Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Parking / Car owned by Applicant was parked on private premises / Parks labelled as private property where unauthorised vehicles would be issued infringement notices / Respondent issued infringement notices to Applicant totalling $513.44 / Applicant claimed car not driven by them / Applicant sought declaration she was not liable for $513.44 and reimbursement of $59 filing fee / Respondent counterclaimed $513.44 from Applicant / Respondent claimed Applicant had not proven they were not vehicle’s driver / Held: for person to be held financially liable for another’s actions, reasonable basis was required and none was presented / Unreasonable that Respondent believed driver was agent of Applicant / Respondent’s counterclaim not minor, trivial or unreasonable / Applicant took no action to establish she was not driver / Counterclaim needed to be resolved / Applicant not liable to pay $513.44 to Respondent / Respondent not liable to pay Applicant $59 filing fee / Claim allowed in p…

Negligence / Applicant parked her car on the street / When the Applicant came back to her vehicle, there was new damage to her car / Respondent was standing by the Applicant’s car, having just parked in the park next to her / Applicant said he told her he had scraped her car while parking and they exchanged details / Applicant submitted a claim to her insurer afterwards / Applicant and her insurer claimed $2,364.34 from Respondent for repairs to the vehicle /  Respondent denied liability on the basis that it was not him who caused the damage to the Applicant’s car / Respondent said there was no evidence that he had caused the damage, that he had never accepted liability and that Applicant’s insurer was just trying to extract money out of him / Held: more likely than not that the Respondent caused the damage to the Applicant’s car / Reasonable to infer that the Respondent accepted liability at the time / Claimed repairs costs of $2,364.34 were reasonable / Respondent ordered to pay $2,3…

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Respondents visited car yard where Applicant worked, intending to purchase second-hand vehicle / Respondents bought vehicle from Applicant, trading in their original vehicle as deposit / Applicant discovered a security interest registered against the Respondent’s vehicle, preventing its sale / Applicant claimed $3,500 for the trade-in value of the Respondent’s original vehicle and daily parking costs / Held: original vehicle was traded in as part of the new vehicle purchase, not sold under a separate contract / As the original vehicle was not sold for money consideration, the implied warranty under s 135 of the CCLA did not apply / Applicant, having accepted the original vehicle as a trade-in, bore the responsibility to check for any security interests / Claim dismissed.

Towing / Applicant had his car towed from the Respondent’s carpark / Applicant said he worked for a business in the building next to the carpark / Applicant also said there was no signage in his parking space indicating that it was not a public carpark nor any signage he would be towed / Respondent stated that a private carpark did not need signage but provided photos of the parking area showing no parking signs / No signage specifically painted in the space Applicant had parked in / Applicant sought a declaration that he was not liable for the towing fee of $396.55 / Held: carpark was not open and available to the public / Private carpark spaces do not require no parking signs / Clear that the parking spaces serviced a commercial buildings, so a reasonable person would be aware the spaces were not for the general public / $396.55 was a consistent rate compared to other towing companies / Applicant did not discharge the burden of proving his car should not have been towed or that the t…

Trespass / Contract / Land Transport Act 1998 / Vehicle registered in Applicant's name parked in private carpark without authority / Respondent sent Applicant a breach notice which Applicant disputed and asked for evidence proving breach / Respondent said registered owner of vehicle liable per New Zealand Transport Authority and provided one photo that did not evidence illegal parking / Applicant said lack of contract with Respondent meant Applicant had no liability / Respondent lodged debt for collection with debt collection agency and Applicant filed claim with Tribunal / Applicant claimed for order that she is not liable to pay Respondent for breach notice, collection costs and sought reimbursement of filing fee / Respondent counterclaimed for payment of breach notice, collection costs and interest / Held: Applicant is not liable for breach fee as she was not driving vehicle at the time / No provisions applicable in tort that mean a registered owner can be liable for another's tresp…

Consumer / Consumer Guarantees Act / Respondents issued Applicant with a parking infringement notice and fine / Notice and fine were waived but Applicant alleges respondent's appeal system is unsatisfactory / Applicant claims costs for the time and inconvenience of having to deal with the infringement and appeal system / Held - Respondents provided services with reasonable care and skill / Applicant's evidence was also insufficient to show bad faith by respondents / No basis for award of compensation / Claim dismissed.

