Tournament Parking infringement

[winston]

yeah ok me bad, but I rode around the barrier at the tornament carpark and now i get a thing in the post. ok i did it, but how did they get my address wots going on there i opted out so it cant be from the ltsa.

[avgas]

um aren't you allowed to ride around the barrier arm?

[winston]

yeah i got a breech notice parked wrong somehow but yeah me bad but i don't know how they got my address thats wot pisses me

[ellipsis]

...hi Winston...how fast were you riding when you went the wrong way...were you at flash speed or were you bordering on being a blur...

[davereid]

They would have got your address from the NZTA.

The NZTA are still selling the motorvehicle register, even if you have opted out.

Effectively its not available to the general public, but Wilson parking, Tournament Parking, finance companies, etc etc etc are still able to get the information if they want it. I did an OIA a few months after the opt out came in, and it was business as usual with 97% of applications for information on opted out people being supplied anyway. Same as the driver licence. For a bit over $1 the NZTA will sell anyone a copy of your drivers licence.

[winston]

i opted out so only police can get it :confused: ? and they can sell my driver licence ?

[davereid]

If you are thinking a dodgy cop or traffic warden gave them the information, its possible, but I don't think they would do it, as it would be too easy to track.

But don't take my word for it.

Ask the NZTA yourself. Ask if they sell peoples driver licence information. Ask if they sell the motor vehicle register even if people have opted out.

My advice - if you just ask the question "do you sell the motor vehicle register" they will say something like "the motor vehicle register is now closed, and only available to law enforcement or those holding a blah blah approval who hold a picture of the queen in their left hand while saying the secret incantation"

So ask a hard to dodge question. Ask HOW many applications were made, and how many were released so they cant evade the question.

email them at info@nzta.govt.nz and post the answers sometime, I would like to know the latest figures.

[Matt_TG]

Nothing's really changed for us - we still have easy access to rego info (used to be via Motochek) - it's just through a different company now. Looking up info for insurance claims, investigations and so on. Haven't come across a "name witheld" case yet

As far as I can see the only change is we log in using our own individual sign in credentials (rather than a company wide log in account), so there is a record of who looks at what I guess.

[winston]

when i opted out i thiught only the police could get my name and adderss. I have asked but they havent replyed yet. Its stinks if anyone can get it.

[davereid]

Nothing's really changed for us - we still have easy access to rego info (used to be via Motochek) - it's just through a different company now.

Hi Matt

Who are you using now ?

[Matt_TG]

We use Infolog. As I said though the checks must be legit and are recorded.

[jaykay]

If the "parking infringement" is from a private company then it is not an "infringement".

It is a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of contract and can be filed in the bin, nothing can happen, no legal action against you can succeed.

If it is some sort of council ticket on the other hand you must respond.

Use the Privacy Act 1993 on NZTA to find out who managed to get your personal details without your permission, then use the Privacy Act on that company - then complain to the Privacy Commissioner - and if necessary go to the Human Rights Review Tribunal.

The likes of Wilson Parking are parasitic scum, I'm glad to say I have only cost them money as I have never paid them anything (and never will).

[davereid]

Tournament Parking have this to say on their web site.

By parking a vehicle in a private car park you have entered into a contract with the car park operator and have accepted the terms and conditions displayed clearly on the notice board at the car park.

A driver who uses the car park in breach of these terms and conditions, e.g. without purchasing and displaying a valid ticket, has also accepted the risk of being towed, clamped or issued a notice of breach, as outlined in the terms and conditions.

In contract law, parties are not entitled to impose penalties or fines for breach of contract. However, they can seek “liquidated damages”. Liquidated damages are defined as a reasonable estimate of the damage suffered as a result of the contract being breached.

The use of liquidated damages allows the parties to agree in advance on the damages that will be payable by the driver if they breach the obligations owed to the carpark operator under the parking contract.

We have estimated the liquidated damages arising from the breach to be $65. This is made up of $25 for loss of revenue due to non-purchase/display of valid ticket, plus a $40 administration charge for the cost of monitoring the car park, issuing and processing the breach notice. We believe this estimate to be fair and reasonable.

Again, these charges are stated in our terms and conditions

The Breach Notice (or payment notice) is simply a demand for the payment of liquidated damages arising from a breach of the contract, which under contract law we are entitled to request.

This approach has been tested in court and has stood up to scrutiny because it meets with the intention of the law. The law seeks to allow private parties to enter into contracts without having to rely on the law for the specifics of the contract.

The only circumstances where the Courts would intervene to disallow clauses specifying liquidated damages, is where the clause acts as a "penalty" against the party in breach and has been applied in an unscrupulous way, or where the amount is excessive compared with the loss likely to be suffered by the car park operator.



The bit that gets me is this bit:

By parking a vehicle in a private car park you have entered into a contract with the car park operator and have accepted the terms and conditions displayed clearly on the notice board at the car park.

If you haven't paid the fee then I'm not sure you have entered into a contract.

