PSENZ parking "infringement"

Forums › Off topic › PSENZ parking "infringement"

Lizard1977

2061 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#318333 7-Jan-2025 19:24

When I was down in Wellington just before Christmas, I parked in a Wilson parking building on Willis Street. I was in a bit of a rush and the information board at the entrance was quite small and hard to read as I pulled in. But it was a "licence plate" type parking building, so I just assumed it was one of those "pay as you leave" situations. But when I came back to leave, and went to the payment machine, it was a "pay in advance" type machine. There was no ability to pay retrospectively, and I worried that if I paid for the time I had been there as a "future" time period that I would still be pinged for not paying (and effectively be hit twice). I decided to take a chance (as I was pretty sure that I had revoked access to my details in the NZTA vehicle licence database) and drove out. Just to be on the safe side, as soon as I got home, I revoked access to my details for my car.

But today I received a letter from Parking Enforcement Services with a "breach notice" for $85. Somehow, they had my details (I'm very curious as to how).

In the past, when I've received a notice for a parking "infringement" for a private parking place like Wilson (which hasn't been for quite a while), I have objected to the breach notice - but that's been because I have actually paid for parking but they've issued a notice in error. The last time I received such a notice I objected but they refused to accept it. I didn't pay the demand but despite threats to send the demand to Baycorp they never followed through. This wasn't a complete surprise - there is a website out there detailing the lack of legal basis to demand these "fines" beyond the foregone cost of the parking charge. To be on the safe side, I've avoided parking in that carpark ever since.

So my question is: what should I do here? Ignore it, or just pay the $85? It's true that I didn't pay for the parking (and I was quite happy to pay for it on the day, but not happy to pay twice) so I can't really contest the notice. I would quite happily pay the $18 now. I would even accept a small penalty for not paying on the day (say $5). But $85 is a bit much.

If I ignore the notice, are they actually likely to send it to debt collection? Or is there a better approach?

1 | 2

13465 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#3328839 7-Jan-2025 19:30

You do realise that "revoked access to my details in the NZTA vehicle licence database" doesn't stop some people/organisations seeing your details, "Some authorised users will still have access to your name and address, even after you have opted out. Access to opted out information is granted in limited circumstances where NZTA has determined that this access is permitted under the Official Information Act in specific circumstances, as per section 237(2)(d) of the LTA."

timmmay

20589 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3328844 7-Jan-2025 19:37

If you want an easy, stress free life, just pay it. If you want to argue with people who argue for a living you could object and end up in small claims.

rscole86

4977 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3328869 7-Jan-2025 20:13

Did you follow the advice from your last thread on the matter?

https://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=162&topicid=286087

Lizard1977

2061 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#3328879 7-Jan-2025 20:57

Wow, that was three years ago! That never amounted to anything, but then I have stayed out of that carpark ever since. I've also since sold the car that was involved, so it's more or less a dead issue.

The situation here is also slightly different. In the previous incident, I did pay (albeit late, via the app, and with a token amount to acknowledge the lateness), whereas here I haven't paid. As I said, I am happy to pay what I was supposed to pay. I'll even pay a penalty. I just dispute the amount of the penalty as being disproportionate.

I've taken another look at the advice on the MoneyHub website and they appear to have walked back from their previous stance, in part due to case law about penalty charges. They note that Government advice affirms that private companies have the right to take action when parking goes against the agreed terms and conditions. In this case, I don't think I can argue that I complied with the terms and conditions (however confusing and opaque they may be), so I suspect I may just have to suck it up this time.

johno1234

2812 posts

Uber Geek

#3328886 7-Jan-2025 21:27

The law is the law and a company cannot contract out of the law. Wilson parking cannot fine anybody and if you have wronged them they can only recover their losses. I’ve personally got myself or friends off three off their bogus so-called tickets.

SomeoneSomewhere

1804 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3328895 7-Jan-2025 22:29

I believe there have been changes in case law on this that imply Wilsons can charge a reasonable penalty (such as the $85 ticket) to deter evasion.

See this post: https://old.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/12sjwjo/how_to_beat_a_parking_ticket_101/?limit=500

But payments for damages have to match the actual loss to the company?

Not any more. The law changed in 2019 as the Supreme Court ruled in Honey Bees that it's OK to charge a fee in excess of the actual loss in order to deter customers from breaking the rules.

No comment on the legal accuracy of this.

It appears the advice is still to dispute the debt with the collector and hope it's not worth their time to take you to Disputes Tribunal over it.

Wheelbarrow01

1726 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Chorus

#3328956 8-Jan-2025 01:03

That's really interesting that they were able to track you down despite your details being revoked. Have you had a previous infringement notice issued by them for this vehicle after which they may simply have kept your details on file?

A few years ago, my wife got an "infringement" notice from PESNZ on her windshield after short paying at a Wilsons facility. Her details were not revoked at the time so she received a reminder/demand letter in the mailbox. She subsequently paid it, but afterwards we revoked her details with LTSA.

A few months later she got another infringement notice on her windshield from the same carpark. I told her to ignore it until the reminder/demand notice arrived in the mail. I figured that even if they could no longer look her newly revoked details up, they would surely have saved her name and contact details from the first demand letter a few months earlier. But no, she never paid it and never received a follow up demand letter in the post.

So the OP's situation is interesting. I do wonder if maybe Wilsons/PESNZ is perhaps managing a parking building that is actually owned by Wellington City Council? If that were the case, then it's possible that WCC passed the ownership details on to Wilsons/PESNZ (councils DO have access to revoked details AFAIK but whether they can legitimately share that information with a 3rd party is another matter...)

