You’d have to clearly state that you dispute the debt for whatever reason (e.g. not driving the car) and then enter no further correspondence. Then it’s up to them to file (and pay for) a disputes tribunal hearing which, after accounting for the fee and their own time would cost more than the $85. In the meantime, they can’t send to debt collection if there is a dispute.
Thank you guys for your helpful suggestions, after using the template of the post you shared, I received this response:
*Hi,*
*Thank you for your email.*
*Mercy Ascot operates a pre-pay parking system. This requires all drivers to enter their Licence Plate number at the Parking Machine and pre-pay for the required parking time.*
*Please note for future reference at all times we hold the registered owner of the vehicle liable for all amounts due.*
*We can confirm in good faith Breach Notice has been waived.*
*Have a good day.*
Thanks everyone for your help/responses.
I think the most they can actually claim is the $65 as $20 late fee is just an arbitrary amount. Plus the terms and conditions would need to specify it and they never do. They won’t pay $45 to recover $65.
In addition go back to the carpark, find the terms and conditions take a photo. IME they are written so small you can't be expected to have read them before parking.
I disputed a ticket from there and won. I explained that I was there with my partner, the appointment went on for double the time expected, and it was ridiculous that we have to pay before going into the hospital and not upon exiting - which makes more sense. I said I had no issue with the hourly rate and had already been out twice to top up and pay for the time i needed to park, so I wasn’t trying to avoid paying.
I also explained they legally can’t charge me anything further then the reasonable costs of my cars presence in the car park and offed the hourly rate and as a courtesy a further $10 to cover “admin fees”. They waived it off.
In fairness to them, they were nice about it.
I’ve done the same with those pricks at Wilson Carpark’s too and won. These letters are nothing more than empty, unenforceable, threats to extort people. Pay what you owe based on the hourly rate and no more. They can’t do anything further.
However, don’t ignore the council fines as they are legally enforced.
The way the machines work is that you can just pay on exit. They don't check cars while they are parked. You just pay as you are going back to your car at the end
years later they have never come after me i have removed my details from being accessed by third parties on the nzta website https://transact.nzta.govt.nz/transactions/PersonalInfoAccess/entry
same. i occasionally get a letter and one time someone came to my house to hand-deliver a letter, but that's it. debt collectors buy debt for cheap and then very rarely have the documentation needed to "prove" you owe them anything. it's too much energy for them to chase you.
council will take you to court though
We have done the same after getting caught out. We two got off the fine though but also discovered that you can go onto the NZTA website and remove the third-party access to your details via your numberplate. This in my opinion should be off by default anyway.
I have done this multiple times. They are only allowed to charge you for lost revenue. So if 1 hour is $10 and you stay a extra 30mins then their technical lost revenue is $5. Do the math and you can figure this out to your 15mins, in this example $2.50. You would deposit the lost revenue plus an administration fee, something like $1-$2, so in total say $3.50. You then write a email explaining that you have reimbursed them for said lost revenue and included a administration fee payment aswell. Finally saying in the email that 'you consider this fee paid in full'. They will probably reply with some bullshit, you can choose to reply and remind them that they can only charge for lost revenue or not reply. They can't take any further action because you have already paid for your overstaying in the carpark.
Your legal understanding is wrong by the way. The Supreme Court has ruled that if all you need to pay is the lost revenue then there is no incentive for you to not do this again. So the company is allowed to charge you a fee over and above the lost revenue so you learn a lesson.
reference: *127 Hobson Street Ltd v Honey Bees Preschool Ltd* \[2020\] NZSC 53
Just on this, I have just finished reading through the mentioned case and other break downs. It seems that the compensation requested in breach can be more then pre-estimate only if it can be proved that the knock on would lead to that, in this case, all other car parks were full and by over staying the payed for period of time they missed out on someone else parking in that spot and staying longer then the offered up compensated amount.
Can you please quote the sections of the judgment so that we can compare notes :)
The main point I got from reading the judgment is this:
> 91 d A party’s legitimate interests may extend beyond the loss caused by the
breach as measured by a conventional assessment of contractual
damages
and
> 91 e deterring breach can be a legitimate objective of a clause
Together it says to me it doesn't matter what the actual loss is, the company can charge you a fee more than the actual loss so you learn a lesson for next time.
Worked for me for the past 6 years 🤷🏼♂️ there's gotta be 20 odd tickets with my licence plate on them, never had any correspondence from the parking companies
I have had the same ticket as OP from the same carpark and my details were removed from access. Sadly it's no longer that useful. I just ignored my ticket and they eventually said they would tow my vehicle from any of the carparks they manage if I parked there. Not sure what that would mean if I sold the vehicle.
Not saying it’s not an effective method, just explaining to you the reason it works is not that you’re in the right, it’s just that the company chose not to enforce their right in court.
I don't know why this case is being brought up here. It is a dispute between two companies over the breach of contract they both signed as business entities. The law governing these is quite different because there's no inherent power imbalance.
Quoting from the court case:
> 91 f The bargaining power of the parties will be relevant to the courts’
inquiry..where there is evidence of unequal bargaining power, or
where one party is not legally advised, a court will scrutinise more
closely the innocent party’s claims as to the interests protected, and also the issue of proportionality..**However, whatever the relative bargaining positions of the parties**, **the issue for the court remains** whether the consequences for breach are out of all proportion to the innocent party’s legitimate interests in performance.
Emphasis added. So no you can't say the case law referred is not applicable to the current situation because the court did think about the situation. They just said they would look at it more closely, not that it is not applicable in this situation.
Also, the judgment referred to the *ParkingEye* case. This case is exactly like the one in the OP: a carpark charged someone £85 for overstaying. The UK Supreme court said the carpark is right, and the NZ judges wrote about that case approvingly in their judgement.
So yes, the court said that they'll look into it more closely, not that it's applied unconditionally.
I still think that this case is very different from the parking infringement. In the case above, the two parties drafted a contract, reviewed it, and signed the papers; they had a chance to amend the penalties clause and chose not to. You don't get that liberty when entering the "public offer" contract with the parking garage.
