Spotlight Wellington Fining Customers For Overstaying.

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

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

meow
13581 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10914

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3030426 1-Feb-2023 15:19

Refer back to my post and the information within (even if there is the odd spelling mistake on the site I linked). Don't make this more complex than it has to be: https://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=48&topicid=303254&page_no=2#3028347

Even if there are T&C's there you can just as easily state by them contacting you they agree to your terms and conditions of charging $100 for every second you're defending the matter (ok, maybe not that far) but nobody reads the T&C's in car parks and also this doesn't change the fact they can't legally "fine" you. They're hoping to scare you into paying.

@halper86 $20 is too much. Cap it at $5 for a free car park if you want them to bugger off else just pay the value of the time overstayed if it is a paid park. You still don't owe them anything and if they have not sent you out a letter to your home address before you revoked your access you can pretty much ignore the breach notice entirely.

Michael Murphy | https://murfy.nz
Referral Links: Quic Broadband (use R122101E7CV7Q for free setup)

Are you happy with what you get from Geekzone? Please consider supporting us by subscribing.
Opinions are my own and not the views of my employer.

boosacnoodle

1283 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 862

#3030443 1-Feb-2023 15:43

Silvrav:

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.

This surely can't be the case, unless there is a claim that the entire carpark was full the entire period that you parked.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#3030513 1-Feb-2023 19:08

Silvrav:

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.

5. I fail to see how. The party with whom the operator of the vehicle supposedly contracted with is the carpark provider. Third parties with whom there is no contractual relationship would not be able to just "lodge an amount along with them". I would say that whatever company you're referring to is pretty amateur hour if they actually believe that would work.

6. No, no they can not. Credit providers can lodge credit defaults. Debt collectors, unless acting on behalf of a credit provider or have a court judgement, can not. The clue is in the name: credit default. And even without that, the parking company has no evidence that the individual has incurred any debt, because cars cannot enter into contracts, and unconscionable terms that purport to bind a third party without authority are not valid, so there's no valid contract with the registered owner. Any attempt by a debt collector to lodge one of these spurious debts would be a violation of the Credit Reporting Privacy Code by both the debt collector and the credit reporting agency, and the fines are pretty huge. I'd go so far as to say it rises to the level of fraud and I'd love for them to try it with a bored lawyer or an off-duty cop on a bad day.

Silvrav:

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.

9. Then tow the vehicle. As long as that is clearly published in the terms and conditions, that is a valid and legal option available. Carparks don't do that though, because they know that spraying and praying speculative invoices is more profitable, because people are foolish enough to pay them (the fact that parking enforcement companies are sharemarket listed should tell you all you need to know about the validity of their "damages" claims) and businesses won't, because even with their sham arm's length arrangements, they know the PR fallout would basically wipe out their customer base.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3030516 1-Feb-2023 19:13

boosacnoodle:

Silvrav:

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.

This surely can't be the case, unless there is a claim that the entire carpark was full the entire period that you parked.

Yes it can be the case but it needs to be real and actual damages, not an opaque fee. Quantifying what these damages are for one car park is practically impossible.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#3030520 1-Feb-2023 19:18

Handle9:

Yes it can be the case but it needs to be real and actual damages, not an opaque fee. Quantifying what these damages are for one car park is practically impossible.

And how does that jive with the fact that the alleged contract is between the car park operator and the driver? I have never, ever, seen on a carpark sign a claim that claims for lost revenue by a building tenant may be charged for parking in breach of the terms and conditions. Not to mention the fact that I would go so far as to say it's not just practically impossible, but actually impossible, since a carpark being full doesn't stop a person on foot entering the premises to shop, or a person being dropped off by a vehicle to shop, and there is literally no way to quantify what a person who arrived to shop but decided not to because no carparks were available would have spent.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15472

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3031741 4-Feb-2023 14:05

Kyanar:

Handle9:

Yes it can be the case but it needs to be real and actual damages, not an opaque fee. Quantifying what these damages are for one car park is practically impossible.

And how does that jive with the fact that the alleged contract is between the car park operator and the driver? I have never, ever, seen on a carpark sign a claim that claims for lost revenue by a building tenant may be charged for parking in breach of the terms and conditions. Not to mention the fact that I would go so far as to say it's not just practically impossible, but actually impossible, since a carpark being full doesn't stop a person on foot entering the premises to shop, or a person being dropped off by a vehicle to shop, and there is literally no way to quantify what a person who arrived to shop but decided not to because no carparks were available would have spent.

Put more simply, how do you know that anyone parking in that carpark is going to spend any money at the store. Entering a store doesn't obligate someone to spend something.

Dell

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

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#3031904 4-Feb-2023 19:54

networkn:

Put more simply, how do you know that anyone parking in that carpark is going to spend any money at the store. Entering a store doesn't obligate someone to spend something.

100%. If a carpark actually tried that, absolutely just respond "see you in court". The chances they actually file are about zero because even if DT isn't a precedent setting court, having it on public record that they were defeated would absolutely blow their entire speculative invoicing business model apart.

Wheelbarrow01

1784 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2638

Trusted

Chorus

#3032338 6-Feb-2023 00:53

Eva888:

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.

I don't think they retain ownership data from previous breach notices. Wilsons gained my wife's address details and sent a demand letter for an unpaid breach notice. After she paid it (and told me about it), I went online and revoked access to her details under her rego number.

A month or two later she got another Wilsons breach notice under her windscreen wiper. This time we did nothing and waited for the demand letter in the mail - it never came. It would seem they discard all personal details upon payment/settlement of each breach notice (which could be required under the Privacy Act - not sure on that though).

Another reason they might have to do a whole new search enquiry with NZTA for every breach is that any vehicle could be bought/sold at any time, so the registered owner last month (or even last week) is not necessarily the registered owner now.

Eva888

2763 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2429

Lifetime subscriber

#3032411 6-Feb-2023 09:58

@Wheelbarrow01 good point that they would need to check each time in case car had changed ownership. Never heard back from anyone so will send my letter registered tomorrow.

Wheelbarrow01

1784 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2638

Trusted

Chorus

#3032493 6-Feb-2023 14:30

Eva888: @Wheelbarrow01 good point that they would need to check each time in case car had changed ownership. Never heard back from anyone so will send my letter registered tomorrow.

Remember if you supply a return address to reply to, they’ll know where to send the dogs.
Maybe tell them to reply by email. And use a fake name lol

Wellingtondave

160 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 88

#3033723 8-Feb-2023 20:47

I can understand the parking issues in that area of Thorndon? and why people try it on, but pulling this crap on actual customers of Spotlight is crazy. I used to pop in for household stuff once in a while, they'll never get any more business of mine again just from reading this story.

Last time I was at the Farmers carpark in Tauranga city it a 3rd party parking company attendant, show your receipt for Farmers and you get let out free, if you don't show a receipt it's $10 or whatever they charge.

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

halper86

555 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 156

ID Verified

#3033758 8-Feb-2023 22:27

Eva888: @Wheelbarrow01 good point that they would need to check each time in case car had changed ownership. Never heard back from anyone so will send my letter registered tomorrow.

I have also sent them a letter today, I specifically mentioned ‘the actual and reasonable cost test’.

-edit. I also stated that there were no cars parked adjacent to mine, therefore there was no loss of revenue caused by me.