-
-
AADD Moderators: Tronica
Legality of private car park fine
- Thread starter mitchy01
- Start date
Divine Moments
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 1,782
Don't take my word for it, but I don't think they usually count for much. For the first few months after Hoyts got ticket machines I know for a fact that they were unable to prosecute anyone who didn't pay fines. Then they put in boom gates 
I will TRY and do this one quickly -
The very second you stop your vehicle on the premises of a parking facility (private or otherwise) you have bound a contract between you and the entity that either a) owns the facility or b) is legally entitled to operate a commercial enterprise (i.e. parking lot) on that premises.
The contract is formed by the ticket that you take out of the machine. The terms of the contract are either written on the rear of the ticket or in another accessible location to which reference is made on the rear of the ticket.
Now you are bound to a contractual agreement between you and the car park. One of the fundamental conditions of the contract is in regard to the amount of time in which your vehicle may remain stationary on the premises and the compensation you are entitled to provide the car park owner with (i.e. $x per hour). The terms will also list the quantity of any fine that may be incurred for parking to long.
So if you have incurred a fine from a private car park then it is going to be deemed to be a commercial charge. By not paying that charge you are doing the equivalent of not paying a tax invoice.
The car park must provide you with an opportunity to pay, and then if the invoice (fine) remains unpaid for a set period of time, they can issue a Letter of Demand with terms of payment. After 14 days of non-payment the car park business can issue a Statement of Liquidated Claim through the local court.
After the statement of claim has been served on you and a hearing has been scheduled, you will be required to appear in a local court. If you are unable to tender a sufficient reason as to why the amount has not been paid then a judgement will be passed and you will need to pay the outstanding amount plus the car parks legal expense.
So that is the legal right of the car park operator to recover the outstanding expense, however........ would they pursue it that far.... doubt it!
90% of the time these charges are what they call "opportunistic revenue", the car park operators are trading on the fact that their fine is low enough and the chance of further charges is enough for you to just pay the thing.
The chance that they will pursue you through the courts to recover such a small amount is fairly remote.
Also, don't make the mistake of confusing this with a fine. A "Fine" in the true essence of the word can only be enforced by a local government entity for the violation of a statute or by-law. They certainly don't have the ability to "prosecute" you in any way. What you have incurred is a commercial expense as outlined in a legal contract and it will only ever be a commercial arrangement in regards to compensation for a service.
So once again, I really doubt that they will pursue you legally. They may try to scare you into paying, but I doubt they would go legal. However if they do make the decision to pursue you then you should understand that you could be up for greater expense and if a judgement is passed it will be listed on your personal credit file as a judgement.
P.S. This is not advice.
The very second you stop your vehicle on the premises of a parking facility (private or otherwise) you have bound a contract between you and the entity that either a) owns the facility or b) is legally entitled to operate a commercial enterprise (i.e. parking lot) on that premises.
The contract is formed by the ticket that you take out of the machine. The terms of the contract are either written on the rear of the ticket or in another accessible location to which reference is made on the rear of the ticket.
Now you are bound to a contractual agreement between you and the car park. One of the fundamental conditions of the contract is in regard to the amount of time in which your vehicle may remain stationary on the premises and the compensation you are entitled to provide the car park owner with (i.e. $x per hour). The terms will also list the quantity of any fine that may be incurred for parking to long.
So if you have incurred a fine from a private car park then it is going to be deemed to be a commercial charge. By not paying that charge you are doing the equivalent of not paying a tax invoice.
The car park must provide you with an opportunity to pay, and then if the invoice (fine) remains unpaid for a set period of time, they can issue a Letter of Demand with terms of payment. After 14 days of non-payment the car park business can issue a Statement of Liquidated Claim through the local court.
After the statement of claim has been served on you and a hearing has been scheduled, you will be required to appear in a local court. If you are unable to tender a sufficient reason as to why the amount has not been paid then a judgement will be passed and you will need to pay the outstanding amount plus the car parks legal expense.
So that is the legal right of the car park operator to recover the outstanding expense, however........ would they pursue it that far.... doubt it!
90% of the time these charges are what they call "opportunistic revenue", the car park operators are trading on the fact that their fine is low enough and the chance of further charges is enough for you to just pay the thing.