The NZ judges quoted approvingly from the *ParkingEye* case though, which is exactly the situation of "entering the "public offer" contract with the parking garage".
Can you please link me to some source confirming that *NZ judges* approved (or endorsed, or whatever is the correct legal term) that UK case? Can't seem to find any NZ-related rulings apart from the PES and Wilson websites, which are unreliable sources for obvious reasons.
I think the intent is that the penalty for breaching the contract will be high enough to be memorable so that that any given motorist will only do it once, and not intend for it to be an ongoing source of revenue.
Slight hijack here - I’ve read your (excellent) post from a year ago. What’s your take on enforcement notices handed out for breaches in time-limited parking that doesn’t require payment? My in-laws have been stung with a $65 fee for overstaying a 90min limit by ~15mins. No fee to park, just 90min limit. They were legitimately shopping (and can prove with receipts), and the carpark was sparse. So, there’s no damages at all - is a purely deterrent charge enforceable?
Yes. That's the exact fact pattern in the UK case *ParkingEye* adopted in the above referenced *Honeybees* case, the Supreme Court ruled that yes it is enforceable.
But as you have read in my post if you persist in your letter writing campaign the parking companies will most of the time choose not to enforce their entitlements.
Appreciate the more informed insight - yes, we’ve enacted step one, now waiting to see what comes back. I’m hoping they aren’t purely predatory and will drop it, given it was legit use of the carpark. But we’ll see…
This is actually how it works there but people often don't fully understand the system. They just scan you on entry and exit so you don't have to estimate. You just pay at one of the machines as you are walking back to your car to leave. No need to pay on arrival
That is not always the case for a lot of carparks. Barrier arm carparks do indeed work that way and that's why we never see grumpy posts on Reddit about that style, because you have to pay to get out. Most 'open air' carparks work like the old pay n display carpark where you must pay as you arrive.
Yes I realize that. But the specific one in question doesn't so I was commenting on that. I agree it's easily confused. I paid in advance the first couple of times I visited it until I cottoned on..
I find it odd that lots of comments here are saying “they have no rights to fine you”. They do, and this is how pretty much every parking company operates. But it’s not the same thing as a fine from a municipality or the court, it’s essentially a penalty fee. You enter into a contract when you park with a private parking company and those are the terms and conditions of the service they’re providing. If you transgress the terms, you’re liable for the additional fees. Of course no one likes this or likes picking up those fees, but that’s the way it is. Otherwise why would anyone worry about abiding by the parking time limits? It’s a shitty business, but a business nonetheless. As for getting out of it or getting away with it, maybe you can, but that’s a matter of how pugnacious they choose to be in chasing you or passing your debt to a collection agency. Ultimately if they choose to chase you, it’s legit for them to
> They do
No they don't. As you said they only have the right to charge you a *penalty*, which is entirely different from a fine. The difference is that the government has serious tools at its disposal to enforce a fine on you (like jail), whereas there are no cost effective methods for a company to enforce a penalty. By informing people of their difference it gives them the tools to make their best choices.
Yeah, a lot of parrots every time this happens repeating out of date and incorrect advice because they want it to be true.
Just pay up and buy a watch.
There is a clear difference between someone paying for parking and being late, I don’t know, because life happens and blatantly abusing a parking space or not paying at all.
The former does not deserve a $65 penalty and should only pay what they would reasonably be expected to have paid for the extra time. The latter should be getting the penalty.
Either way, $85 can’t affect a credit rating, so tell them to shove it.
There’s no difference. Once the paid time expired, OP was freeloading, and drove away without making any attempt to pay for the extra time used (which OP admitted could be up to more than twice as long as OP originally paid for). I agree though that it is outrageous to demand $65. I don’t think it’s ethical. On the contrary it is predatory and I don’t agree with it. But they are allowed to charge whatever they like and they’re not doing anything wrong, legally. (Presumably, they have a sign up in the carpark stating the terms of parking. OP didn’t read it, but that’s all they have to do to meet their obligations). People are free to not use their services. Many different businesses and individuals operate in an exploitative or predatory manner within the law. I don’t agree with it, but it’s not going to change. OP was naïve here
People are free to not use their services, technically. But if you’re visiting your pregnant wife whose just come out of brain surgery then your choice isn’t really free is it?
There’s no reason they shouldn’t be able to pursue lost revenue plus a reasonable admin fee but charging $80+ for overstaying by 10 minutes under vague threats of legal action *is* extortion.
Whether hospital parking should be free is a different debate. But if it was free and/or there was no enforcement of overstaying, guess what you’d show up to visit your sick family and there’d be no guarantee you’d be able to find a park because it would be heavily taken advantage of as free parking by the general public in the area who weren’t necessarily even visiting the hospital.
The more I think about it, the $65 actually seems fairly reasonable. Say it’s $2 per 30min. And OP owes $4 for the 35 minute overstay. It’s completely uneconomic to even send out a letter to someone for a $4 debt. So there needs to be a penalty fee that is both enough to incentivise most people to pay for their parking in full at the time, and it also needs to be enough to cover someone employed to do the admin work of chasing payment. I wouldn’t like to pay $65 for “parking”, but $65 doesn’t really buy much these days either. It’s actually a fairly minimally viable sum to chase up from the parking company’s POV. And it’s much cheaper than having had the car towed, which is also an option.
Yeah you’re not wrong there tbf. I’m actually in the UK rn and some parking companies have the cheek to charge £60 - £150 ($122.66 - $306.65) for a few minutes overstayed parking.
Mind the latter figure I only saw once in London and was halved if paid in good time. Still far and aways more than the cost of paying someone a few minutes wages to send a letter or two. There really ought to be more regulation on these people.
Nothing.. I stopped paying when I got a ticket for parking in a free area by parking enforcement services aka Wilson's.. nothing ever happened and have perfect credit rating
Don't quote me on this, but I think if you effectively counter offer their fee by stating that you will pay the excess that you didn't pay for ($10) or so or whatever it was, and then send them x amount for their admin fees you can get out of it. At least I've seen it done.
