Getting out of parking tickets: Wilson/PES parking "fine" guide/thread

Thread Rating: 11 votes, 5.00 average.
(11 votes)
Results 51 to 75 of 356

  1. Post
    #51
    Chaosfollowsme wrote:
    You went through all this trouble to not pay 55 bucks

    Just what the ****, 200 bucks I could understand, but you probably spent 55 bucks on your timespent alone.

    fcuken lol

    I can see why people would have this pov but all this to prove a point? for 55 bucks?
    Its entertained me, if I was in the same situation and had the time or patience I would do it too

  2. Post
    #52
    Imo everyone ITT should chip in a $1 donation to the OP as payment for the entertainment value, and to prove a point.

    OP please PM me bank account number to deposit to.

  3. Post
    #53
    Chaosfollowsme wrote:
    You went through all this trouble to not pay 55 bucks

    Just what the ****, 200 bucks I could understand, but you probably spent 55 bucks on your timespent alone.

    fcuken lol

    I can see why people would have this pov but all this to prove a point? for 55 bucks?
    I can definitely see your point of view. Some people wouldn't bother fighting parking companies and pay just to get rid of them; even though such payment is voluntary in the eyes of the law. Such attitude is the main reason Wilson Parking and the like rigorously hand out enforcement notices; it's a main source of income for them. Basically, if they're persistent or annoying enough, in most cases it's easy money.

    I myself had considered paying it just to get them to go away, but I decided early on that I wouldn't pay based on ethical and lawful principles. By the time I started writing to them, such actions were no longer based on economical reasoning.

  4. Post
    #54
    Senior Mouse wrote:
    I can definitely see your point of view. Some people wouldn't bother fighting parking companies and pay just to get rid of them; even though such payment is voluntary in the eyes of the law. Such attitude is the main reason Wilson Parking and the like rigorously hand out enforcement notices; it's a main source of income for them. Basically, if they're persistent or annoying enough, in most cases it's easy money.

    I myself had considered paying it just to get them to go away, but I decided early on that I wouldn't pay based on ethical and lawful principles. By the time I started writing to them, such actions were no longer based on economical reasoning.
    Its still a binding contract you have entered. You would lose badly if this was ever heard at the disputes tribunal.

    You have achieved nothing that would not of been achieved by not responding AT ALL. You would be in exactly the same place as you are now but would have saved yourself a lot of time.

  5. Post
    #55
    Mikos wrote:
    Its still a binding contract you have entered. You would lose badly if this was ever heard at the disputes tribunal.

    You have achieved nothing that would not of been achieved by not responding AT ALL. You would be in exactly the same place as you are now but would have saved yourself a lot of time.
    Whatever is written on the contract isn't of issue; Wilson cannot leverage reprimand greater than liquidated damages. $65 is not liquidated damages unless they can prove it to be so. The contract could even say that I will owe them $5000 if I overstayed.

    Whether or not getting into contact with them affected their decision, I do not know. However, I think it was important to tell in writing to the debt collectors in writing that the amount was in dispute as recommended by Consumer Affairs to stop them from defaulting credit or commencing some kind of repossession.

    Of course the ideal situation is that they do not know any of my details, but at the time I had not blocked authorized access.

  6. Post
    #56
    just had a mate get a $60 ticket for parking at a Wilson without paying for parking. he went to their website, said sorry nicely, asked if he could pay less and they wiped his ticket, no question.

    Sounds like not trying to come off as a prick is the best option

  7. Post
    #57
    How does one say sorry to a website? Websites have empathy now?

  8. Post
    #58
    teelo7 wrote:
    How does one say sorry to a website? Websites have empathy now?
    yeah a website has empathy...cool joke dude, hope you got a chuckle

  9. Post
    #59
    Senior Mouse wrote:
    Whatever is written on the contract isn't of issue; Wilson cannot leverage reprimand greater than liquidated damages. $65 is not liquidated damages unless they can prove it to be so. The contract could even say that I will owe them $5000 if I overstayed..
    As i covered in previous posts, you are making out like it is difficult to prove that. It is not. Post 2012 all the major parking companies revamped their fee structure and went through what is called a fee cost justification process. This process and its results have been audited and been relied on in hearings before. This is actually a very similar process to financial service firms who need to complete fee cost justification models in a similar manner. Staff time, related systems development, letter costs and administration can all be included in the model.

  10. Post
    #60
    Senior Mouse wrote:
    Whatever is written on the contract isn't of issue; Wilson cannot leverage reprimand greater than liquidated damages. $65 is not liquidated damages unless they can prove it to be so. The contract could even say that I will owe them $5000 if I overstayed.
    So much this. Keep up the good fight.
    If they had 'fined' you the amount that you would have paid for the extra time you had stayed, it would be a different story.

  11. Post
    #61
    Mikos wrote:
    As i covered in previous posts, you are making out like it is difficult to prove that. It is not. Post 2012 all the major parking companies revamped their fee structure and went through what is called a fee cost justification process. This process and its results have been audited and been relied on in hearings before. This is actually a very similar process to financial service firms who need to complete fee cost justification models in a similar manner. Staff time, related systems development, letter costs and administration can all be included in the model.
    I have not been able to find any information of that sort online. Records of dispute tribunal cases, Consumer Affairs nor Citizens Advice Bureau doesn't outline any of this. Are you able to provide where you got this information from?

    Perhaps the only way to really tell is to go through the courts...

