Wilson Parking, two ticket fun, and opting out at NZTA

[jaykay]

Due to some strange circumstances I ended up on an empty parking lot in Christchurch in a car, together with a work colleague. Car is registered in my name but I have made sure vehicle details aren't accessible (opted out at NZTA). The other vehicle is a van registered to a company, hence owners details cannot be hidden.

Wilson Parking decided to trespass against both vehicles by putting a "parking breach notice" under the windscreen wiper.

So far the company has received three letters, I have received nothing.

Hence the moral of the story is to ensure that ALL privately owned vehicles have their identities as private, to stop the likes of Wilson Parking harassing you with scam invoices.

No "ticket"" from Wilson Parking or other private operator is enforceable and does NOT need paying under any circumstances - this includes anything issued at a shopping mall. Invariably they are a scam and carry no weight in law.

Usually the advice is to ignore them, eventually they crawl back under the rock they emerged from. In this case I have countered with the company terms and conditions, which state that all persons trespassing against a vehicle are liable to a $50 charge, and every piece of correspondence received in relation to this event is also subject to a $50 charge, and receiving further correspondence is their acceptance of these terms and conditions.

It's just as much bollox as Wilson Parking paperwork, but is quite entertaining - especially as I may forget to put a stamp on any letters sent.

So, Gary Alfred Koch, the sole director of Parking Enforcement Services a division of Wilson Parking Ltd, if you are reading this, I'll see you court - but I know you won't go there as you know full well you would lose.

Do NOT ignore council or police tickets - only ones from private parking operators.

Opting out can be done very quickly online via NZTA, do it now.

[FJRider]

Due to some strange circumstances I ended up on an empty parking lot in Christchurch in a car, together with a work colleague. Car is registered in my name but I have made sure vehicle details aren't accessible (opted out at NZTA). The other vehicle is a van registered to a company, hence owners details cannot be hidden.

Wilson Parking decided to trespass against both vehicles by putting a "parking breach notice" under the windscreen wiper.

So far the company has received three letters, I have received nothing.

Hence the moral of the story is to ensure that ALL privately owned vehicles have their identities as private, to stop the likes of Wilson Parking harassing you with scam invoices.

No "ticket"" from Wilson Parking or other private operator is enforceable and does NOT need paying under any circumstances - this includes anything issued at a shopping mall. Invariably they are a scam and carry no weight in law.

Usually the advice is to ignore them, eventually they crawl back under the rock they emerged from. In this case I have countered with the company terms and conditions, which state that all persons trespassing against a vehicle are liable to a $50 charge, and every piece of correspondence received in relation to this event is also subject to a $50 charge, and receiving further correspondence is their acceptance of these terms and conditions.

It's just as much bollox as Wilson Parking paperwork, but is quite entertaining - especially as I may forget to put a stamp on any letters sent.

So, Gary Alfred Koch, the sole director of Parking Enforcement Services a division of Wilson Parking Ltd, if you are reading this, I'll see you court - but I know you won't go there as you know full well you would lose.

Do NOT ignore council or police tickets - only ones from private parking operators.

Opting out can be done very quickly online via NZTA, do it now.

Opting out in such cases does not work. They still have access to the vehicle details. As has been found already by many KB members who "opted out" ..

Have a nice day ...

PS: Not putting a stamp on it gets the letter returned to sender. If no return address .. the letter is destroyed.

[superjackal]

Opting out in such cases does not work. They still have access to the vehicle details. As has been found already by many KB members who "opted out" ..

Have a nice day ...

PS: Not putting a stamp on it gets the letter returned to sender. If no return address .. the letter is destroyed.

That certainly opens up another cans of worms. As long as there's a paper trail....

Outstanding thread. Had no idea I could do this.

[FJRider]

That certainly opens up another cans of worms. As long as there's a paper trail....

Outstanding thread. Had no idea I could do this.

You may want to read this thread ...