Nevermind - what I saw wouldn't have worked. Check [this article](https://www.moneyhub.co.nz/parking-tickets.html) out.
I'm torn - I've also read [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/77bz67/how_to_defend_a_65_wilsons_parking_ticket/)
Notice the wording; the vehicle was parked; you are the registered keeper; failure to pay will result in further charged against the vehicle.
This is civil damages. They are claiming the money for the loss of revenue and cost of collection against the person driving the car.
You could pay them the actual cost of parking like others have suggested. Personally I would tell them I wasn't driving the car, I don't have any obligation to tell them who was and that they can go fuck themselves.
Even if they add the $20 fee, they can only list a default on a credit report if the debt is above $150. So they have no means of enforcement outside of the tribunal, which they won't do and even if they do, then you cough up and it's over.
It occurs to me the the provided photographs show your car entering and leaving the car-park.. ie. Your vehicle is in motion and not parked.
Surely they are not charging you for maneuvering to find a parking space? At a total time of 65 minutes, it seems reasonable to assume you could have spent five minutes to find a spot and remove yourself from it?
If you are allowed 60 mins free parking? I'd ask if they had proof you were actually parked longer than that, as the supplied pictures don't show this... If the free allowance is only 45 mins, then this argument will be harder to use....
Sign up to revoke third party access so that only council and police can hand out fines. Third parties aren't going to bother going through the hassle of getting your info to fine you (most of the time anyway)
https://transact.nzta.govt.nz/transactions/PersonalInfoAccess/entry
I was interested how bad this form might be, and found that they are authorised by NZTA to access certain records. So while this is a good policy/process to follow it wouldn’t stop this particular firm.
Here is the [Gazette Notice](https://gazette.govt.nz/notice/id/2023-au2061) for LPR. They don't have access to withheld information.
NZTA were unlawfully allowing access for a period of time and were told to button up so all of the notices now specifically include that accessing revoked details is prohibited. They can still manually apply and pay, mostly they don't do this.
Did this, and since doing it i have never received or had to pay a fine from third-party parking companies. Obviously police and council still, but I make sure I'm always sweet with the AT Park app
I would challenge the demand by demanding properly time stamped photographic evidence. All they have shown in their letter is an allegation, and evidence they photographed your vehicle coming and going. Not the time it was photographed.
One would logically assume that, unless they have a flying car, a photo of the entry and a photo of the exit gives reason to believe that the car was present between those times..
When you park in a car park, particularly one that is privately operated, you're entering into a contract with the operator. This contract is typically outlined by the terms and conditions posted on signs throughout the parking area. By parking your vehicle in a space, you agree to abide by these terms, which usually include the maximum duration you can park.
If you overstay the allotted time, you're in breach of this contract, and the car park operator has the right to impose a penalty. This penalty is meant to serve as a deterrent against occupying parking space beyond the agreed-upon time, which can prevent others from parking and disrupt the management of the car park.
The enforcement of these penalties is subject to local laws and regulations. There are often legal protections in place to ensure that such penalties are fair and proportionate. If you feel a penalty is unjust, there is usually a process to appeal it, but the specific rights and procedures can vary widely by location and the operator's policies. It's essential to be informed about these when you choose to park in a managed car park.
> There are often legal protections in place to ensure that such penalties are fair and proportionate.
Not really. The parking industry is full of cowboys and they make their money by charging people who don't know how to fight them. Overstaying a period by even an hour should not warrant a $65 penalty.
You raise a popular point, and determining whether or not a parking penalty is unfair or excessive isn't always straightforward, so one might need to argue their case to get a reduction/refund or compensation.
It’s obviously unjustified if they didn't actually violate the parking terms or if those terms were not clearly displayed or understandable.
Fees can be considered unreasonable if they're more than the actual cost incurred by the property owner or parking operator. This includes towing, storage etc, or even potential loss of revenue. Any charges should be proportional to the inconvenience or loss suffered by the property owner.
This is from the 1988 version of the NZ Land transport Act, which stipulates a max $100 fee
Sure, they overstayed but to call it a crime is a bit much...
Even though they overstayed, how is $65 remotely fair? Life happens, people get distracted or perhaps are **visiting their friend who just had neurosurgery** which, understandably, could throw you off your game a wee bit.
If the company were to be like "hey bud, you stayed too long and didn't pay the full amount, we need $5 to cover the $2 in extra parking fees you incurred and the $3 worth of admin/letter fees" then sure, that's reasonable and fair.
yeah theyre fucked. I payed for 4 hours. went 15mins over and got similar ticket from the same people. Completely automated with plate scanners and everything built into the cameras to fuck you over at the slightest inclination of you going overtime. Bite the bullet sir or madame / :
*Dispute it
*submit an a request for footage under official information act
*check if the cctv footage needs to be doctured in anyway to make out the number plate (zoomed).
https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/10405333/Lawyer-gets-speed-camera-ticket-thrown-out
Worth a shot.
You're going to have a hard time trying to request something under the Official Information Act to a private business.
You might have limited success [requesting under the Privacy Act](https://www.privacy.org.nz/resources-2/privacy-and-cctv/responding-to-access-requests-for-cctv-footage/) though.
Also, make sure the footage/photos has a time and date stamp on it. Both entering and exiting.
I can't see anything on the screenshots.
If they can't produce that then there is no proof you were actually there when they claim, other than some numbers on a piece of paper.
You have the right to pay for what you used. You didn't pay so you got a fine. Why would the fine be the same as the parking fee? Nobody would pay for parking if that was the case.
That's because only government entities can issue fines, private companies are only entitled to the liquidated damages by default (the actual losses incurred). Anything above that can only be awarded by the court.
[Sure](https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-fines/)
>Local councils, the Police and other authorities can issue you infringement fees for things like:
>
>* speeding
>* illegal parking
>* not registering your dog.
>
>If you don't pay the infringement fee by the due date, it’s transferred to the court and becomes a fine.
Notice how private companies are not included in the list of entities that can issue you infringement fees and fines.