The chance that they will pursue you through the courts to recover such a small amount is fairly remote.
Also, don't make the mistake of confusing this with a fine. A "Fine" in the true essence of the word can only be enforced by a local government entity for the violation of a statute or by-law. They certainly don't have the ability to "prosecute" you in any way. What you have incurred is a commercial expense as outlined in a legal contract and it will only ever be a commercial arrangement in regards to compensation for a service.
So once again, I really doubt that they will pursue you legally. They may try to scare you into paying, but I doubt they would go legal. However if they do make the decision to pursue you then you should understand that you could be up for greater expense and if a judgement is passed it will be listed on your personal credit file as a judgement.
P.S. This is not advice.
Downloader08
Bluelighter
Eggman ^^ Kudos. That was perhaps one of the best legal explanations I have every heard.
To the OP: It really also depends on the company, and what kind of parking facility it is. But as Eggman said, they hardly ever take you to court on it. The legal fees just aren't worth a $150 fine. I have friends who have not paid for plenty of tickets over the years, and they have never been contacted.
However, I'm no lawyer, so this is just what i've experienced.
Take care man
To the OP: It really also depends on the company, and what kind of parking facility it is. But as Eggman said, they hardly ever take you to court on it. The legal fees just aren't worth a $150 fine. I have friends who have not paid for plenty of tickets over the years, and they have never been contacted.
However, I'm no lawyer, so this is just what i've experienced.
Take care man
Can you explain what sort of fine you got?
Don't you get a ticket and then pay for the length of time you stay on exit or did you prepay for a certain amount of time and then overstay your time?
I vaguely remember when I did law in my Building course a case regarding car parks and contracts. Just checked my book but couldn't find the case. It had something to do with the terms and conditions not being displayed in a convenient location and therefore the customer was not bound by them. There was something regarding whether or not the customer was a regular user of that carpark and if they were a regular user of the carpark then they automatically accepted those terms and conditions.
You could write a letter and give some excuse and offer to pay for the extra time you stayed and not the fine.
Don't you get a ticket and then pay for the length of time you stay on exit or did you prepay for a certain amount of time and then overstay your time?
I vaguely remember when I did law in my Building course a case regarding car parks and contracts. Just checked my book but couldn't find the case. It had something to do with the terms and conditions not being displayed in a convenient location and therefore the customer was not bound by them. There was something regarding whether or not the customer was a regular user of that carpark and if they were a regular user of the carpark then they automatically accepted those terms and conditions.
You could write a letter and give some excuse and offer to pay for the extra time you stayed and not the fine.
You are referring to Mendelsshon v Norman (1969). In that case a driver parked on a lot and was told not to lock his car by an attendant as they may need in case they needed to put it in neutral and push the car out of the way (it was the 1960's after all!). Upon his return the owner discovered things had been stolen and sued the car park.
The car park's defense was that they provided a liability waiver on the ticket and a sign on the premises however judgment was found in favour of the driver as he was specifically told not to lock the vehicle.
The case your confused with is probably a cross between Thompson v London Midland and Scottish Railway Co P/L (1930) and the New Balmain Ferry Case (1906); these cases covered the issue of a ticket forming contractual terms whilst referencing a separate document. The concept created by both cases is called Prior Course of Dealing.
The car park's defense was that they provided a liability waiver on the ticket and a sign on the premises however judgment was found in favour of the driver as he was specifically told not to lock the vehicle.
The case your confused with is probably a cross between Thompson v London Midland and Scottish Railway Co P/L (1930) and the New Balmain Ferry Case (1906); these cases covered the issue of a ticket forming contractual terms whilst referencing a separate document. The concept created by both cases is called Prior Course of Dealing.
Downloader08
Bluelighter
Eggman... you know too much... *suspicious glare*
This is interesting reading as well http://www.findacarpark.com.au/dsp_article.cfm?articleID=567
http://www.findacarpark.com.au/dsp_article.cfm?articleID=567That is a very interesting article., thank you for posting it.
It is also a classic example of what seems to pass off as commerce in too many places of late.
By creating a pseudo-commercial arrangement (i.e. a private car park) an entity can make it seem as though a logical commitment has taken place and the charge a nominal amount that is slightly more than cheap and less than amount considered significant.
