Tournament Parking - $65 infringement notice

Forums › Off topic › Tournament Parking - $65 infringement notice

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13

20883 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4095

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 682052 5-Sep-2012 22:15

I would just tell them you have made them an offer that you think is fair considering their equipment misrepresented what you were paying and that you will not pay them anything over and above that unless ordered to by disputes.

You have the car, you are not clamped and I know that the collection agencies wont do anything with things like this other than send you demands on their letterhead which I suspect are just printed and sent by the parking company and not an actual collections company.

They cant do anything to get that money from you unless you voluntarily pay it to them. Not like those scummy council owned carparks where you will come back to your car and find a stack of tickets on it for things that have nothing to do with a parked car like an expired warrant etc.

I would also hope that someone can grab some video of the pay machine before they fix it incase you end up needing it. Probably something for fair go, target or john campbell.

Richard rich.ms

sbiddle

26198 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5797

Moderator

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 682053 5-Sep-2012 22:18

Dratsab: Dispute the fee and tell them you'll see them in court.

The website claim of being able to collect liquidated damages is incorrect as the liquidated damages relates to money lost from your alleged infringement (breach of contract) not their enforcement of it. Take a good look at the Fair Go website, there's a reference on there to a case where this particular point has been clarified by the disputes tribunal.

These "fines"are a multi-million dollar rort which should, by rights, be under investigation by the SFO.

In this case the liquidated damages are around 7 1/2 hours of parking at $2.50 per half hour, which equals $37.50, a figure very close to the $40 they are after. Had they wanted $100 it would be a totally different issue, but in this case it's very close to the (potential) loss that was incurred by them.

Try Wrike: fast, easy, and efficient project collaboration software

mattwnz

13789 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1716

Reply # 682057 5-Sep-2012 22:26

sbiddle: In this case the liquidated damages are around 7 1/2?hours of parking at $2.50 per half hour,

Didn't the letter from the parking company earlier in the thread say that they had only overparked for less than 30 minutes. So wouldn't that be less than $2.50 of damages?

xarqi

727 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 7

Reply # 682059 5-Sep-2012 22:39

Ha! Three parking spaces earn more than the minimum wage for a human. Something is definitely out of whack there.

richms

20883 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4095

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 682060 5-Sep-2012 22:43

Not really, that is prime realestate and has a massive per m^2 cost, along with all the admin and other compliance costs for the building.

If they were not getting enough income from the property chances are they would just whack in some windows and carpet and call it an office instead.

Richard rich.ms

mattwnz

13789 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1716

Reply # 682065 5-Sep-2012 23:05

xarqi: Ha! Three parking spaces earn more than the minimum wage for a human. Something is definitely out of whack there.

Although unrelated to the OPs post, I remember hearing a guest speaking on radio NZ about parking, and how a parking infringement company was contacting car park owners in a building that they could monitor parks in the building, and give them a cut on any earnings. So that if you were the owner of a car park and kept it empty, and people regularly parked in your spot, you could make quite a good income. Not sure how true it is. But I have also heard that there are parking spotters in some of Wellingtons flats, who are paid a commission for dobbing in 'illegal' parkers to towies and getting a commission too.
The whole parking area and infringement though is an area that I think needs some regulation and laws.

mattwnz

13789 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1716

Reply # 682067 5-Sep-2012 23:06

richms: Not really, that is prime realestate and has a massive per m^2 cost, along with all the admin and other compliance costs for the building.

If they were not getting enough income from the property chances are they would just whack in some windows and carpet and call it an office instead.

I think they were meaning the 'infringement' costs, and not the regular parking fees. The regular parking fees should cover the other.

NonprayingMantis

6433 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1571

Reply # 682069 5-Sep-2012 23:15

xarqi:
shreyas: Here's the reply I got from NZCMS after I offered to pay the 50c transaction fee in good faith.

"Unfortunately we will be unable to accept the 0.50cents as full payment as it is your responsibility to check your ticket, the machine does automatically add on the credit card transaction fee which in turn means that you have not entered the correct amount to cover the time you wished to park in our carpark."
This would seem to be quite wrong. The system does not add the transaction fee, it SUBTRACTS it. It does not take the amount entered, and add 50c, it takes the amount entered and after having subtracted the transaction fee, calculates the parking time available.

the system takes whatever fee you enter and add 50c.

whoever said the machine deducts 50c is wrong

This just compounds the egregious blunder made in their first response.
They state both that "you did not make the payment of the 50c credit card transaction fee", and "the $65 is not related to the 8 minutes parked overtime...". If you did not pay the transaction fee, then you were not parked over time as you had paid $8 in order to park 12 hours (but no transaction fee). If you were parked 8 minutes over time, then you DID pay the transaction fee. They can't have it both ways.