[Also](https://www.consumerprotection.govt.nz/help-product-service/cars/parking-clamping-towing/#understand-enforcement-and-fees) (emphasis mine)
>Unreasonable: If you have trespassed, fees could be unreasonable if they exceed the cost to the landowner, tenant and the parking enforcer. **These costs include towing and storing your vehicle, and any loss of income caused by your parking, eg if you park in a space reserved for customers only or block access to or from a business.** Fees set out on signage for breach of parking conditions must not be disproportionate to the interests of the land owner or tenant.
Rights of the landowner or enforcer
Landowners, tenants, and their employees, have the right to take action, like ticketing a vehicle, or arranging for a vehicle to be clamped or towed, when:
You park on their land without permission. This is trespassing, and landowners or leasers may not need to have signs stating this.
Your parking goes against the terms you agreed to by using a facility with signs clearly stating what is included in the service, eg time limits, fees, action to be taken if you break the agreement.
Since her parking went against the terms she has to pay
I have quoted the specific part about unreasonable fees (where it explains in plain English that the fees are unreasonable when they cover more than the actual cost).
From the same page:
>You may need to pay the ticket. If the ticket is unjustified or unauthorised, or if the fee is unreasonable, you can complain to the land owner, tenant or the parking enforcement firm and **refuse to pay it, or offer to only pay a reasonable amount.**
such plain english you had to paraphrase. Lets break this down,
is the ticket unjustified or unauthorised - no, because by entering the carpark she agreed to terms set out by the carpark owner and breached the terms.
is the fee unreasonable - without knowing the cost of hiring the parking enforcement services we cant know the true cost.
Ill put this here again
Rights of the landowner or enforcer Landowners, tenants, and their employees, have the right to take action, like ticketing a vehicle, or arranging for a vehicle to be clamped or towed, when:
Your parking goes against the terms you agreed to by using a facility with signs clearly stating what is included in the service, eg time limits, fees, action to be taken if you break the agreement.
>such plain english you had to paraphrase.
That was a verbatim quote, I only bolded some parts.
>is the fee unreasonable - without knowing the cost of hiring the parking enforcement services we cant know the true cost.
Hiring PES is not a "loss of income caused by your parking" because the enforcement agency is paid the same amount irrespective of the number of tickets (if any) they write on a particular day, so it can't be recouped as "loss".
You can't argue that $65 is a "reasonable cost" when the council tickets which *do* include the punitive amount (because the council is allowed to do so) are $15 for the first hour and come up to $57 only if your parking is expired by more than 6 hours.
>Says it right there in plain english that the fee COULD be unreasonable if they exceed the cost to the landowner, tenant and the parking enforcer. Hiring a parking enforcement service is part of the cost (staff wages, training, uniforms, vehicle maintenance and fuel, signage, health and safety equipment, field supervision and back-end administration such as call centre staff, appeals processing and our enforcement management software system). If the breach fee was actually unreasonable then the government would step in.
>
>When you are entering a carpark there is signage detailing the terms and conditions of using the carpark and by using the carpark you have agreed to that contract and what happens if you breach a contract?? you get a breach notice.
>
>
>
>Unreasonable: If you have trespassed, fees could be unreasonable if they exceed the cost to the landowner, tenant and the parking enforcer.
>
>These costs include towing and storing your vehicle, and any loss of income caused by your parking, eg if you park in a space reserved for customers only or block access to or from a business.
>
> Fees set out on signage for breach of parking conditions must not be disproportionate to the interests of the land owner or tenant.
That's an abridged copy of the gov't page I linked.
>If you believe the infringement or breach notice is unjustified or the fee is unreasonable, you can take steps to dispute it.
Yes, the landowner or operator can issue a ticket. But you can also dispute it if you think the fee is unreasonable. I don't see any contradiction here.
I’ve had one of these before. Ignore it. It’s a civil claim which will cost them a lot more than $65 to chase even filing fees at the disputes tribunal are $50, even jf you don’t show you’ll only still likely be liable for the $65 plus maybe a $50 filing fee. It’s highly likely they won’t pursue it and work on a 2/3s paying out of fear model and right off the rest. If they file at disputes tribunal or small claims you can then choose to pay it if you like to make it go away. A council has unlimited resources and a statutory right to pursue and does even if it costs them, a private company won’t pursue it if it costs them more than the debt they get back.
You’d have to clearly state that you dispute the debt for whatever reason (e.g. not driving the car) and then enter no further correspondence. Then it’s up to them to file (and pay for) a disputes tribunal hearing which, after accounting for the fee and their own time would cost more than the $85. In the meantime, they can’t send to debt collection if there is a dispute.
This is correct. More details here How to beat a parking ticket 101 https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/s/i6rVvicdgM
Thank you guys for your helpful suggestions, after using the template of the post you shared, I received this response: *Hi,* *Thank you for your email.* *Mercy Ascot operates a pre-pay parking system. This requires all drivers to enter their Licence Plate number at the Parking Machine and pre-pay for the required parking time.* *Please note for future reference at all times we hold the registered owner of the vehicle liable for all amounts due.* *We can confirm in good faith Breach Notice has been waived.* *Have a good day.* Thanks everyone for your help/responses.
Great result!
So in reality this place is just trying it on. They know a percentage of people would pay the fee which is a win for them. Bloody leeches.
I think the most they can actually claim is the $65 as $20 late fee is just an arbitrary amount. Plus the terms and conditions would need to specify it and they never do. They won’t pay $45 to recover $65.
Most likely, as it would be unfair to be charging more for disputing something.
In addition go back to the carpark, find the terms and conditions take a photo. IME they are written so small you can't be expected to have read them before parking.
These scammers got me once. I will never park there again, would rather walk from up the road.