From the consumer stand point the user considers the so-call commitment slightly logical and the threat a little to complex with too much ambiguity to argue around. So they settle by paying the nominated fee for the so-called benefit of no longer having to deal with the issue.
In the end it is just a big confidence trip and by playing the numbers game, money is made in significant amounts. Fines for late DVDs etc is another example.
From what I understand these car parks are using a pre-pay tickets system. So you drive in, pay for a scheduled amount of time and then display the ticket on your vehicle. Once your vehicle remains stationary for an amount of time in excess of the agreed time then you have breached to the terms of the contract.
As the article mentions there looks like a test case is going forward and that will serve the purpose of a) testing the waters in terms of how legal these contracts are and b) setting a precedent for future establishment and conduct of these car parks.
My opinion is that the contractual terms of the tickets stand a very good chance of being up held because they will effectively be falling back on 500+ years of contract law, the courts just can not ignore that. However I do not think the courts will allow a dangerous precedent to be upheld because quite frankly it is unjust.
If you look at the vast majority of commercial car parks today they are pay after service arrangements. This means you take a ticket, agree to the various terms and pricing then when you leave you pay for the amount of time used.
These ticket situations are not providing people with the opportunity to settle for the additional time they have left the vehicle parked. Without that I can not see how they can substantiate that they are at a commercial loss because cars remain parked for a period longer than the contract terms, not only this but the restitution they seek is not comparable to the loss. For example; If you park your car for one hour longer than the contracted time then they (the car park operator) loose 1 hours time of car park revenue, so they will fine you an amount 10 or more times the hourly rate. Not only that but they are prepared to use up public sector resources and the courts valuable time to issue a statement of liquidated claim to recover this amount HOWEVER they are not prepared to offer the car owner with the mechanism in which they can pay for that extra hour. That is an outrage.
I just noticed the article linked was from 2008 so it should have been well and truly tested by now. I'll try and dig up some more info on it but i'd be bloody surprised if these guys were allowed to get away with this stuff
It is also a classic example of what seems to pass off as commerce in too many places of late.
By creating a pseudo-commercial arrangement (i.e. a private car park) an entity can make it seem as though a logical commitment has taken place and the charge a nominal amount that is slightly more than cheap and less than amount considered significant.
From the consumer stand point the user considers the so-call commitment slightly logical and the threat a little to complex with too much ambiguity to argue around. So they settle by paying the nominated fee for the so-called benefit of no longer having to deal with the issue.
In the end it is just a big confidence trip and by playing the numbers game, money is made in significant amounts. Fines for late DVDs etc is another example.
From what I understand these car parks are using a pre-pay tickets system. So you drive in, pay for a scheduled amount of time and then display the ticket on your vehicle. Once your vehicle remains stationary for an amount of time in excess of the agreed time then you have breached to the terms of the contract.
As the article mentions there looks like a test case is going forward and that will serve the purpose of a) testing the waters in terms of how legal these contracts are and b) setting a precedent for future establishment and conduct of these car parks.
My opinion is that the contractual terms of the tickets stand a very good chance of being up held because they will effectively be falling back on 500+ years of contract law, the courts just can not ignore that. However I do not think the courts will allow a dangerous precedent to be upheld because quite frankly it is unjust.
If you look at the vast majority of commercial car parks today they are pay after service arrangements. This means you take a ticket, agree to the various terms and pricing then when you leave you pay for the amount of time used.
These ticket situations are not providing people with the opportunity to settle for the additional time they have left the vehicle parked. Without that I can not see how they can substantiate that they are at a commercial loss because cars remain parked for a period longer than the contract terms, not only this but the restitution they seek is not comparable to the loss. For example; If you park your car for one hour longer than the contracted time then they (the car park operator) loose 1 hours time of car park revenue, so they will fine you an amount 10 or more times the hourly rate. Not only that but they are prepared to use up public sector resources and the courts valuable time to issue a statement of liquidated claim to recover this amount HOWEVER they are not prepared to offer the car owner with the mechanism in which they can pay for that extra hour. That is an outrage.
I just noticed the article linked was from 2008 so it should have been well and truly tested by now. I'll try and dig up some more info on it but i'd be bloody surprised if these guys were allowed to get away with this stuff
Last edited: