Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Towing / Applicant parked in area where he believed allowed 90 minutes of free parking / Markings and signage were unclear or obscured / Carpark was for gym customers only / Applicant’s vehicle was towed / Applicant claimed refund of $432.08 towing fee / Held: despite unclear markings and signage, wider parking area was clearly and extensively marked as allocated parking for specific businesses / Applicant not a customer of gym so tow justified / Claim dismissed.  

Contract / Applicant parked in privately run car park without successfully paying for parking session / Applicant told Respondent of being unable to pay via Respondent’s chatbot and left car parked / Respondent sent Applicant $95 breach notice and additional collection costs for failure to pay breach notice in required time / Applicant claimed declaration of non-liability for breach notice and collection costs / Respondent counterclaimed for $460.99 / Held: Applicant failed to comply with terms and conditions of parking and was liable for breach fee / Additional enforcement and collection costs not enforceable as debt already in dispute when additional fees applied / Applicant ordered to pay $95 to Respondent / Collection costs dismissed / Claim allowed in part.

Contract law / Applicant parked in a parking spot managed by respondents at a shopping centre / Terms and condition included a 90-minute time limit / Applicant parked longer than allowed and received a $60 parking breach notice / Applicant accepted breaching time limit, but claimed $60 fee was punitive and unenforceable as a penalty under contract law / Held: Tribunal found the $60 fee was enforceable / Consistent with industry standards and reflected the costs of enforcement and the legitimate interest of respondents in managing parking / Applicant ordered to pay respondent $60 by 15 August 2025, Claim dismissed.

Transport / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Land Transport Act 1998 (LTA) / Applicant parked in a parking space at a shopping centre / Applicant returned to a $65 parking fee from the Respondent parking company / Applicant disputed the fee / Applicant sought a declaration of non-liability for the $65 parking fee and $1000 damages / Respondent reversed parking fee but Applicant continued in his claim for damages / Held: LTA was not relevant to the issuing of the parking enforcement notice / Parking notice unlikely to lead a reasonable person to conclude the Respondent was attempting to portray itself as having legal status it did not possess / Difficult to see how the Respondent’s parking notice, which was later waiver, amounted to recognised loss or harm to Applicant / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant parked in Respondent’s carpark / Applicant made no payment for parking / Respondent sent Applicant parking breach notice and claimed $85 payment  / Applicant paid $17 as Applicant stated that was the actual loss Respondent had gotten from Applicant’s non payment / Respondent arranged debt collection services and requested Applicant to pay $118 for balance of amount owing, debt collection fees and administration costs / Held: Signage in car park was visible so Applicant had accepted its terms when he parked car in car park / The New Zealand Supreme Court has stated in contract a reasonable payment can be requested for a breach to protect legitimate business interests by who the sum is claimed / $85 was a reasonable sum claimed / Claim dismissed / Applicant to pay Respondent $68.00. 

Contract law / Parking / Applicant parked in supermarket carpark and briefly left to get food before shopping / When Applicant returned, Respondent was preparing to tow vehicle / Respondent refused to stop towing process unless Applicant paid $420 / Applicant claimed $420 refund for unlawful tow / Held: contract law applied as Applicant was customer of supermarket / Respondent unable to enforce any time limits on carpark / Entry Applicant used did not have any signable informing customers of the 45-minute parking limit / Also no clear signage on shop or in area Applicant parked / Respondent had no lawful basis to tow or demand payment / Respondent to pay Applicant $420 / Claim allowed.      

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…

Contract / Trespass / Applicant was a car dealership / A customer purchased a car from the Applicant and then parked in a private carpark / Ownership paperwork had not yet recorded ownership change / Respondent issued a $95 parking infringement fee to the Applicant on the grounds it owned the car / Months later the Applicant received an email from a debt collection company claiming ticket and collection costs of $460.99 / Applicant sought an order it was not liable to pay $460.99 / Respondent counterclaimed $501.03, calculated as the infringement fee, reminder notices, and subsequent debt collection fees / Held: no contract had been formed / No parking notice was a disincentive to use the parking space and therefore the opposite of an offer / Applicant did not trespass by parking in the private car park / Car was not driven by a representative of the Respondent / Applicant did not have a valid claim in trespass / Claim allowed and counterclaim dismissed.

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 / Breach of contract / Applicant parked in shopping car park managed by Respondent for 189 minutes without registering car to obtain 90 minutes free parking / Applicant also did not pay for 99 minutes spent in car park once 90 minutes free parking expired / Respondent sent $65 breach notice for breaching parking conditions / Applicant unsuccessfully attempted Respondent’s appeals process several times / Applicant claimed for order Applicant was not liable to pay $65 breach fee / Held: Applicant breached contract by failing to pay for parking and therefore was trespassing on carpark / Car park had several signs indicating terms and conditions of parking / Applicant free to leave carpark if unhappy with terms and conditions / Breach fee amount was fair and reasonable / Applicant liable to pay $65 breach fee / Claim allowed.

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…