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

1471 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 560

Reply # 682120 6-Sep-2012 08:36

sbiddle:

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.

I do believe the OP genuinly thought that he had paid for the 12 hour stay at $8 though. That could work in his favour.

sbiddle

25443 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5255

Moderator

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Subscriber

Reply # 682122 6-Sep-2012 08:45

floydbloke:
sbiddle:

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.

I do believe the OP genuinly thought that he had paid for the 12 hour stay at $8 though. That could work in his favour.

But thinking you have paid for 12 hours vs a ticket that clearly says 1 1/2 hours parking are two different things.

The dilemma is one the OP needs to decide between. Take the issue further and you're going to get people questioning this very issue.

oxnsox

1923 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 139

Reply # 682193 6-Sep-2012 10:48

sbiddle: 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.

Now you're trying to have a-bob-each-way.
The carpark operator has never mentioned the 7 1/2 hours, they've only mentioned that the 'transaction-fee' was not paid.

As established earlier, the receipt clearly states that the transaction fee was paid.

Either the debate is about the fee being paid, or not.
Or, the debate is about the time paid for.
Taking it to the Disputes tribunal would surely be done on the basis of the Fee, since that is in dispute, and not on the basis of the time.

The fact that the OP wanted to park for 12hrs and only paid for 1 1/2 is not the matter of dispute. Indeed it seems the operator (who sees this as a 1 1/2 hour ticket) believes the OP only overstayed by 8mins, and whether that is right or wrong that is what the operator is basing their arguement, for the unpaid fee on.

I'm enjoying reading this 50cent thread. It's a good example of how a simple (50cent) error can spiral beyond reality. Not just because of a $65 ($40) 'fine' for (perhaps) lack of a 50cent button press, but because of how polarising it can be. It's a 50cent error that's invoked, Fair-Go, Campbell live, and the Disputes tribunal.... and it takes longer than the 8 minute time overage to read. Fantastic!!

cisconz

cisconz
1161 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 76

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 682200 6-Sep-2012 10:57

oxnsox:
sbiddle: 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.

Now you're trying to have a-bob-each-way.
The carpark operator has never mentioned the 7 1/2 hours, they've only mentioned that the 'transaction-fee' was not paid.

As established earlier, the receipt clearly states that the transaction fee was paid.

Either the debate is about the fee being paid, or not.
Or, the debate is about the time paid for.
Taking it to the Disputes tribunal would surely be done on the basis of the Fee, since that is in dispute, and not on the basis of the time.

The fact that the OP wanted to park for 12hrs and only paid for 1 1/2 is not the matter of dispute. Indeed it seems the operator (who sees this as a 1 1/2 hour ticket) believes the OP only overstayed by 8mins, and whether that is right or wrong that is what the operator is basing their arguement, for the unpaid fee on.

I'm enjoying reading this 50cent thread. It's a good example of how a simple (50cent) error can spiral beyond reality. Not just because of a $65 ($40) 'fine' for (perhaps) lack of a 50cent button press, but because of how polarising it can be. It's a 50cent error that's invoked, Fair-Go, Campbell live, and the Disputes tribunal.... and it takes longer than the 8 minute time overage to read. Fantastic!!

Hmmmm

Kyanar

2915 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 414

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 682218 6-Sep-2012 11:41

sbiddle:

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.

No, not at all. Tournament charges $8 for "all-day" parking. So if he overstayed by that time, the liquidated damages are the difference between what he did pay and what he should have paid - 50c. End of story.

sbiddle

25443 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5255

Moderator

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Subscriber

Reply # 682224 6-Sep-2012 11:50

Kyanar:
sbiddle:

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.

No, not at all. Tournament charges $8 for "all-day" parking. So if he overstayed by that time, the liquidated damages are the difference between what he did pay and what he should have paid - 50c. End of story.

Liquidated damages are a figure based upon potential loss of revenue/income. Not everybody payd $8 per day for the parking, and many people would simply pay by the half hour, therefore the maximum potential loss to them was multiple cars parking in that spot paying $2.50 per half hour. The potential loss of revenue for that park because of somebody overstaying for 7 1/2 hours is $37.50

shreyas

79 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 682241 6-Sep-2012 12:26

sbiddle:
Kyanar:
sbiddle:

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.

No, not at all. Tournament charges $8 for "all-day" parking. So if he overstayed by that time, the liquidated damages are the difference between what he did pay and what he should have paid - 50c. End of story.

Liquidated damages are a figure based upon potential loss of revenue/income. Not everybody payd $8 per day for the parking, and many people would simply pay by the half hour, therefore the maximum potential loss to them was multiple cars parking in that spot paying $2.50 per half hour. The potential loss of revenue for that park because of somebody overstaying for 7 1/2 hours is $37.50

Okay so here's a copy of the $65 infringement notice that was supposed to be left on my car that day. It looks like I was fined roughly 8 minutes after my parking ticket expired. Did someone mention a "10 minute" grace period?

I don't think these guys are even aware that I parked there for the whole day!

Fine

suspectTV

7 posts

Wannabe Geek
+1 received by user: 1

Reply # 682249 6-Sep-2012 12:32

See all that other rubbish on the ticket... WOF Expires, Officer number, Distance from sign... etc..