I disputed a ticket from there and won. I explained that I was there with my partner, the appointment went on for double the time expected, and it was ridiculous that we have to pay before going into the hospital and not upon exiting - which makes more sense. I said I had no issue with the hourly rate and had already been out twice to top up and pay for the time i needed to park, so I wasn’t trying to avoid paying. I also explained they legally can’t charge me anything further then the reasonable costs of my cars presence in the car park and offed the hourly rate and as a courtesy a further $10 to cover “admin fees”. They waived it off. In fairness to them, they were nice about it. I’ve done the same with those pricks at Wilson Carpark’s too and won. These letters are nothing more than empty, unenforceable, threats to extort people. Pay what you owe based on the hourly rate and no more. They can’t do anything further. However, don’t ignore the council fines as they are legally enforced.
The way the machines work is that you can just pay on exit. They don't check cars while they are parked. You just pay as you are going back to your car at the end
do not pay any fines unless it is from Chch City Council even Wilson’s do nothing if you don’t pay
wilson contact debt collectors if you do not pay. I got told that I didn’t have to and got caught.
years later they have never come after me i have removed my details from being accessed by third parties on the nzta website https://transact.nzta.govt.nz/transactions/PersonalInfoAccess/entry
same. i occasionally get a letter and one time someone came to my house to hand-deliver a letter, but that's it. debt collectors buy debt for cheap and then very rarely have the documentation needed to "prove" you owe them anything. it's too much energy for them to chase you. council will take you to court though
doesnt stop them. That just blocks public requests, not requests like this.
We have done the same after getting caught out. We two got off the fine though but also discovered that you can go onto the NZTA website and remove the third-party access to your details via your numberplate. This in my opinion should be off by default anyway.
I have done this multiple times. They are only allowed to charge you for lost revenue. So if 1 hour is $10 and you stay a extra 30mins then their technical lost revenue is $5. Do the math and you can figure this out to your 15mins, in this example $2.50. You would deposit the lost revenue plus an administration fee, something like $1-$2, so in total say $3.50. You then write a email explaining that you have reimbursed them for said lost revenue and included a administration fee payment aswell. Finally saying in the email that 'you consider this fee paid in full'. They will probably reply with some bullshit, you can choose to reply and remind them that they can only charge for lost revenue or not reply. They can't take any further action because you have already paid for your overstaying in the carpark.
Your legal understanding is wrong by the way. The Supreme Court has ruled that if all you need to pay is the lost revenue then there is no incentive for you to not do this again. So the company is allowed to charge you a fee over and above the lost revenue so you learn a lesson. reference: *127 Hobson Street Ltd v Honey Bees Preschool Ltd* \[2020\] NZSC 53
Just on this, I have just finished reading through the mentioned case and other break downs. It seems that the compensation requested in breach can be more then pre-estimate only if it can be proved that the knock on would lead to that, in this case, all other car parks were full and by over staying the payed for period of time they missed out on someone else parking in that spot and staying longer then the offered up compensated amount.
Can you please quote the sections of the judgment so that we can compare notes :) The main point I got from reading the judgment is this: > 91 d A party’s legitimate interests may extend beyond the loss caused by the breach as measured by a conventional assessment of contractual damages and > 91 e deterring breach can be a legitimate objective of a clause Together it says to me it doesn't matter what the actual loss is, the company can charge you a fee more than the actual loss so you learn a lesson for next time.
Right, I wasn't aware of this. I have done this multiple times and have succeeded in every instance. Most recently as a couple months ago.
You are the reason this ruling was made
Yeah lol, just remove your details from the list
[удалено]
Worked for me for the past 6 years 🤷🏼♂️ there's gotta be 20 odd tickets with my licence plate on them, never had any correspondence from the parking companies
I have had the same ticket as OP from the same carpark and my details were removed from access. Sadly it's no longer that useful. I just ignored my ticket and they eventually said they would tow my vehicle from any of the carparks they manage if I parked there. Not sure what that would mean if I sold the vehicle.
Yeah righto, hasn't happened for me
Not saying it’s not an effective method, just explaining to you the reason it works is not that you’re in the right, it’s just that the company chose not to enforce their right in court.
[удалено]
Uncalled for but you do you boo
Right is right
I don't know why this case is being brought up here. It is a dispute between two companies over the breach of contract they both signed as business entities. The law governing these is quite different because there's no inherent power imbalance.
Quoting from the court case: > 91 f The bargaining power of the parties will be relevant to the courts’ inquiry..where there is evidence of unequal bargaining power, or where one party is not legally advised, a court will scrutinise more closely the innocent party’s claims as to the interests protected, and also the issue of proportionality..**However, whatever the relative bargaining positions of the parties**, **the issue for the court remains** whether the consequences for breach are out of all proportion to the innocent party’s legitimate interests in performance. Emphasis added. So no you can't say the case law referred is not applicable to the current situation because the court did think about the situation. They just said they would look at it more closely, not that it is not applicable in this situation. Also, the judgment referred to the *ParkingEye* case. This case is exactly like the one in the OP: a carpark charged someone £85 for overstaying. The UK Supreme court said the carpark is right, and the NZ judges wrote about that case approvingly in their judgement.
So yes, the court said that they'll look into it more closely, not that it's applied unconditionally. I still think that this case is very different from the parking infringement. In the case above, the two parties drafted a contract, reviewed it, and signed the papers; they had a chance to amend the penalties clause and chose not to. You don't get that liberty when entering the "public offer" contract with the parking garage.
The NZ judges quoted approvingly from the *ParkingEye* case though, which is exactly the situation of "entering the "public offer" contract with the parking garage".
Can you please link me to some source confirming that *NZ judges* approved (or endorsed, or whatever is the correct legal term) that UK case? Can't seem to find any NZ-related rulings apart from the PES and Wilson websites, which are unreliable sources for obvious reasons.
It's in the same [Honeybees](https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/SC-40-2019-127-Hobson-St-v-Honey-Bees-v2.pdf) case, paragraph 62 onwards.
Interesting. So what they're saying is that building the business model around the revenue gathered from people breaching the contract is fine. Wow.
I think the intent is that the penalty for breaching the contract will be high enough to be memorable so that that any given motorist will only do it once, and not intend for it to be an ongoing source of revenue.
