Wilson Parking Dispute

Forums › Off topic › Wilson Parking Dispute

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Awesome
4769 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1054

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 750823 25-Jan-2013 15:39

wellygary:
Although that article is quite old,
Wilson's no longer seek "liquidated damages" as a specific infringement,

( I can remember lots of activity with new clauses and terms being tapped over their parking signs just after this ruling, )

For everyone's information here are wilson's terms and conditions

http://www.wilsonparking.co.nz/index.cfm?objectid=482F4F07-C29E-198E-8CACB9293D182BE3#sec1

"IN THE EVENT THAT:

You are parked in a parking bay longer than the time stipulated and/or otherwise in breach of the above conditions, you agree you are parking unlawfully and without authority and we may issue a notice requiring you to pay within 21 days $30.00 costs of enforcing the conditions of this carpark."

I'm not sure how enforceable that clause is, but even if it is, in the case of the OP who has been sent a notice for $65, they would need to show where the other $35 comes from. The only place the $35 could come from is the fee for the parking that was not paid. I highly doubt that is $35 and there their notice is invalid and it breaches their own T&Cs.

Twitter: ajobbins

wellygary

2636 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 495

Reply # 750827 25-Jan-2013 15:46

ajobbins:

"IN THE EVENT THAT:
You are parked in a parking bay longer than the time stipulated and/or otherwise in breach of the above conditions, you agree you are parking unlawfully and without authority and we may issue a notice requiring you to pay within 21 days $30.00 costs of enforcing the conditions of this carpark."

I'm not sure how enforceable that clause is, but even if it is, in the case of the OP who has been sent a notice for $65, they would need to show where the other $35 comes from. The only place the $35 could come from is the fee for the parking that was not paid. I highly doubt that is $35 and there their notice is invalid and it breaches their own T&Cs.

You are in the wrong section ( that's for parks with a barrier arm) the Pay and Display clauses are at the Top

IN THE EVENT THAT:

Your vehicle does not display a current valid window pass or prepaid ticket so that the date and expiry time are clearly visible, you agree you are parked unlawfully and we may issue a breach notice ("the notice") requiring you to pay within 21 days, $65.00 costs of enforcing the conditions of this carpark.
You are issued a notice and you do not pay the sums specified therein within 21 days of date of issue of the notice, then we will send an additional reminder notice and you agree to pay the further sum of $20.00 to cover our administrative cost.

mattwnz

13230 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1564

Reply # 750830 25-Jan-2013 15:52

Still it comes down to the fact that the OP was more than willing to pay initially, but apparently the Wilsons system wouldn't let them, so they presumed that they aren't charged after a certain time in the evening. It is also possible the OP has made an error in the way they paid. So if it was taken to the DT, them would probably be the defense the OP would make. Maybe they should ask Wilsons exactly how they are supposed to pay in the situation they were in, because to make a special trip back to the car after 6 to buy another ticket wouldn't be a reasonable solution, as it takes away the convenience of parking in the first place.

The question is though, will they send it to the collection agency if is it a disputed account? If they do, are they going to tell the collection agency that it is disputed, because they should and collection agencies require you to tell them if the amount is disputed.

The fact is that as it is disputed, the DT is the place this should be taken by the parking company, as that is why we have the DT.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user

Reply # 750832 25-Jan-2013 15:53

mattwnz: Still it comes down to the fact that the OP was more than willing to pay initially, but the Wilsons system wouldn't let them, so they presumed that they aren't charged after a certain time in the evening. So if it was taken to the DT, them would probably be the defense the OP would make. Maybe they should ask wilsons exactly how they are supposed to pay in the situation they were in, because to make a special trip back to the car after 6 to buy another ticket wouldn't be a reasonable solution, as it takes away the convenience of parking in the first place.

I agree.
I'm not familiar with this parking, but surely there are boom gates on the way out? And at worst one would get charged when leaving?

Archer77

130 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 5

Reply # 750833 25-Jan-2013 15:53

^ Agree completely. Benefit of $30 (after $35 DT unrecoverable fee) is not worth going to DT for though, in my opnion.

networkn

14676 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3693

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 750840 25-Jan-2013 16:01

Honestly though I thought it unlikely I thought I'd see if anyone knew of a way to have a real person consider my perspective from the Wilson Car Parking company (I know tournament have posted here in the past), as I feel I am trying to be reasonable, but like you say, it's probably not worth the fight.

muppet

1849 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 597

Trusted

Reply # 750842 25-Jan-2013 16:05

I've condensed my detailed reply to save reading time:

<my opinion, which is 100% guesswork, and won't help you resolve it>

Hope this helps!

mattwnz

13230 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1564

Reply # 750844 25-Jan-2013 16:07

Not a fan of pay and display anyway, as you always have to pay more than you actually need, so they make more from it, and often you don't know how long you are going to be. Pay before you leave with barrier arms is what many now seem to use, so you only pay for what you use. The problem with those are you have to remember to pay before you leave, otherwise you get into a problem if you get to the barrier arm without the paid ticket you need, and there is a queue behind you.