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...ghlight=Opting

[FJRider]

And this one.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...g-infringement

[davereid]

Opting out in such cases does not work. They still have access to the vehicle details. As has been found already by many KB members who "opted out" ..

For some weird reason Wilson no longer have access to the opted out list on the MVR but Tournament do.

The list of companys and individuals with access is massive though, the NZTA have basically thrown the doors wide open.

It's only a matter of time until a husband tracks down an estranged partner, a dodgy car dealer steals some spare parts and gets caught, or someone "important" gets tracked down and given a hiding, and the MVR will be shut down again.

The only difference is, the law used to require the NZTA to release names and addresses.

Now it doesn't. So when the sort of crimes that were so common under the old system occur again, this time we will get a scalp from who ever in the NZTA opened the door again.

Its just a matter of time.

With regard to the breach notice, they are rubbish and can be chucked in the bin.

[FJRider]

The list of companys and individuals with access is massive though, the NZTA have basically thrown the doors wide open.

There is the clincher ... And money talks ... loudly.

Its just a matter of time.

With regard to the breach notice, they are rubbish and can be chucked in the bin.

Until such time ... people will pay. But as far as legislating any further changes to the .. who can or can't "see" the details ... I doubt it will happen for quite some time.

As for the breach notice in the bin ... Baycorp have a nice list of many who have. They may never be paid ... but ... their names will remain on the list for ALL those doing/getting credit checks to find.

[davereid]

There is the clincher ... And money talks ... loudly.Until such time ... people will pay. But as far as legislating any further changes to the .. who can or can't "see" the details ... I doubt it will happen for quite some time. As for the breach notice in the bin ... Baycorp have a nice list of many who have. They may never be paid ... but ... their names will remain on the list for ALL those doing/getting credit checks to find.

I think the intent of the law is clear, and it does not allow for access to the details of the opted out.

The NZTA have done this, using a very marginal interpretation of the Official Information Act to release peoples personal information.

So I don't think a legislative change is required, the NZTA just have to interpret the law correctly.

Most people don't know they are doing it, or don't care, but once an appropriately nasty crime is perpetrated via the NZTAs leaky database people will both know and care, and I think things will change.

Id be surprised if Breach notices can end up on your credit record BTW.

I simply cant see how a contract is formed between the registered person and the car park operator. If any contract exists at all (which I doubt) it would be between the driver and the car park operator, not the registered person and the car park operator.

[Jantar]

I understand that before any contract can be binding there must be agreement on both sides. That agreement can be by way of a written contract, signed by both parties, or it can be way of an offer and acceptance of that offer by way of consideration, ie. payment. Simply posting a sign is not an enforceable contract, and there is no way that a contract can be passed on to any other party without that other party's acceptance.

These parking building operators have been brought up on Fair Go many times, and all that may be enforceable is the payment of the parking fee by the driver of the vehicle. Standard Liquidated damages, infringemnts and any other payment that may be asked for are not enforceable.

Another point of law could be mentioned if any case ever came up to court. If you have asked NZTA for your details to be witheld, and they been provided to the operators of a parking building, you may have an interesting defence in that your personal details about your vehcile were illegally obtained and should not be admissable evedince in court. They would have to find some other way to identify you as the driver (or rider) at the time.

[FJRider]

I think the intent of the law is clear, and it does not allow for access to the details of the opted out.

The NZTA have done this, using a very marginal interpretation of the Official Information Act to release peoples personal information.

So I don't think a legislative change is required, the NZTA just have to interpret the law correctly.

The "Intent of the Law" is to stop some people breaking the law. Only those entitled (by legislation as it is written) will not be stopped from accessing that information.
It is the "Intent" of those that opted out ... that should be in question.

Most people don't know they are doing it, or don't care, but once an appropriately nasty crime is perpetrated via the NZTAs leaky database people will both know and care, and I think things will change.

Id be surprised if Breach notices can end up on your credit record BTW.

If any person or business believes they are owed money for any reason ... they are perfectly entitled to employ a collection agency to recover the amount. That method is only one option they have. There are many (legal) options. Baycorp costs little ... and even if NO money is recovered ... the name is STILL "on the list" ..