If you have paid the fee, I think a case could be made that a contract existed. But if you have just entered the building and ignored all the signs, you may be trespassing, but its a long bow to say you have a contract, and have formed an agreement of any kind.

On the other hand, if it were my car park, and I was trying to make money from it, I would be very pissed off with non payers. Using the car park is voluntary, if you don't want to pay the fee don't park there.

My annoyance about this kind of thing is that I have to provide the NZTA with all sorts of personal information. I don't have any choice. And it pisses me off, that even when I have told them that I want it kept confidential that they sell it anyway.

Im way more pissed off that they sell driver licence details, and don't even let you opt out of having that sold.

[winston]

Use the Privacy Act 1993 on NZTA to find out who managed to get your personal details without your permission

i have written to them like davereid said so will let you know

[geoffm]

Tournament Parking have this to say on their web site.

[I]By parking a vehicle in a private car park you have entered into a contract with the car park operator and have accepted the terms and conditions displayed clearly on the notice board at the car park.

d.

Any lawyers here? I thought for a contract to be valid, there had to be offer, acceptance and consideration. The latter being usually a payment - which may not be much (hence BMW selling Rover group for $1.)
The question is if "consideration" also means promising to pay (in this case by entering a pay parking facility)

[FJRider]

If you are thinking a dodgy cop or traffic warden gave them the information, its possible, but I don't think they would do it, as it would be too easy to track.



Or ... if the OP was caught on camera, and a complaint made to police ... information as to identity ... may have been supplied. On the grounds of actions on private property is/was not enough grounds for their action ... at that time.

[bikaholic]

Or ... if the OP was caught on camera, and a complaint made to police ... information as to identity ... may have been supplied. On the grounds of actions on private property is/was not enough grounds for their action ... at that time.nah it is a 'civil' matter, cops would only be interested if the Op had a trespass served on him.

[davereid]

Or ... if the OP was caught on camera, and a complaint made to police ... information as to identity ... may have been supplied. On the grounds of actions on private property is/was not enough grounds for their action ... at that time.

Maybe.

But I think the outcome will be that the NZTA are just ignoring the opt out, and supply the information anyway.

[FJRider]

Maybe.

But I think the outcome will be that the NZTA are just ignoring the opt out, and supply the information anyway.

Going by this link ... they may have authorisation to access the information.

http://www.transport.govt.nz/ourwork/land/motorvehicleregister/

It would seem the "opt out" is not hard and fast ...

Anyone wishing to have access to names and addresses held on the Motor Vehicle Register after 1 May 2011 will have to apply for and obtain an “authorisation” from the Secretary for Transport.

The Secretary for Transport can issue an authorisation to any person to obtain current names and addresses. An authorisation may be for any purpose and subject to any conditions specified by the Secretary. It will be up to the applicant to make a persuasive case. An application may be valid for up to 5 years.

[davereid]

Anyone wishing to have access to names and addresses held on the Motor Vehicle Register after 1 May 2011 will have to apply for and obtain an “authorisation” from the Secretary for Transport. The Secretary for Transport can issue an authorisation to any person to obtain current names and addresses. An authorisation may be for any purpose and subject to any conditions specified by the Secretary. It will be up to the applicant to make a persuasive case. An application may be valid for up to 5 years.

Yes this is a section 241 authorisation. They arent hard to get, they have authorised hundreds of users.

http://www.dia.govt.nz/MSOS118/On-Line/NZGazette.nsf/vNoticeCategory!OpenView&Start=15&Count=30&Expand=29.1#29.1

But, a section 241 is not supposed to supply information on opted out persons.

I think that a few OIA enquiries are going to bring to light some smelly rats.

[St_Gabriel]

I couldnt see where it is allowed for the likes of Tournament/Wilsons parking to become an authorised person to obtain any information, let alone information on a person who has opted out. Unless they use an extremely broad definition of a "Financial Services Provider", which according to the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act 2008, they wouldnt comply. Im very interested to see the outcome of this one.

Also in relation to the "liquidated damages" in the invoice they issued, what would have been the parking fee for the space that was occupied, assuming it was a full and complete car park that was taken and not some pokey little corner where they couldnt rent out the space to a car, because if it wasnt a car park that was taken up then you have not caused them any liquidated damages to my understanding but then again IANAL

[davereid]

Tournament have a section 241 authorisation.

http://www.dia.govt.nz/MSOS118/On-Line/NZGazette.nsf/6cee7698a9bbc7cfcc256d510059ed0b/1784f49a5ce6bedecc25789c005b2616!OpenDocument&Highlight=0,tournament

But it shouldn't apply to anyone who has opted out.

I did an OIA request last year, and found the NZTA ignored the Opt Out, releasing the information in > 97% of cases. But The Opt out was only new, and it was a very small sample, only around 140 applications. I'm just working on a new OIA request to get the latest info, but will wait till we hear what they tell the OP.

Id encourage anyone who has opted out to ask them the hard questions.

But my experience with the NZTA is you have to be very careful how you ask. They are very good at giving you an answer that re-assures you without actually giving detail. And when you dig, the detail shows you were unwise to have been reassured !

