Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


networkn

Networkn
32866 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15456

ID Verified
Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

#113712 25-Jan-2013 13:51
Send private message

So last Saturday night I parked in the viaduct beside Wildfire. The sign stated Weekend Parking 6am - 6pm Maximum $14. I parked at 5:30ish and went to pay. It would only allow me to pay a maximum of $6 and that covered me till 6:06pm. Based on that I understood that I had paid till the 6pm time after which parking wasn't charged for. My wife and I both had the same understanding.

I got a fine for $65 and I sent an email with a picture of the meter, explaining the situation and I get a letter the next day which didn't relate to the situation, clearly a standard first response letter which doesn't reflect the original complaint. So I called up to ask to speak to someone and was refused saying all responses must be in writing. I said, that my last response wasn't replied to in line with the complaint I raised and she said to write a complaint about that too. Hopeless. 

Anyone know anyone at PESNZ that I can speak to directly as I feel they just intend to send these bulk responses until they can add fees to the existing fine regardless of the circumstances?

I don't mind paying for the parking I used, but $65 for being 1 hour over, when I couldn't have paid more if I wanted to, seems a little harsh.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

This is a filtered page: currently showing replies marked as answers. Click here to see full discussion.

mattwnz
20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795


  #751342 26-Jan-2013 22:40
Send private message

Dratsab:
ajobbins: I assume that even tho they state a set amount in their T&C's - that amount is irrelevant (as it would obviously exceed liquidated damaged)?


The Frustrated Contracts Act spells this out in section 3. Subsection 2 is the relevant part and essentially states the party to whom a sum is payable (Wilson Parking in this case) may recover a part or whole of the amount payable (including expenses incurred in the performance of the contract) as long as they are not an amount in excess of the expenses incurred.

Wilson's are not doing this, they're imposing a set fine...without statutory authority. To prove they lost, for example, $4 in parking fees would be relatively straight-forward. To claim they lost a further $61 through the "enforcement" actions of their child company (Parking Enforcement Services New Zealand - who contract out to numerous other carparks throughout NZ, btw) is, at best, highly dubious.

I'd like to see them prove it. However, I think they're more likely to waive a fine than potentially reveal the scale of extra income they're generating.


But why isn't the commerce commission stomping down on this sort of thing if they are only allowed to claim for actual expenses incurred. If it is operated by an overseas company, then all this money being generated this way is stripping NZ of it's wealth.
Maybe the commerce commission don't received enough complaints about it, and as it is am amount that people think, I'll just pay it to be rid of it, many people probably can't be bothered spending their time. eg $65 vs 1-2 hours of time.

View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic








Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.