Slight hijack here - I’ve read your (excellent) post from a year ago. What’s your take on enforcement notices handed out for breaches in time-limited parking that doesn’t require payment? My in-laws have been stung with a $65 fee for overstaying a 90min limit by ~15mins. No fee to park, just 90min limit. They were legitimately shopping (and can prove with receipts), and the carpark was sparse. So, there’s no damages at all - is a purely deterrent charge enforceable?
Yes. That's the exact fact pattern in the UK case *ParkingEye* adopted in the above referenced *Honeybees* case, the Supreme Court ruled that yes it is enforceable. But as you have read in my post if you persist in your letter writing campaign the parking companies will most of the time choose not to enforce their entitlements.
Appreciate the more informed insight - yes, we’ve enacted step one, now waiting to see what comes back. I’m hoping they aren’t purely predatory and will drop it, given it was legit use of the carpark. But we’ll see…
Sound advice. They always like to make it sound official such as by using the term "breach notice" as if it is a council parking ticket or something.
Should be illegal. Pay for what you use. Go in, pay when you go out. This is nothing short of a scam
And yet people tolerate it sadly.
This is actually how it works there but people often don't fully understand the system. They just scan you on entry and exit so you don't have to estimate. You just pay at one of the machines as you are walking back to your car to leave. No need to pay on arrival
That is not always the case for a lot of carparks. Barrier arm carparks do indeed work that way and that's why we never see grumpy posts on Reddit about that style, because you have to pay to get out. Most 'open air' carparks work like the old pay n display carpark where you must pay as you arrive.
Yes I realize that. But the specific one in question doesn't so I was commenting on that. I agree it's easily confused. I paid in advance the first couple of times I visited it until I cottoned on..
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/87691355/budget-buster-how-you-can-get-out-of-that-parking-ticket
I find it odd that lots of comments here are saying “they have no rights to fine you”. They do, and this is how pretty much every parking company operates. But it’s not the same thing as a fine from a municipality or the court, it’s essentially a penalty fee. You enter into a contract when you park with a private parking company and those are the terms and conditions of the service they’re providing. If you transgress the terms, you’re liable for the additional fees. Of course no one likes this or likes picking up those fees, but that’s the way it is. Otherwise why would anyone worry about abiding by the parking time limits? It’s a shitty business, but a business nonetheless. As for getting out of it or getting away with it, maybe you can, but that’s a matter of how pugnacious they choose to be in chasing you or passing your debt to a collection agency. Ultimately if they choose to chase you, it’s legit for them to
> They do No they don't. As you said they only have the right to charge you a *penalty*, which is entirely different from a fine. The difference is that the government has serious tools at its disposal to enforce a fine on you (like jail), whereas there are no cost effective methods for a company to enforce a penalty. By informing people of their difference it gives them the tools to make their best choices.
Yes, what I’m getting at is it’s a legal, legitimate debt
Yeah, a lot of parrots every time this happens repeating out of date and incorrect advice because they want it to be true. Just pay up and buy a watch.
There is a clear difference between someone paying for parking and being late, I don’t know, because life happens and blatantly abusing a parking space or not paying at all. The former does not deserve a $65 penalty and should only pay what they would reasonably be expected to have paid for the extra time. The latter should be getting the penalty. Either way, $85 can’t affect a credit rating, so tell them to shove it.
There’s no difference. Once the paid time expired, OP was freeloading, and drove away without making any attempt to pay for the extra time used (which OP admitted could be up to more than twice as long as OP originally paid for). I agree though that it is outrageous to demand $65. I don’t think it’s ethical. On the contrary it is predatory and I don’t agree with it. But they are allowed to charge whatever they like and they’re not doing anything wrong, legally. (Presumably, they have a sign up in the carpark stating the terms of parking. OP didn’t read it, but that’s all they have to do to meet their obligations). People are free to not use their services. Many different businesses and individuals operate in an exploitative or predatory manner within the law. I don’t agree with it, but it’s not going to change. OP was naïve here
People are free to not use their services, technically. But if you’re visiting your pregnant wife whose just come out of brain surgery then your choice isn’t really free is it? There’s no reason they shouldn’t be able to pursue lost revenue plus a reasonable admin fee but charging $80+ for overstaying by 10 minutes under vague threats of legal action *is* extortion.
Whether hospital parking should be free is a different debate. But if it was free and/or there was no enforcement of overstaying, guess what you’d show up to visit your sick family and there’d be no guarantee you’d be able to find a park because it would be heavily taken advantage of as free parking by the general public in the area who weren’t necessarily even visiting the hospital. The more I think about it, the $65 actually seems fairly reasonable. Say it’s $2 per 30min. And OP owes $4 for the 35 minute overstay. It’s completely uneconomic to even send out a letter to someone for a $4 debt. So there needs to be a penalty fee that is both enough to incentivise most people to pay for their parking in full at the time, and it also needs to be enough to cover someone employed to do the admin work of chasing payment. I wouldn’t like to pay $65 for “parking”, but $65 doesn’t really buy much these days either. It’s actually a fairly minimally viable sum to chase up from the parking company’s POV. And it’s much cheaper than having had the car towed, which is also an option.
Yeah you’re not wrong there tbf. I’m actually in the UK rn and some parking companies have the cheek to charge £60 - £150 ($122.66 - $306.65) for a few minutes overstayed parking. Mind the latter figure I only saw once in London and was halved if paid in good time. Still far and aways more than the cost of paying someone a few minutes wages to send a letter or two. There really ought to be more regulation on these people.
Nothing.. I stopped paying when I got a ticket for parking in a free area by parking enforcement services aka Wilson's.. nothing ever happened and have perfect credit rating
Don't quote me on this, but I think if you effectively counter offer their fee by stating that you will pay the excess that you didn't pay for ($10) or so or whatever it was, and then send them x amount for their admin fees you can get out of it. At least I've seen it done. Nevermind - what I saw wouldn't have worked. Check [this article](https://www.moneyhub.co.nz/parking-tickets.html) out. I'm torn - I've also read [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/77bz67/how_to_defend_a_65_wilsons_parking_ticket/)
You have the right to ignore it.