Who actually owns many of these large parking companies, I had heard that they were offshore owned.

Maybe the OP should just pay the amount that they would have paid, if the system allowed it, and dispute the rest. I would have thought that would be reasonable.

PDAMan

132 posts

Master Geek

Trusted

Reply # 750845 25-Jan-2013 16:08

I had a similar situation a year or so at the same place, a birthday party at Wildfire. I also couldn't get anyone to talk to me on the phone. I made it very clear in correspondence that I would be happy for them to take me to court and that I would fight it as a matter of principle. Eventually I got a letter back saying they wouldn't be taking it any further. I haven't parked there since, I now park on the viaduct if I an get a park. Much cheaper too.

Luigi
Helping companies with location based problem solving, blogs and social media
SolomoConsulting
Find me on LinkedIn
Blog http://luigicappel.wordpress.com
Check out my songwriting

mattwnz

13230 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1564

Reply # 750851 25-Jan-2013 16:13

http://www.cab.org.nz/vat/money/bd/Pages/Recoveryofdebts.aspx

Do I have to pay a bill if I'm disputing it?

If you are disputing a bill and have already notified whoever is billing you, you should ask that the collection of the bill be put on hold until the dispute is settled. Make sure you receive written confirmation that the bill has been put on hold. Debts cannot be collected while they are in dispute, and debt collection action cannot be taken against you.

gzt

9079 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1249

Reply # 750853 25-Jan-2013 16:22

Edit: Deleted post. Imho Luigi is the winner here : - ).

mjb

922 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 21

Trusted

Reply # 750855 25-Jan-2013 16:31

networkn: but like you say, it's probably not worth the fight.

And that's exactly why they charge the unreasonable $65 - it's in the 'can't be assed' range, where people give up fighting it.

Great way to make money if you ask me, I should buy a building and start a parking business.

(So, seriously, you (and I mean everyone) should fight it if you legitimately feel that it's unreasonable. That way, it becomes uneconomical for them to continue this sort of thing)

contentsofsignaturemaysettleduringshipping

mattwnz

13230 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1564

Reply # 750894 25-Jan-2013 17:25

mjb:
networkn: but like you say, it's probably not worth the fight.

And that's exactly why they charge the unreasonable $65 - it's in the 'can't be assed' range, where people give up fighting it.

Great way to make money if you ask me, I should buy a building and start a parking business.

(So, seriously, you (and I mean everyone) should fight it if you legitimately feel that it's unreasonable. That way, it becomes uneconomical for them to continue this sort of thing)

If you just dispute it, they have to take you to the disputes tribunal, they can't take it to a debt collection agency according to the CAB. Then they can only claim what they are owed, they can't add on the fee for the DT hearing. So they most they get back maybe around the $30 mark. The DT tribunal can go either way, and I think based on what the OP has said, with the machine not allowing them to pay for longer, that just paying them for the overage should be fair compensation to them. I mean from what the OP has said, it does appear to be a problem with their machines.

The thing is though, make sure that if they don't take it to the DT, that you make sure that you have a zero balance from them and get that in writing.

gregmcc

1433 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 255

Subscriber

Reply # 750895 25-Jan-2013 17:31

Send them a cheque for $14 the maximum they could have possibly lost, enclose a letter explaining this fact and that any amount over and above that will be considered in dispute.

The main fact here seems to be a problem with their machine not working correctly, so $14 is more than generous

SaltyNZ

3979 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1539

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 750896 25-Jan-2013 17:32

I would go to the disputes tribunal just to annoy them. Their entire operation is structured such that you won't be bothered 'wasting your time' fighting them, so they make on you (as someone else mentioned above, pay & display is a rort because it basically forces you to overpay). My opinion of parking and towing companies is that they are all --libelous verbiage redacted--.

Edit - oh, and I should add, at the least they will have to send someone out to defend themselves. You get a small revenge just by having to disrupt that person's day.

//Wow I'm in a good mood today, aren't I?

iPad Air + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5