Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

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 …

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant engaged Respondent to move personal items and furniture / Applicant claimed Respondent did not complete the job due to parking restrictions outside Applicant's property / Applicant claimed it was Respondent's responsibility to ascertain parking restrictions / Respondent informed Applicant more removalists needed to complete job, which would incur more costs / Applicant claimed $299 for non-performance of contract / Held: Applicant's responsibility to provide good, safe and secure parking for Respondent / Applicant effectively cancelled contract by rejecting Respondent's solutions / Applicant not entitled to refund / Claim 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.

Property / Applicant and Respondent were neighbours that shared a driveway area / Ongoing dispute over shared garden and parking arrangements / Earlier hearing resulted in settlement order / Settlement agreement did not involve financial payments / New claim by Applicant for compensation when Respondent does not park his car in his garage as agreed in settlement / Held: no jurisdiction to award compensation / Never any agreement to award upon default of agreement/ Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants went to carpark operated by respondent / Bolts protruding from ground punctured applicants tyre / Applicants couldn't repair tyre and took an Uber home / Applicant returned next day to meet tow truck / Applicants claim for tyre repair and replacement kit, uber, train fare, and parking fee / Held: respondent owed a duty of care to carpark users and has breached this duty / Damage occurred before carpark entered so no contract existed to contract out of / Can't contract out of the Act / Costs claimed are actual and reasonable and reasonably foreseeable consequence of damage caused by bolts / Parking fee not included as it didn't arise from the damage / Outcome: claim allowed, respondent to pay applicant $843.09

Contract / Car registered to Applicant parked in Respondent’s carpark in excess of maximum period / Applicant received parking breach notice / Applicant not in possession of car at time of breach / Applicant claimed they were not liable for parking fine / Held: driver of Applicant’s car entered contract with Respondent when entering carpark / Applicant not party to contract / Respondent could not impose liability on someone not already party to contract / Liability for breach rests on driver, not Applicant / No legal obligation on Applicant to disclose identity of driver / Claim allowed.

Contract / Bailment / Applicant hired First Respondent to perform certification on his vehicle / First Respondent discovered minor defects requiring remediation / First Respondent delivered vehicle to Second Respondent's workshop for repair / Second Respondent unable to start work immediately / Second Respondent left vehicle in customer parking area / Vehicle was stolen and not recovered / Applicant claimed $30,000 / Held: neither Respondent breached any legal duty owed to Applicant / Claim dismissed.