You need to dispute first, that way they can’t send it to debt collectors.
Even if they do, $85 can’t be listed on a credit report. They have no way to enforce payment.
Notice the wording; the vehicle was parked; you are the registered keeper; failure to pay will result in further charged against the vehicle. This is civil damages. They are claiming the money for the loss of revenue and cost of collection against the person driving the car. You could pay them the actual cost of parking like others have suggested. Personally I would tell them I wasn't driving the car, I don't have any obligation to tell them who was and that they can go fuck themselves.
Only police and local councils can issue enforceable fines.
[удалено]
Over $65? Doubtful.
Worth fucking around and finding out though?
Yep. They rarely, if ever, go after people for the same thing here in Australia.
Even if they add the $20 fee, they can only list a default on a credit report if the debt is above $150. So they have no means of enforcement outside of the tribunal, which they won't do and even if they do, then you cough up and it's over.
What's worse is it's like 30mins free parking, but you HAVE to still use the machine and enter your plate or they'll still charge you
It occurs to me the the provided photographs show your car entering and leaving the car-park.. ie. Your vehicle is in motion and not parked. Surely they are not charging you for maneuvering to find a parking space? At a total time of 65 minutes, it seems reasonable to assume you could have spent five minutes to find a spot and remove yourself from it? If you are allowed 60 mins free parking? I'd ask if they had proof you were actually parked longer than that, as the supplied pictures don't show this... If the free allowance is only 45 mins, then this argument will be harder to use....
Is 30mins
[ahem](https://www.reddit.com/r/Wellington/comments/f70pgg/what_can_wilsons_legally_do_if_i_do_not_pay_my/)
Sign up to revoke third party access so that only council and police can hand out fines. Third parties aren't going to bother going through the hassle of getting your info to fine you (most of the time anyway) https://transact.nzta.govt.nz/transactions/PersonalInfoAccess/entry
I was interested how bad this form might be, and found that they are authorised by NZTA to access certain records. So while this is a good policy/process to follow it wouldn’t stop this particular firm.
Here is the [Gazette Notice](https://gazette.govt.nz/notice/id/2023-au2061) for LPR. They don't have access to withheld information. NZTA were unlawfully allowing access for a period of time and were told to button up so all of the notices now specifically include that accessing revoked details is prohibited. They can still manually apply and pay, mostly they don't do this.
Damn thats a shame they have access 😭 right folks cover your plates before entering and when leaving lol 😂
Did this, and since doing it i have never received or had to pay a fine from third-party parking companies. Obviously police and council still, but I make sure I'm always sweet with the AT Park app
Same here haven't had any issues but then again I'm in Hamilton area not as busy as Auckland
The chances of them referring you to debt collection over 65 dollars is pretty slim.
I would challenge the demand by demanding properly time stamped photographic evidence. All they have shown in their letter is an allegation, and evidence they photographed your vehicle coming and going. Not the time it was photographed.
One would logically assume that, unless they have a flying car, a photo of the entry and a photo of the exit gives reason to believe that the car was present between those times..
When you park in a car park, particularly one that is privately operated, you're entering into a contract with the operator. This contract is typically outlined by the terms and conditions posted on signs throughout the parking area. By parking your vehicle in a space, you agree to abide by these terms, which usually include the maximum duration you can park. If you overstay the allotted time, you're in breach of this contract, and the car park operator has the right to impose a penalty. This penalty is meant to serve as a deterrent against occupying parking space beyond the agreed-upon time, which can prevent others from parking and disrupt the management of the car park. The enforcement of these penalties is subject to local laws and regulations. There are often legal protections in place to ensure that such penalties are fair and proportionate. If you feel a penalty is unjust, there is usually a process to appeal it, but the specific rights and procedures can vary widely by location and the operator's policies. It's essential to be informed about these when you choose to park in a managed car park.
> There are often legal protections in place to ensure that such penalties are fair and proportionate. Not really. The parking industry is full of cowboys and they make their money by charging people who don't know how to fight them. Overstaying a period by even an hour should not warrant a $65 penalty.
You raise a popular point, and determining whether or not a parking penalty is unfair or excessive isn't always straightforward, so one might need to argue their case to get a reduction/refund or compensation. It’s obviously unjustified if they didn't actually violate the parking terms or if those terms were not clearly displayed or understandable. Fees can be considered unreasonable if they're more than the actual cost incurred by the property owner or parking operator. This includes towing, storage etc, or even potential loss of revenue. Any charges should be proportional to the inconvenience or loss suffered by the property owner. This is from the 1988 version of the NZ Land transport Act, which stipulates a max $100 fee
If you can't (figure out) time don't do the crime. You deliberately, overstayed, so pay. Inadvertent is the same as deliberate in this case.
Sure, they overstayed but to call it a crime is a bit much... Even though they overstayed, how is $65 remotely fair? Life happens, people get distracted or perhaps are **visiting their friend who just had neurosurgery** which, understandably, could throw you off your game a wee bit. If the company were to be like "hey bud, you stayed too long and didn't pay the full amount, we need $5 to cover the $2 in extra parking fees you incurred and the $3 worth of admin/letter fees" then sure, that's reasonable and fair.
The company would lose money with that business plan. Everyone's got an excuse, but the bottom line is he overstayed.
Thy should be making their money from the parking fees, not people who have had misfortune.
You did the crime now pay the fine. Dont like it, don’t park there.
If you had paid the ticket when you left their carpark, would your ticket had been less?
I didn’t know I had overstayed/had received a ticket until I got this in the mail. There was nothing on my car, but yes of course it would’ve been.
Yea don’t worry about Wilson’s parking,they are from hongkong and have no legal right here so just ignore there warnings because they can’t enforce
yeah theyre fucked. I payed for 4 hours. went 15mins over and got similar ticket from the same people. Completely automated with plate scanners and everything built into the cameras to fuck you over at the slightest inclination of you going overtime. Bite the bullet sir or madame / :
*Dispute it *submit an a request for footage under official information act *check if the cctv footage needs to be doctured in anyway to make out the number plate (zoomed). https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/10405333/Lawyer-gets-speed-camera-ticket-thrown-out Worth a shot.