They're trying to make it look legit... hilarious.. perhaps mention the words "Commerce Commission", "Fair Trading Act" and "Misleading" in your next letter.

NonprayingMantis

6430 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1567

Reply # 682285 6-Sep-2012 12:57

sbiddle:
Kyanar:
sbiddle:

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.

No, not at all. Tournament charges $8 for "all-day" parking. So if he overstayed by that time, the liquidated damages are the difference between what he did pay and what he should have paid - 50c. End of story.

Liquidated damages are a figure based upon potential loss of revenue/income. Not everybody payd $8 per day for the parking, and many people would simply pay by the half hour, therefore the maximum potential loss to them was multiple cars parking in that spot paying $2.50 per half hour. The potential loss of revenue for that park because of somebody overstaying for 7 1/2 hours is $37.50

I beleive they can also charge for the cost of collection too, which is where the $65 comes from (sending claims, processing payments, answering queries etc)

If they could only ever charge for the loss of revenue, then nobody would ever bother paying for the carpark since even if they got caught they would only ever be liable for what they would have paid anyway.

sbiddle

25443 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5255

Moderator

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Subscriber

Reply # 682296 6-Sep-2012 13:10

Posting the infringement notice now changes this whole thread completely...

The actual infrinement isn't so much the 50c credit card payment fee, it's that you exceeded the parking period.

shreyas

79 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 682391 6-Sep-2012 15:13

sbiddle: Posting the infringement notice now changes this whole thread completely...

The actual infrinement isn't so much the 50c credit card payment fee, it's that you exceeded the parking period.

Yes it does, but I was not aware of it the whole time until they sent it to me today. Marcus Baker's confusing first email and the complete about-turn in the next email didn't help matters either.

But it doesn't change the fact that their system is confusing to use. I keyed in $8.00 that day assuming 50c will be added to the total charge, but that was obviously not the case.

ajobbins

Awesome
4769 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1054

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 682394 6-Sep-2012 15:23

Don't know why they just don't put a barrier arm in and out of all their carparks - and you have to have a paid up validated ticket to exit (So you pay at the end rather than beginning).

This would mean that a) They always got the right amount of money for the time parked and b) they don't have to have 'enforemcent officers' on site anymore.

Suspect they have crunched the numbers and worked out that they can make more money by allowing people to overstay and 'fining' them than just forcing people to pay the right amount anyway.

Good thing about many of these systems too is that is allows you to enter and exit with just a credit card. That way you don't need a ticket, and they just charge the correct amount to your card when you exit. Simple, fast, effective.

Twitter: ajobbins

mattwnz

13223 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1559

Reply # 682401 6-Sep-2012 15:37

ajobbins: Don't know why they just don't put a barrier arm in and out of all their carparks - and you have to have a paid up validated ticket to exit (So you pay at the end rather than beginning).

This would mean that a) They always got the right amount of money for the time parked and b) they don't have to have 'enforemcent officers' on site anymore.

Suspect they have crunched the numbers and worked out that they can make more money by allowing people to overstay and 'fining' them than just forcing people to pay the right amount anyway.

Good thing about many of these systems too is that is allows you to enter and exit with just a credit card. That way you don't need a ticket, and they just charge the correct amount to your card when you exit. Simple, fast, effective.

Because car parks probably don't make as much money doing that. With pay and display you essentially have to overpay for your parking, so not to risk getting a ticket. If you do exceed it you then get fined a very large amount. I recall reading somewhere that parking companies did say that they gave 10 minutes grace, which doesn't appear to have been done in this case. I thought there was going to be some form of voluntary standard for parking enforcement. I do however think that it needs regulation, we have regulation for just about everything else.

mattwnz

13223 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1559

Reply # 682403 6-Sep-2012 15:39

suspectTV: See all that other rubbish on the ticket... WOF Expires, Officer number, Distance from sign... etc..

They're trying to make it look legit... hilarious.. perhaps mention the words "Commerce Commission", "Fair Trading Act" and "Misleading" in your next letter.

Are they also 'fining' people if their WOF has expired?

mattwnz

13223 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1559

Reply # 682404 6-Sep-2012 15:41

NonprayingMantis:
sbiddle:
Kyanar:
sbiddle:?

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.

No, not at all. ?Tournament charges $8 for "all-day" parking. ?So if he overstayed by that time, the liquidated damages are the difference between what he did pay and what he should have paid - 50c. ?End of story.

Liquidated damages are?a figure based upon potential loss of revenue/income. Not everybody payd $8 per day for the parking, and many people would simply pay by the half hour, therefore the?maximum potential loss to them was multiple cars parking in that spot paying $2.50 per half hour. The potential loss of revenue for that park because of somebody overstaying for 7 1/2 hours is $37.50

I beleive they can also charge for the cost of collection too, which is where the $65 comes from (sending claims, processing payments, answering queries etc)

If they could only ever charge for the loss of revenue, then nobody would ever bother paying for the carpark since even if they got caught they would only ever be liable for what they would have paid anyway.

Do you know why the amount on issue says $90, but the amount due is $65? That is confusing in itself? Do you owe $90?

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