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.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13
1373 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 471


  Reply # 682120 6-Sep-2012 08:36
Send private message

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.





24994 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4880

Moderator
Trusted
Biddle Corp
Subscriber

  Reply # 682122 6-Sep-2012 08:45
Send private message

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.


 
 
 
 


1923 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 139


  Reply # 682193 6-Sep-2012 10:48
Send private message

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
1153 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 76

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 682200 6-Sep-2012 10:57
Send private message

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!!


+1




Hmmmm

2917 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 414

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 682218 6-Sep-2012 11:41
Send private message

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.

24994 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4880

Moderator
Trusted
Biddle Corp
Subscriber

  Reply # 682224 6-Sep-2012 11:50
Send private message

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




80 posts

Master Geek


  Reply # 682241 6-Sep-2012 12:26
Send private message

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

7 posts

Wannabe Geek
+1 received by user: 1


  Reply # 682249 6-Sep-2012 12:32
Send private message

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.

6428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1564


  Reply # 682285 6-Sep-2012 12:57
Send private message

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.

24994 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4880

Moderator
Trusted
Biddle Corp
Subscriber

  Reply # 682296 6-Sep-2012 13:10
Send private message

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.



80 posts

Master Geek


  Reply # 682391 6-Sep-2012 15:13
Send private message

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.

Awesome
4745 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1034

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 682394 6-Sep-2012 15:23
Send private message

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


12561 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1403


  Reply # 682401 6-Sep-2012 15:37
Send private message

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.

12561 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1403


  Reply # 682403 6-Sep-2012 15:39
Send private message

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?

12561 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1403


  Reply # 682404 6-Sep-2012 15:41
Send private message

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



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Red Hat unveils production-ready open source hyperconverged infrastructure
Posted 23-Jun-2017 22:10


Whatever ailed Vodafone broadband … seems to be fixed
Posted 23-Jun-2017 14:10


VMware NSX Meets Stringent Government Security Standards with Common Criteria Certification
Posted 22-Jun-2017 19:05


Brother launches next-generation colour laser printers and all-in- ones for business
Posted 22-Jun-2017 18:56


Intel and IOC announce partnership
Posted 22-Jun-2017 18:50


Samsung Galaxy Tab S3: Best Android tablet
Posted 21-Jun-2017 12:05


Wellington-based company helping secure Microsoft browsers
Posted 20-Jun-2017 20:51


Endace delivers high performance with new 1/10/40 Gbps packet capture card
Posted 20-Jun-2017 20:50


You can now integrate SMX security into Microsoft Office 365, Google and other cloud email platforms
Posted 20-Jun-2017 20:47


Ravensdown launches new decision-making tool HawkEye
Posted 19-Jun-2017 15:38


Spark planning to take on direct management of all consumer stores
Posted 19-Jun-2017 10:03


Qrious acquires Ubiquity
Posted 14-Jun-2017 12:21


Spark New Zealand prepares for 5G with Nokia
Posted 14-Jun-2017 12:16


The future-proof 10.5-inch iPad Pro
Posted 13-Jun-2017 18:16


Mandatory data breach reporting in Australia
Posted 13-Jun-2017 11:30



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.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.