Parking / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant parked his car in a car park controlled by Respondent on a number of occasions / No response from Respondent by way of fines or tickets / Applicant obtained a ticket from Respondent in a different parking space / When the Applicant went online to pay the fine he discovered there were 48 other tickets totalling about $6,615.00 outstanding for which he had received no notice / Applicant filed a claim for a declaration of non-liability of up to $6,615.00 for parking tickets accumulated but not communicated to him by the Respondent /  Held: parking building company arguably has a legitimate interest in de-incentivising parking where no fee was paid in breach of the parking contract / Part of the purpose of a fine for de-incentivising illegal parking was to make the fine known to the person parking illegally, to prevent further breaches / Respondent had not communicated with Applicant about amounts owing and they have mounted significantly …

Trespass / Parking / Applicant parked in carpark controlled by third party for seven minutes / Carpark had one sign indicating "No Parking" and another indicated "Customer Parking Only" / Respondent sent Applicant breach notice and three reminder notices / Applicant advised Respondent they thought park was for surrounding businesses / Applicant also stated that she had attended a third party business who controlled carpark / Applicant sought order that they were not liable to Respondent / Respondent claimed $320 for breach notice, reminder notices, and 2.5% monthly interest on unpaid notices / Held: Applicant did not trespass as Applicant could be customer of third party business / Signage indicated she was authorised to park there as a customer / Nothing to indicate appointment required or potential customers were not permitted to park / Applicant did not trespass so not liable to Respondent / Respondent's claim against Applicant dismissed.  

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant’s uninsured car was parked in a car parking building operated by Respondent / Applicant’s car window was smashed and property was stolen / Applicant submitted Respondent should have done more, such as having security guards patrol the building / Applicant claimed $3,000.00 in damages from Respondent / Held: balance to be reached between security measures and cost / Terms and conditions as well as common sense would alert consumers that the car park operator did not provide insurance for their cars, and may have limited security measures in place / Consumers can also take their own measures such as alarming their cars, not leaving valuables in plain sight and taking out insurance / Signs in carpark warning people to take their valuables with them / Applicant failed to prove that Respondent fell short of reasonable expectations for security / Claim dismissed.

Trespass and Contract law / Third party parked car owned by Applicant on street / Respondent issued breach notice to third party but third party moved countries and did not receive notice / Respondent contacted Applicant for original fine and late fees / Applicant claims they are not liable to pay the amount sough of $500 in relation to late fees and debt collection fees / Held: Applicant has trespassed onto third party’s land / No contract was formed between parties for parking on third party’s land, therefore no agreement to pay late fees or debt collection fees / Claim allowed, Applicant to pay respondent $95 being original breach amount but not liable to pay other amounts being late fees or debt collection fees.

Contract / Parking infringement / Applicant issued breach notice by Respondent for parking at shopping centre “without permission in authorised vehicle only car park” / Applicant appealed breach notice with Respondent twice without success / Applicant filed claim with Tribunal / Respondent advised Applicant it had waived breach notice / Applicant claimed $500.00 for time spent appealing original breach notice and time spent on Tribunal claim / Held: original breach notice did not correctly state what terms and conditions Applicant had breached / Applicant spent approximately 30-45 minutes dealing with matter / Applicant did not suffer any financial loss requiring compensation from Respondent / Circumstances not met for awarding Tribunal costs / Claim dismissed.

Trespass / Applicant parked her car in a car park while visiting a bakery / Applicant later received a reminder letter from Respondent informing of an earlier parking breach notice for $95 and further $75 charge for non-payment / Respondent continued to charge administration/recovery fees of $75 every two weeks / At time of filing claim, Applicant had paid original $95 and had requests for payment from Respondent for $325 / Applicant sought order she was not liable for the $325 / Held: insufficient evidence that Applicant trespassed on private property / Respondent not entitled to charge Applicant for parking where she did / Applicant not liable for $325 fees / Respondent ordered to refund $95 paid by Applicant / Claim allowed.

Towing / Applicant parked car in a carpark owned by Second Respondent / Applicant struggled to pay via ticketing machine and parking app / Applicant did not pay for parking and was towed / Applicant paid $270 to have his car released / Applicant claimed it would have been more appropriate to be fined rather than towed / Applicant claimed he should have received a fine for $65 rather than his car being towed / Applicant also claimed $370 car release fee was too high / Applicant sought $305.00 / Held: Respondent entitled to tow Applicant’s car / Respondent had authority to tow from owner of car park / Signage in carpark indicated that a car could be towed if conditions of parking were breached / Towing charge was reasonable / Claim dismissed.