It has always been my understanding that if your details are revoked, the only parties that can routinely access those details are statutory organisations - such as Police, LTSA/NZTA, WOF inspectors, AA/VTNZ/VINZ etc and city councils. Private companies such as PESNZ (a division of, and owned by Wilsons btw) do not have open access. Not even insurers, finance companies or motor vehicle traders can access revoked information, but they may be able to make an Official Information Act request to get one-time access for a specific purpose. I am unsure how the OIA could possibly be used in a parking scenario though...

You can request NZTA to provide the name of any person to whom your details have been provided under section 241 of the Land Transport Act 1998, the Official Information Act 1982 or under the Privacy Act 2020, and the purpose for which your information was disclosed - details here. At least then you might be able to ascertain if and/or how Wilsons/PESNZ managed to access your details.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

SomeoneSomewhere

1804 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3328958 8-Jan-2025 01:24

OIA request from the reddit post:

I am not sure if this is still the situation.

MarkM536

309 posts

Ultimate Geek

#3328959 8-Jan-2025 01:30

Wheelbarrow01:

So the OP's situation is interesting. I do wonder if maybe Wilsons/PESNZ is perhaps managing a parking building that is actually owned by Wellington City Council? If that were the case, then it's possible that WCC passed the ownership details on to Wilsons/PESNZ (councils DO have access to revoked details AFAIK but whether they can legitimately share that information with a 3rd party is another matter...)

It has always been my understanding that if your details are revoked, the only parties that can routinely access those details are statutory organisations - such as Police, LTSA/NZTA, WOF inspectors, AA/VTNZ/VINZ etc and city councils. Private companies such as PESNZ (a division of, and owned by Wilsons btw) do not have open access. Not even insurers, finance companies or motor vehicle traders can access revoked information, but they may be able to make an Official Information Act request to get one-time access for a specific purpose. I am unsure how the OIA could possibly be used in a parking scenario though...

You can request NZTA to provide the name of any person to whom your details have been provided under section 241 of the Land Transport Act 1998, the Official Information Act 1982 or under the Privacy Act 2020, and the purpose for which your information was disclosed - details here. At least then you might be able to ascertain if and/or how Wilsons/PESNZ managed to access your details.

If they kept their details on record from the previous time, is that a breach of PESNZ terms of access to the LTSA database?

Lizard1977

2061 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#3328984 8-Jan-2025 08:37

I've only had this vehicle for the past 8 months and managed to keep my nose clean, so there's no prior connection that PSENZ could draw on. My last parking interaction with Wilson was back in 2021, in a different car when I was living at a different address, so they have definitely got access to the latest contact details.

Lizard1977

2061 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#3328987 8-Jan-2025 08:46

Just reading through the Reddit post. Interestingly, there was a comment from someone who described the exact same situation as me. They offered to pay the parking fee they intended to pay, and Wilsons accepted it. No guarantee they will in my case, but I think I'll write to them, explain the breach notice is in dispute (to pause the debt collection threat), and offer to make a reasonable payment for the parking.

Andib

1364 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#3328988 8-Jan-2025 08:53

Lizard1977:

I've only had this vehicle for the past 8 months and managed to keep my nose clean, so there's no prior connection that PSENZ could draw on. My last parking interaction with Wilson was back in 2021, in a different car when I was living at a different address, so they have definitely got access to the latest contact details.

As SomeoneSomewhere posted, Wilsons (PSENZ) still have have access to the database even though you have revoked access.
This loophole was pretty quickly closed once it became "common knowledge" you could use this to avoid paying fines.

<#
.DISCLAIMER
Anything I post is my own and not the views of my past/present/future employer.
#>

mudguard

2120 posts

Uber Geek

#3328992 8-Jan-2025 09:00

Slightly off topic, but if you revoke access, what do finance companies see, only if a PPSR has been registered against the vehicle?
I assume it will say which company loaded it?

johno1234

2812 posts

Uber Geek

#3328994 8-Jan-2025 09:12

Lizard1977:

Just reading through the Reddit post. Interestingly, there was a comment from someone who described the exact same situation as me. They offered to pay the parking fee they intended to pay, and Wilsons accepted it. No guarantee they will in my case, but I think I'll write to them, explain the breach notice is in dispute (to pause the debt collection threat), and offer to make a reasonable payment for the parking.

Good plan.

My personal experience over three successfully defended notices is that PSENZ declines my offer until I have sent them about 3 emails. They then give up and say "they could take me to the DT where they always win, but in this case they will do me a great favour by waiving the notice" or similar.

It is my opinion that they have a company policy to lie in order to maximise revenue and that under NZ law they really don't have any ability to level fines or penalties. They can only recover their loss.

SomeoneSomewhere

1804 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3329057 8-Jan-2025 12:44

johno1234:

Lizard1977:

Just reading through the Reddit post. Interestingly, there was a comment from someone who described the exact same situation as me. They offered to pay the parking fee they intended to pay, and Wilsons accepted it. No guarantee they will in my case, but I think I'll write to them, explain the breach notice is in dispute (to pause the debt collection threat), and offer to make a reasonable payment for the parking.

Good plan.

My personal experience over three successfully defended notices is that PSENZ declines my offer until I have sent them about 3 emails. They then give up and say "they could take me to the DT where they always win, but in this case they will do me a great favour by waiving the notice" or similar.

It is my opinion that they have a company policy to lie in order to maximise revenue and that under NZ law they really don't have any ability to level fines or penalties. They can only recover their loss.

I don't believe it is so much that they cannot collect a penalty (see the suggestion that there's a supreme court case that changed this), but that filing fees for DT are more-or-less the same as the penalty they collect, along with having to pay someone to actually go to DT.

1 | 2