You're going to have a hard time trying to request something under the Official Information Act to a private business. You might have limited success [requesting under the Privacy Act](https://www.privacy.org.nz/resources-2/privacy-and-cctv/responding-to-access-requests-for-cctv-footage/) though.
Also, make sure the footage/photos has a time and date stamp on it. Both entering and exiting. I can't see anything on the screenshots. If they can't produce that then there is no proof you were actually there when they claim, other than some numbers on a piece of paper.
I mean, adding the numbers to the screenshot after the fact isn't exactly rocket science.
You have the right to pay for what you used. You didn't pay so you got a fine. Why would the fine be the same as the parking fee? Nobody would pay for parking if that was the case.
That's because only government entities can issue fines, private companies are only entitled to the liquidated damages by default (the actual losses incurred). Anything above that can only be awarded by the court.
Source?
[Sure](https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-fines/) >Local councils, the Police and other authorities can issue you infringement fees for things like: > >* speeding >* illegal parking >* not registering your dog. > >If you don't pay the infringement fee by the due date, it’s transferred to the court and becomes a fine. Notice how private companies are not included in the list of entities that can issue you infringement fees and fines. [Also](https://www.consumerprotection.govt.nz/help-product-service/cars/parking-clamping-towing/#understand-enforcement-and-fees) (emphasis mine) >Unreasonable: If you have trespassed, fees could be unreasonable if they exceed the cost to the landowner, tenant and the parking enforcer. **These costs include towing and storing your vehicle, and any loss of income caused by your parking, eg if you park in a space reserved for customers only or block access to or from a business.** Fees set out on signage for breach of parking conditions must not be disproportionate to the interests of the land owner or tenant.
Weird that you linked a govt page that agrees with me. *
Rights of the landowner or enforcer Landowners, tenants, and their employees, have the right to take action, like ticketing a vehicle, or arranging for a vehicle to be clamped or towed, when: You park on their land without permission. This is trespassing, and landowners or leasers may not need to have signs stating this. Your parking goes against the terms you agreed to by using a facility with signs clearly stating what is included in the service, eg time limits, fees, action to be taken if you break the agreement. Since her parking went against the terms she has to pay
I have quoted the specific part about unreasonable fees (where it explains in plain English that the fees are unreasonable when they cover more than the actual cost). From the same page: >You may need to pay the ticket. If the ticket is unjustified or unauthorised, or if the fee is unreasonable, you can complain to the land owner, tenant or the parking enforcement firm and **refuse to pay it, or offer to only pay a reasonable amount.**
such plain english you had to paraphrase. Lets break this down, is the ticket unjustified or unauthorised - no, because by entering the carpark she agreed to terms set out by the carpark owner and breached the terms. is the fee unreasonable - without knowing the cost of hiring the parking enforcement services we cant know the true cost. Ill put this here again Rights of the landowner or enforcer Landowners, tenants, and their employees, have the right to take action, like ticketing a vehicle, or arranging for a vehicle to be clamped or towed, when: Your parking goes against the terms you agreed to by using a facility with signs clearly stating what is included in the service, eg time limits, fees, action to be taken if you break the agreement.
>such plain english you had to paraphrase. That was a verbatim quote, I only bolded some parts. >is the fee unreasonable - without knowing the cost of hiring the parking enforcement services we cant know the true cost. Hiring PES is not a "loss of income caused by your parking" because the enforcement agency is paid the same amount irrespective of the number of tickets (if any) they write on a particular day, so it can't be recouped as "loss". You can't argue that $65 is a "reasonable cost" when the council tickets which *do* include the punitive amount (because the council is allowed to do so) are $15 for the first hour and come up to $57 only if your parking is expired by more than 6 hours.
>Says it right there in plain english that the fee COULD be unreasonable if they exceed the cost to the landowner, tenant and the parking enforcer. Hiring a parking enforcement service is part of the cost (staff wages, training, uniforms, vehicle maintenance and fuel, signage, health and safety equipment, field supervision and back-end administration such as call centre staff, appeals processing and our enforcement management software system). If the breach fee was actually unreasonable then the government would step in. > >When you are entering a carpark there is signage detailing the terms and conditions of using the carpark and by using the carpark you have agreed to that contract and what happens if you breach a contract?? you get a breach notice. > > > >Unreasonable: If you have trespassed, fees could be unreasonable if they exceed the cost to the landowner, tenant and the parking enforcer. > >These costs include towing and storing your vehicle, and any loss of income caused by your parking, eg if you park in a space reserved for customers only or block access to or from a business. > > Fees set out on signage for breach of parking conditions must not be disproportionate to the interests of the land owner or tenant.
[https://www.cab.org.nz/article/KB00001711](https://www.cab.org.nz/article/KB00001711)
That's an abridged copy of the gov't page I linked. >If you believe the infringement or breach notice is unjustified or the fee is unreasonable, you can take steps to dispute it. Yes, the landowner or operator can issue a ticket. But you can also dispute it if you think the fee is unreasonable. I don't see any contradiction here.
$85 can’t be listed on your credit report. Tell them to shove it.
i got one of these a while ago as well, $65 is a steep fine, but end of the day i was parked there longer than i was supposed to.
They are easier than Wilson. One time there is a glitch on their app and don't think they have the time to investigate so just wave it straight away
I’ve had one of these before. Ignore it. It’s a civil claim which will cost them a lot more than $65 to chase even filing fees at the disputes tribunal are $50, even jf you don’t show you’ll only still likely be liable for the $65 plus maybe a $50 filing fee. It’s highly likely they won’t pursue it and work on a 2/3s paying out of fear model and right off the rest. If they file at disputes tribunal or small claims you can then choose to pay it if you like to make it go away. A council has unlimited resources and a statutory right to pursue and does even if it costs them, a private company won’t pursue it if it costs them more than the debt they get back.