takes, unfortunately.

That doesn’t tell us much as we don’t know the facts of those cases and how they presented.

What I can tell you is I have argued successfully against PESNZ three out of three. They threatened me with DT but that turned out to be a bluff every time. They’re taking advantage of people.

mudguard

2327 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1250

#3329889 10-Jan-2025 09:08

johno1234:
That doesn’t tell us much as we don’t know the facts of those cases and how they presented.

What I can tell you is I have argued successfully against PESNZ three out of three. They threatened me with DT but that turned out to be a bluff every time. They’re taking advantage of people.

Edit. Sorry, didn't realise you weren't the OP

alasta

6891 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3365

Trusted

Subscriber

#3329919 10-Jan-2025 10:38

So effectively the $85 consists of $18 for the normal parking charge, plus $67 to cover the administrative costs associated with identifying the vehicle owner, confirming all the details are correct, sending out the correspondence, following up, etc.

I'm no fan of Wilson Parking but this doesn't seem totally unreasonable to me.

Lizard1977

2134 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 626

ID Verified

#3329981 10-Jan-2025 11:55

Except I would argue that the administrative costs of enforcement should already be included in the parking charges. In a theoretical situation where there were precisely zero infringements, Wilson would still need to employ people and hold the resources to follow up on prospective "breaches". A bit like how we would still need a police service even if there were no crimes. Parking officers are paid using the revenue from the parking fees, not the infringements. If Wilson haven't planned their business correctly, that's not my problem.

alasta

6891 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3365

Trusted

Subscriber

#3329986 10-Jan-2025 12:11

Enforcement has both fixed and variable costs. The former should be built into the standard parking charges, and the latter should be recovered from offenders.

HP

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

Jase2985

13735 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6216

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#3329987 10-Jan-2025 12:18

alasta:

Enforcement has both fixed and variable costs. The former should be built into the standard parking charges, and the latter should be recovered from offenders.

I dont think anything you are going to say is going to change their mind

Its happened to them in the past, it's going to happen to them again in the future.

cddt

1970 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1905

#3330000 10-Jan-2025 13:02

Basil12:

We went through similar fun and games when older daughter parked in the Wellington City New World on Wakefield Street for longer than the allowed 90 minutes. I took objection to their letters / emails to me (as the registered driver) as I had not parked at the site and certainly had not given anyone else permission to park there.

So what you're saying is that if you always drive your wife's car, and she always drives your car, neither of you will have to pay any parking fees ever again?

My referral links: BigPipe | Mercury

SomeoneSomewhere

1882 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1086

Lifetime subscriber

#3330006 10-Jan-2025 13:15

I don't think the law explicitly sets how they must divide their revenue. If they want to rely solely on enforcement (instead of e.g. barriers that don't let you leave unless you pay), I don't see why they can't divide the annual costs of enforcement amongst the tickets/year and say it's a $65 charge.

So what you're saying is that if you always drive your wife's car, and she always drives your car, neither of you will have to pay any parking fees ever again?

This is one of your situations where you might get away with it in DT a few times if there's a law that's vaguely relevant, but then they will push a case to a higher court and get a judgement that boils down to "it would be against public policy to let people intentionally refuse to pay for parking and have no recourse beyond charging them in DT for each violation. We don't think this is what the government intended. You can charge a reasonable penalty fee; see SC case above".

This is obviously not including cases where there is a clear procedural issue e.g. not signposted, made an attempt to pay but payment failed, weren't actually in the carpark, or did actually pay but they ticketed you anyway.

1 | 2