[jaykay]

Tournament's terms and conditions can be ignored.

No one can unilaterally impose a contract by way of a sign - and civil enforcement would be impossible.

Tournament would have to establish who the driver was, and the registered owner is under no obligation to tell them.

The only legal avenue for Tournament would be through the Disputes Tribunal with a $30 filing fee which they couldn't claim.

So Tournament won't take legal action and can't put anything on your credit rating.

Recommendation from various UK websites is to ignore them - acknowledge them in any way and you are on the hooked fish list.

I've ignored all "tickets" from shopping malls, as has everyone I know.

[davereid]

No one can unilaterally impose a contract by way of a sign - and civil enforcement would be impossible.

Thats interesting. The 241 authorisation allows Tournament "To send reminder notices to persons registered in respect of motor vehicles where vehicles have been parked in car parks managed by Tournament Parking in breach of the terms of a contract."


If you are correct that no contract exists, then they can't use a 241 exemption to get name and address data. On the other hand, the MOT are unlikely to care. They are apparently already releasing the name and address of opted out individuals even though the 241 makes it clear they may not.

[jaykay]

A Reminder Notice which means nothing.

If you don't reply to a Reminder Notice issued under the Summary Proceedings Act , it can be filed in a court as an unpaid "fine".

A Reminder Notice from Wilson or Tournament Parking is frankly toilet paper. No law has been broken, it could only be enforced through Civil Procedures, any semi decent defence would beat it in the very unlikely event proceedings were commenced.

Like debt collectors, Wilson Parking and Tournament Parking have no statutory powers, have a laugh at anything they send......and ignore it.

My terms and conditions which state Wilson Parking owe me $500 for every letter they send to me is as meaningless as the rubbish they send out.

Police and council tickets should be responded to, anything else should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

[winston]

A Reminder Notice from Wilson or Tournament Parking is frankly toilet paper. No law has been broken, it could only be enforced through Civil Procedures, any semi decent defence would beat it in the very unlikely event proceedings were commenced.

yea cos actually its dads address and he is way pissed of at me cos the bikes in his name.

[FJRider]

And in an attempt to get the fee's they are claiming ... a debt recovery company will be involved ...

I'm sure he will be happy about that too ... <_<

Interesting reading ...

http://nzcms.co.nz/appeals_faq.html

[Clockwork]

IANAL but..... just because Tournament publish that stuff on the internet doesn't make it legally or factually correct. Its not as if they were the most reputable and upstanding of organisations now is it?

I would hope that at the very least they would need to prove that the party who committed this "breach of contract" was the registered owner.

[CookMySock]

Fuck me dead, people are starting to click on...

[Clockwork]

Ha..... I love this line

"TERMS & CONDITIONS OF PARKING
BY ENTERING THIS CAR PARK YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS & CONDITIONS SET OUT BELOW. IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THESE TERMS & CONDITIONS, IMMEDIATELY LEAVE THE CAR PARK. THESE TERMS & CONDITIONS APPLY FROM WHEN YOU DRIVE YOUR VEHICLE INTO THIS CAR PARK AND APPLY 24 HOURS A DAY, 7 DAYS A WEEK. YOU HEREBY ALSO BIND THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE YOU ARE DRIVING TO ALL OF THESE TERMS & CONDITIONS AND WARRANT YOUR AUTHORITY TO DO SO."

I'm sure it just that easy!! <_<

[GingerMidget]

Maybe.

But I think the outcome will be that the NZTA are just ignoring the opt out, and supply the information anyway.

Newsflash. You can't buy the registered owners details anymore.
Also the police can't give anyone that information now either.

There are ways for a private investigator to get that information though, but I don't know them. I'm not paranoid, but my car, ute and scooter are all registered elsewhere.

[FJRider]

Newsflash. You can't buy the registered owners details anymore.
Also the police can't give anyone that information now either.

There are ways for a private investigator to get that information though, but I don't know them. I'm not paranoid, but my car, ute and scooter are all registered elsewhere.

Newsflash ...

Perhaps you'd better visit this link ...

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/vehicle/registration-licensing/information-who.html

[davereid]

Newsflash. You can't buy the registered owners details anymore.

I think they like us to think that. But they let anyone who has a "241 special approval" get access to the registered persons details.
And they have issued THOUSANDS of 241 approvals, even some that cover entire industries like ALL finance companies and ALL petrol retailers.

Officially this excludes access to individuals who have opted out.

But I think you will find that the NZTA are ignoring their obligations under the opt-out.

But don't trust me. Please.

Take 5 minutes to email them (info@nzta.govt.nz) and simply ask the questions. Ask how many inquires there have been on opted out persons and how many have been released.

The more they see people are watching them, the more likely they are to do something about it.

[winston]

Newsflash. You can't buy the registered owners details anymore.
Also the police can't give anyone that information now either.

yeah I herd back from the NZTA.

They are still selling them, tornament buy heaps and so do wilson. They didn get all the opted out ones though but they must have got mine.

anyway dad came around and mum gave him the money from her benifit so its been paid and i will try and pay mum back.