Spotlight Wellington Fining Customers For Overstaying.

Forums › Off topic › Spotlight Wellington Fining Customers For Overstaying.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#3029117 30-Jan-2023 02:30

Dratsab:

Source

Once again, only credit providers can report defaults. No matter how many links you post (which don't even support your claim anyway), the prevailing rules are these:

Source.

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3029119 30-Jan-2023 04:26

Not my claims, that honour belongs to the Office of the Banking Ombudsman. If what they've published is incorrect take it up with them - absolutely zero point getting p1ssy with me.

johno1234

2808 posts

Uber Geek

#3029147 30-Jan-2023 08:19

Eva888: Couple days ago went to Spotlight Wellington and parked in their car park outside the shop, browsed various items. Curtaining etc as have done multiple times before. This morning received a ticket from Smart Compliance Management Auckland with photos and showing I was in the park for over 90 minutes and fined $65 for exceeding maximum time.

While there I bought a few items at 2 different times and have the dockets to prove it.

Called Spotlight and asked them since when was this policy of fining customers implemented and she said a couple of months ago. I said that as a VIP member they have our emails and why did they not inform everyone of this. Silent shrug.

I honestly don’t remember seeing any signage or warnings although there may be. Am I required to pay this fine? Any advice before I write to Spotlight or the ticketing company. Thanks.

It’s the old Wilson Parking/Parking Enforcement Services scam.
They can’t “fine” you as they have no authority. The best they can do is make a civil claim for any loss you have caused them.

Wilson Parking have tried this scam on me, my wife and a friend and I have got them to drop it each time by determined letter writing. Possibly spent more value in time on it than the original bogus “fine” but it’s the principle.

In short, they have to show how you overstaying your park lead to them suffering a loss.

Eva888

2444 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3029275 30-Jan-2023 10:21

Thanks everyone for your input. Am a bit bewildered as to where to begin. I will write and send via registered mail so they can’t say it wasn’t received. Really don’t want to start a prolonged fight, who has the energy but as you say it’s the principle and also that quite a few elderly park there as they are one of the few places for knitting wools and haberdashery in the city so this outfit will have a vulnerable clientele who will feel fearful and comply. Certainly from now on I will shop at Pete’s Emporium in Lower Hutt instead.

Would a complaint to Commerce Commission be reasonable? The idea that any scammer could essentially go to car parks, take photos of cars and send out notices to the owners and have a very good return rate, now also concerns me.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#3029276 30-Jan-2023 10:23

A complaint would certainly be reasonable - while they won't action individual complaints, the more complaints they do receive, the more likely that at least an investigation will be launched.

Personally I'd also recommend a letter to your MP - pressure the government to change the laws to put these vultures out of business.

Eva888

2444 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3029350 30-Jan-2023 11:04

Reading the Moneyhub website posted by @michaelmurfy suggests that it’s not as simple as ignoring it and the templates provided suggest making some payment plus an admin fee, however on the breach notice it states that if you pay, you are accepting full liability and no longer eligible to appeal the notice. Complicated.

Bung

6490 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#3029354 30-Jan-2023 11:09

Eva888: Certainly from now on I will shop at Pete’s Emporium in Lower Hutt instead.

The car park there also has a "Customers only" sign with a limit and other wording but the detail is blurred on streetview. It isn't the same format as the Spotlight one but you should check it out.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Eva888

2444 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3029355 30-Jan-2023 11:14

Bung:
Eva888: Certainly from now on I will shop at Pete’s Emporium in Lower Hutt instead.

The car park there also has a "Customers only" sign with a limit and other wording but the detail is blurred on streetview. It isn't the same format as the Spotlight one but you should check it out.

I agree and luckily I am registered with Spotlight as a VIP customer which will be part of my argument.

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#3029886 31-Jan-2023 10:31

Bung:
rb99:

Just wondering. If you drove into one of these screw the customer car parks with a clearly legible sign

What you need is the opposite. 007 had rotating numberplates on one of his Aston Martins. For Spotlight maybe a pair of roller blinds you could hoik over the plates just before the cameras would be appropriate.

Or a piece of acrylic with an electro tinting panel (a bit like an auto-dimming welding helmet). Flip switch to obscure plate.

Just don't forget your rego-ticket, in case they check images with unreadable plates.

Mike

djtOtago

1153 posts

Uber Geek

#3029889 31-Jan-2023 10:38

Parking enforcement officers looking at number plates is old school. All the ones of seen in the last few years just scan the registration card in your windscreen.

nickb800

2720 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#3029943 31-Jan-2023 13:34

snnet:

Bananabob:

I am not a lawyer, but I bet because Spotlight is a registered company and Kapiti Coast LFRA is a registered company the dealings are completely separate even though they owned by a holding company. Just an "out" for Mountvue Pty.

I'd agree with this having worked for a company in the past whom had directors/shareholders with fingers in both, one of them being the overseeing company which was the landlord and hearing comments like "they're actually the worst landlords ever" :D - just because they share a parent company doesn't mean they have the other company's interests in mind

Definitely an out in a legal sense - no argument here.

However, I'd argue looking a customer in the eye and saying 'nothing to do with us, different company, bloody landlord eh' would fail most people's moral test - put it this way, I've seen Stuff articles beating up corporates for less.

BlueShift

1692 posts

Uber Geek

#3029958 31-Jan-2023 14:34

See, this is the sort of stuff that leads to the Sovereign Citizens and their Admiralty Law gibberish.

To a legal illiterate the descriptions of why these people can't legitimately insist on payment of the "fines" and the basis in law of liquidated damages or whether a contract was offered and accepted sounds just as reasonable as why, as a human person, the police can't charge you as you weren't driving, you were travelling, and your name was in capitals on your birth certificate, so it can't legally refer to you under the Admiralty whatever, etc...

If these companies are basically trying it on and making money off legally shonky demands, the SFO should be jumping all over them.

Eva888

2444 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3030013 31-Jan-2023 17:11

Yesterday went back to the car park with a different car to check out the signage. Sure enough there is signage two types, one that gives a big 90 and a few words about enforcement in smaller letters under, and then a large sign with very small print with 22 terms and conditions. I needed glasses to read these.

I looked around for cameras but could not see any at the carpark entrance where the car was photographed going in and out. The only camera noticeable was on a lamppost on public property but it looked more as if it was a red light one.

I stood outside Spotlight for about 15 minutes and spoke to very person who ventured in, mostly old people at that time, warning them they would be fined $65 if they overstayed and were they aware of this. Not one customer knew about this and so I pointed to the sign with the 22 conditions. All were unimpressed.

One woman responded by warning me about Harvey Norman’s in Porirua where she got an $85 ticket for parking there for parking but NOT going into their shop and going to a different shop. So beware.

Then I went inside and asked to speak to the manager who was extremely nice and sympathetic. She said she would look into it for me and try and get it waived. I suggested it would be pertinent to email customers to be aware that this system has been implemented.

To date I have heard nothing back from Spotlight who I emailed, nor the Manager I spoke with and the time for contacting the issuer is ticking by.

Bung

6490 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#3030023 31-Jan-2023 18:07

If there are cameras they'd have to account for the entrance only at the North end and the entrance/exit at the South end.

Eva888

2444 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3030032 31-Jan-2023 18:16

Bung: If there are cameras they'd have to account for the entrance only at the North end and the entrance/exit at the South end.

I enter and exit at the South End. Couldn’t see any sign of a camera.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8