I simply cant see how a contract is formed between the registered person and the car park operator. If any contract exists at all (which I doubt) it would be between the driver and the car park operator, not the registered person and the car park operator.

The Registered owner is responsible for ANY costs pertaining to that vehicle. If they were not the driver involved with the cost ... they must reveal WHO IS. Or bear the cost themselves. Which what MOST Company owners DO ... (not their issue .. not their problem)

The OP was probably dobbed in by the Company owner and his details given. As they are legally required to do.

[Akzle]

Do NOT ignore council or police tickets - only ones from private parking operators.

Opting out can be done very quickly online via NZTA, do it now.

yeah, unfortunately that just takes you off an interested-in-passing joe-blow with google.

all joe-blow needs to do is take a box of double brown to the local towies and get them to run your plate or license.

you should not ignore council or police tickets, you shouldn't accept them in the first instance, and you should return them in every other instance, saying something like "fuck off"

[FJRider]

Another point of law could be mentioned if any case ever came up to court. If you have asked NZTA for your details to be witheld, and they been provided to the operators of a parking building, you may have an interesting defence in that your personal details about your vehcile were illegally obtained and should not be admissable evedince in court. They would have to find some other way to identify you as the driver (or rider) at the time.

You would have to prove (or be proved/admitted) the details were "illegally gained". If it was from the vehicles Registered owner (NOT off any NZTA web site) or from any public source (previous records of parking fines by that vehicle in their files ???) ... it could not be deemed illegal.
You would need to be sure of your facts prior to going to court. If indeed it GETS to court.

[Jantar]

You would have to prove (or be proved/admitted) the details were "illegally gained". ......

That part is simple. It is up to the plantiff to prove they have correctly identified the defendent. When challenged on this they would have to show any documentation that proves their corrct identification including the fact that the identity came from the NZTA. All the defendant needs to do is show that they have requested the NZTA to withold details and that is sufficient to show that details from that source are illegal.

[FJRider]

That part is simple. It is up to the plantiff to prove they have correctly identified the defendent. When challenged on this they would have to show any documentation that proves their corrct identification including the fact that the identity came from the NZTA. All the defendant needs to do is show that they have requested the NZTA to withold details and that is sufficient to show that details from that source are illegal.

The fine is sent to the registered owner. In the case of the company vehicle ... the company may declare the name and details of the driver of that vehicle on that day.

In the case of the OP using his own vehicle ... and through their company records through previous parking fine notice records ... and can prove NO illegal means were used to find his details ... They have a case unless the OP can prove he wasn't driving it. And can reveal who was.

Who requests (and/or denied) such information is recorded by NZTA in their system. One NZTA employee can either admit/deny the information was given illegally (at that time) ... in court.

All this for a $50 parking fine ??? Principals can get expensive ... if you haven't got a case. Or not SURE you HAVE a case.

[davereid]

The fine is sent to the registered owner. In the case of the company vehicle ... the company may declare the name and details of the driver of that vehicle on that day. In the case of the OP using his own vehicle ... and through their company records through previous parking fine notice records ... and can prove NO illegal means were used to find his details ... They have a case unless the OP can prove he wasn't driving it. And can reveal who was.Who requests (and/or denied) such information is recorded by NZTA in their system. One NZTA employee can either admit/deny the information was given illegally (at that time) ... in court. All this for a $50 parking fine ??? Principals can get expensive ... if you haven't got a case. Or not SURE you HAVE a case.

Its not a fine.

A breach notice is simply an invoice for liquidated damages.

There is quite an extensive list on the Ministry of Consumer Affairs web site about the things a car park owner can legally do. The breach notice isn't on the list, as it has no real legal standing.

And you can't claim liquidated damages unless you have actually suffered a loss, and then only the value of the loss. So for the original poster, they would have to show how they suffered a loss and how much it was.

Its a registered person btw, there is no longer any such thing as a registered owner.