If they themselves cannot understand and explain how their systems work in a consistent way, how are the public expected to cope?

yes, they definitely cocked up the letter.

mattwnz

13789 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1716

Reply # 682070 5-Sep-2012 23:17

NonprayingMantis: I'm sorry but you are plain wrong.? the system takes whatever fee you enter and add 50c.

whoever said the machine deducts 50c is wrong

I think there could be different machines which would explain different peoples experiences, and someone else has also said there are different one. It sounds like the OP got one of the machines that deducted the amount, not added it, which would explain why they had the problem..

NonprayingMantis

6433 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1571

Reply # 682072 5-Sep-2012 23:22

mattwnz:
NonprayingMantis: I'm sorry but you are plain wrong.? the system takes whatever fee you enter and add 50c.

whoever said the machine deducts 50c is wrong

I think there could be different machines which would explain different peoples experiences, and someone else has also said there are different one. It sounds like the OP got one of the machines that deducted the amount, not added it, which would explain why they had the problem..

I have parked in dozens of TP car parks all over Auckland and Wellington, paid by credit card every single time and not once have I ever seen a machine that deducts 50c rather than adding it on.

I believe whoever said they had seen one is mistaken.

sbiddle

26198 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5797

Moderator

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 682094 6-Sep-2012 06:08

mattwnz:
NonprayingMantis: I'm sorry but you are plain wrong.? the system takes whatever fee you enter and add 50c.

whoever said the machine deducts 50c is wrong

I think there could be different machines which would explain different peoples experiences, and someone else has also said there are different one. It sounds like the OP got one of the machines that deducted the amount, not added it, which would explain why they had the problem..

No. The problem is the OP (clearly unintentially) selected the wrong product from the screen and only paid for 90 mins of parking, something that is clearly displayed on the printed ticket, when he infact wanted a 12hr parking ticket which actually cost 50c more.

The issue isn't, and never has been, whether or not the machine adds or deducts the 50c. Every single one of those machines whether they're private or council owned in every city I've been to works in exactly the same way - because they all run the same software.

The issue here is compounded by a "fine" being issued on a letter which makes no sense. The issue isn't actually that the OP didn't pay the 50c credit card fee, it's that he overstayed in a carpark for 7 or 7 1/2 hours longer than his ticket said, in which case the cost recovery "fine" being charged by them is actually fair.

bazzer

3280 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 208

Trusted

Reply # 682099 6-Sep-2012 06:46

shreyas: You may be right, I'll wait and see what Fair Go says though. If they say I'm in the wrong, then fair enough I'll pay up and be more careful next time. Regardless of whether I checked the ticket or not, I don't like Tournament's tactics one little bit.

Luckily for you, Fair Go isn't really in the business of who's right or wrong. If they sniff a sob story where someone seems hard done by ($65 fine for 50c underpayment!) they'll be onto it and probably get you the result you want even if you are in the wrong.

cisconz

cisconz
1175 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 77

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 682114 6-Sep-2012 08:20

sbiddle: The issue here is compounded by a "fine" being issued on a letter which makes no sense. The issue isn't actually that the OP didn't pay the 50c credit card fee, it's that he overstayed in a carpark for 7 or 7 1/2 hours longer than his ticket said, in which case the cost recovery "fine" being charged by them is actually fair.

I agree, however the infringement said 8 minutes over, so the cost recovery is actually only $2.50

Hmmmm

sbiddle

26198 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5797

Moderator

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 682115 6-Sep-2012 08:26

cisconz:
sbiddle: The issue here is compounded by a "fine" being issued on a letter which makes no sense. The issue isn't actually that the OP didn't pay the 50c credit card fee, it's that he overstayed in a carpark for 7 or 7 1/2 hours longer than his ticket said, in which case the cost recovery "fine" being charged by them is actually fair.

I agree, however the infringement said 8 minutes over, so the cost recovery is actually only $2.50

But the problem with taking this to the disputes tribunal is you run the risk of being asked why you were parked for 7 - 7 1/2 hours longer than you paid for. While the tribunal may rule the "fine" as illegal, the fact the OP overstayed his paid parking period by this time has to also be factored in.

cisconz

cisconz
1175 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 77

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 682116 6-Sep-2012 08:28

Only if they can prove he was there that long

Hmmmm

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13