Spotlight Wellington Fining Customers For Overstaying.

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

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

4274 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#3030033 31-Jan-2023 18:16

Bung:
JimmyH:
Thanks for the warning. We go in to that spotlight quite a bit, as my "other half" likes to shop there for sewing stuff and various other bits and bobs. If that's the way they are behaving towards customers, I don't think we will be patronising that outlet any further.

It could just as easily been the electrical wholesaler that pushed for parking control. Rather than restrict where you can shop use it as a reason to get on with it. 90 minutes must be long enough.

I was only half joking when I mentioned the cafe up the road. I suspect quite a few customers use the J A Russell/Spotlight car park.

Can assure you it’s not and they’re also no longer at that location.

You're not on Atlantis anymore, Duncan Idaho.

kiwiharry

1030 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Subscriber

#3030038 31-Jan-2023 18:30

Eva888: 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.

I'd recommend you respond to the issuer of the notice saying you were a customer in-store for the entire period and supply copies of your receipts.

I got pinged at Westfield Albany a couple of years ago for parking in the 90 minute zone and being there for just over 2 hours. I sent in copies of my store receipts that spanned the 2 hours to the parking enforcement company and the so called "breach notice" was cancelled.

I also went to a local takeaway last week and the carpark where business is located has P15 signs. Our order was going to take 25 minutes so guy taking our order asked us for our car rego so he could get it validated. He said the carpark is monitored by camera's, so this would help us avoid a breach notice. My wife and I decided to drive out of the carpark to visit other shops nearby and came back later. Looked like there were 10 other commercial properties that also shared this carpark.

If you can't laugh at yourself then you probably shouldn't laugh at others.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#3030252 1-Feb-2023 12:07

kiwiharry:

I'd recommend you respond to the issuer of the notice saying you were a customer in-store for the entire period and supply copies of your receipts.

No no no no no! Do not do this! That is proof that you entered the carpark, which is what they need to claim that a valid contract exists. As long as you say nothing except to deny that you entered into their contract because you were not the driver and are no obligation to assist them to locate the driver, they have no valid claim and the debt is non-existent. This turns upside down if they provide evidence that you personally were driving (e.g. an entry machine that takes a photo of the driver when the ticket is collected) but even then all that does is move to the question of the quantum of damages (which is not $65)

johno1234

2797 posts

Uber Geek

#3030260 1-Feb-2023 12:19

Kyanar:

kiwiharry:

I'd recommend you respond to the issuer of the notice saying you were a customer in-store for the entire period and supply copies of your receipts.

No no no no no! Do not do this! That is proof that you entered the carpark, which is what they need to claim that a valid contract exists. As long as you say nothing except to deny that you entered into their contract because you were not the driver and are no obligation to assist them to locate the driver, they have no valid claim and the debt is non-existent. This turns upside down if they provide evidence that you personally were driving (e.g. an entry machine that takes a photo of the driver when the ticket is collected) but even then all that does is move to the question of the quantum of damages (which is not $65)

Just tell them you are not paying as there's no contract and they have no authority to fine you, and that you will see them in the Small Claims Tribunal.

Eva888

2429 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3030348 1-Feb-2023 13:02

They have pretty much covered all possible scenarios.

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3030350 1-Feb-2023 13:06

Did the driver (does any usually ever?) have a contract with you saying they could bind you to something/anything without your knowledge?

Questionable (likely unlawful) terms do not make something legally valid.

Eva888

2429 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3030361 1-Feb-2023 13:23

Dratsab:
Did the driver (does any usually ever?) have a contract with you saying they could bind you to something/anything without your knowledge?

Questionable (likely unlawful) terms do not make something legally valid.

In all honesty I never noticed or read the sign until I went back the second time to check if there was a sign. If it’s private property, I would guess that they can write anything they like until someone argues the legality.

Who goes shopping and stands and reads a 22 point sign before they enter a store. It’s unreasonable to expect it. I wonder if anyone else has had success at the Disputes Tribunal in relation to these practices. I would be happier paying the tribunal than their fine.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

johno1234

2797 posts

Uber Geek

#3030366 1-Feb-2023 13:35

Each of the three times I have defeated Wilson Parking and their bogus fines, I have included in my argument that it is not feasible to read the fine print when entering the carpark so there is no contract accepted. I also stated they have no authority to fine me, and that they can only recover the amount of loss my overparking cost them. In these cases, a few minutes of overpark might have lost them less than one dollar, which I offered to pay as full and final settlement of the matter.