  12. Post
    #62
    http://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals...n-8-april-2011

    This might be intredasting. Not the same circumstances, but evidence of the courts upholding a private carparking contract.

  13. Post
    #63
    Tony Cipriani wrote:
    http://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals...n-8-april-2011

    This might be intredasting. Not the same circumstances, but evidence of the courts upholding a private carparking contract.
    Yeah, I read that some time ago. That and another one regarding some car being towed are the only cases I could find that had anything to do with parking companies. It seems that the owner of the vehicle was the one that had bought the parking company to the tribunal though. Also the applicant was arguing along the lines of defence 2, in that they were disputing the fact that the conditions of the contract were vague/not seen. The judgement was based on whether or not the contract was vague and broken rather than any sort of argument based on compensation from lack of payment. Definitely worth investigating.

  14. Post
    #64
    tournament will not take anyone to the disputes tribunal, even if they are in the right.

    friend of mine got a fine and refused to pay it, they sent it to Baycorp, he rung Baycorp and said the debt is disputed + he had evidence that he wasn't liable but he refused to show that evidence outside of a legal setting. (he had no evidence)

    took a few months of going to and fro between Baycorp/Tournament but in the end they dropped it.

  15. Post
    #65
    Chaosfollowsme wrote:
    I can see why people would have this pov but all this to prove a point? for 55 bucks?
    Wait a minute, when proving a point the reward/punishment is foregone/not considered in relation to the decision made, there is an 'extended' motive/reasoning, that's kind of the point of proving a point.

  16. Post
    #66
    HOF +1

    The first since 2014

  17. Post
    #67
    If you had already blocked authorized access to the vehicle owner details when they ticketed you, and then you didn't pay the fine - what would happen?

  18. Post
    #68
    @Mikos you are wrong

    No private company can issue penalties under New Zealand. PES (Private company) can't force someone to pay excess to what they owe them from the contract they entered to upon entering their facility. They ARENT legally entitled to spin around and slap you with a $55 fine for parking for an excessive time in their facility. Its breaching any kind of common law system stemming back to our forefathers (blablabla British rule bs blabla). They issue these penalties because people are unaware of the legal system we abide by. The only action a private company PES can expect to order on someone who parked excessively in their facility is to charge them for that excess time they spent parked there. Its not a civil matter

  19. Post
    #69
    jrol wrote:
    @Mikos you are wrong

    No private company can issue penalties under New Zealand. PES (Private company) can't force someone to pay excess to what they owe them from the contract they entered to upon entering their facility. They ARENT legally entitled to spin around and slap you with a $55 fine for parking for an excessive time in their facility. Its breaching any kind of common law system stemming back to our forefathers (blablabla British rule bs blabla). They issue these penalties because people are unaware of the legal system we abide by. The only action a private company PES can expect to order on someone who parked excessively in their facility is to charge them for that excess time they spent parked there. Its not a civil matter
    You dont know what you are talking about. They can indeed charge a 55 dollar fee if said fee is justifiable and can be proven to represent their true costs (which it can). Staff hours, system costs, letter costs and administrative costs can all be directly modelled. Please discuss this with a lawyer if you like. I have built fee cost justification models personally and had them audited, legally reviewed and upheld in court. It is exactly the same as how a bank or finance company cost justifies an account fee or dishonour charge.

    The amount of bro law in this thread is laughable.

  20. Post
    #70
    jrol wrote:
    No private company can issue penalties under New Zealand.
    You might want to raise that with a bank next time the charge you an unarranged overdraft fee or penalty interest. Or baycorp when they charge you a collection fee. Or harmoney when you try to pay off your loan early and get hit with an early repayment charge. What a patently absurd claim.

  21. Post
    #71
    Had a situation with Wilson's a while back. Overstayed by maybe an hour, came back to a fine of about $65 or so. This was in a shopping mall carpark (Who monetizes a ****ing shopping mall carpark?!). Disputed the fine saying the signage was not clear and they came back saying they'd consider waiving it if I presented receipts of purchases from the mall during the time my car was these. Presented said receipts, fine dropped.

    Went better than expected overall.

  22. Post
    #72
    Mikos wrote:
    You might want to raise that with a bank next time the charge you an unarranged overdraft fee or penalty interest. Or baycorp when they charge you a collection fee. Or harmoney when you try to pay off your loan early and get hit with an early repayment charge. What a patently absurd claim.
    or pretty much any company that rents things.

  23. Post
    #73
    Xev wrote:
    Had a situation with Wilson's a while back. Overstayed by maybe an hour, came back to a fine of about $65 or so. This was in a shopping mall carpark (Who monetizes a ****ing shopping mall carpark?!). Disputed the fine saying the signage was not clear and they came back saying they'd consider waiving it if I presented receipts of purchases from the mall during the time my car was these. Presented said receipts, fine dropped.

    Went better than expected overall.
    Rofl, I've always thought this was stupid. "You were inside spending money for too long! Give us more money!"

    I've known quite a few to get fined while doing a big shop and wilsons have told them to suck a fat sloppy costly fine filled cock.

  24. Post
    #74
    Mikos wrote:
    You might want to raise that with a bank next time the charge you an unarranged overdraft fee or penalty interest.
    Didn't some law firm start a "class-action" case about this a few years ago? Never did find out how that one went.

  25. Post
    #75
    teelo7 wrote:
    Didn't some law firm start a "class-action" case about this a few years ago? Never did find out how that one went.
    https://www.fairplayonfees.co.nz/
    Their news section seems to die in November 2014.