Wilson Parking said each time in their letter to me, waiving their BS fine, that when they do go to the DT they win. I believe that is a lie.

nickb800

2716 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#3030369 1-Feb-2023 13:40

I should have looked this up earlier, but anyway, the site of Spotlight Wellington (carpark and whole building including electrical wholesaler) is owned by Wellington LFC Ltd, which is headquartered at Spotlight Manukau, fully owned by Mountvue Pty Ltd, has same directors etc.

If you go the route of appealing to the store manager I'd insist that Spotlight has a lot more control over the situation than they might let on.

Eva888

2429 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3030372 1-Feb-2023 13:42

Thanks for that. Pity neither Auckland or Wellington have responded yet. I will give them till Friday and then decide the next step.

Eva888

2429 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3030373 1-Feb-2023 13:54

johno1234:
Each of the three times I have defeated Wilson Parking and their bogus fines, I have included in my argument that it is not feasible to read the fine print when entering the carpark so there is no contract accepted. I also stated they have no authority to fine me, and that they can only recover the amount of loss my overparking cost them. In these cases, a few minutes of overpark might have lost them less than one dollar, which I offered to pay as full and final settlement of the matter.

Wilson Parking said each time in their letter to me, waiving their BS fine, that when they do go to the DT they win. I believe that is a lie.

Not only is it not feasible to read the fine print because of sight issues but also how many illiterate people park their car oblivious of any conditions because it’s way over their heads.

In my case there was zero loss as the Sunday carpark was at least half empty.

johno1234

2797 posts

Uber Geek

#3030376 1-Feb-2023 14:01

Eva888:

In my case there was zero loss as the Sunday carpark was at least half empty.

None of us are lawyers but... In that case all they have to stand on is that you "entered into a contract by reading that fine print, understanding it and accepting it" when you entered the car park. Seems unreasonable to me.

halper86

547 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#3030386 1-Feb-2023 14:14

@Eva888 We are in the same boat here!

Parked in a shared carpark in Invercargill last week to go into a cafe for a coffee for 15 minutes.
Came back out to the warden standing beside the car next to me and I never even noticed the “parking breach notice” under my wiper until I drove away. $65 Wilson want me for, I find that far to unreasonable for a FREE carpark. I did too last week do a bit of research and found templates on moneyhub and other sites - I’ve made an appeal but yet to hear a reply.

I’ve revoked access to my personal details through NZTA an hour after the notice was issued so hopefully they cannot come after me, but if they do I will be sending $20 and declaring this matter resolved.

Silvrav

469 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#3030398 1-Feb-2023 14:40

Right, I work in property, I work in property where some of my commercial tenants employ services like EPS to monitor car parks.

1. All of the property is private property,

2. the owner and tenants generally all consent to the enforcement,

3. Its a binding contract (some can be disputed depending on the signage) and has been challenged often

4. these enforcement service providers generally waive the fees, as it does result in heaps of admin unless it's clear cut - each site has different technology to track/trace/photograph people entering.

5. 9/10 its the tenants that request these services due to loss of business - on claiming damages, the enforcement agent will not just claim their loss of revenue (as it's their revenue stream) but the tenants can lodge an amount along with them as part of the damages claim. They will use previous income streams to determine this and can be widely different.

6. Debt will be handed to a registered debt collector who can lodge it against your credit score, the enforcement providers won't lodge it themselves.

7. Most tenants don't care if a customer pulls the "ok we won't shop here again" as the spot will be taken by another paying customer

8. Most, if not all tenants will validate and support your request to have the fine canceled if there are valid reasons for being overtime (ie purchases, nonbusy periods, etc).

9. One needs to appreciate that there are people that would park there the whole day which results in a loss of sales for tenants.

Speak to the tenants to get it validated as these service providers can ignore or take ages to get back to you

*Note I have never been personally involved in any legal disputes/claims so do not have insight in success process

Eva888

2429 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3030401 1-Feb-2023 14:43

halper86: @Eva888 We are in the same boat here!

Parked in a shared carpark in Invercargill last week to go into a cafe for a coffee for 15 minutes.
Came back out to the warden standing beside the car next to me and I never even noticed the “parking breach notice” under my wiper until I drove away. $65 Wilson want me for, I find that far to unreasonable for a FREE carpark. I did too last week do a bit of research and found templates on moneyhub and other sites - I’ve made an appeal but yet to hear a reply.

I’ve revoked access to my personal details through NZTA an hour after the notice was issued so hopefully they cannot come after me, but if they do I will be sending $20 and declaring this matter resolved.

At least if this post gets people to revoke access to personal details then it makes their life a lot harder. I suspect however that once you are in their database, they can look you up and find your address. Wish I’d know about this sooner.

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