Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

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.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent cancelled Applicant’s booking on its ferry / Applicant claimed compensation for $3,297.06 for losses which he said resulted from the cancellation / Held: Respondent entitled to vary the service provided but not to terminate the contract altogether/ Respondent wrongfully repudiated the contract by doing so / Service provided by Respondent was not fit for purpose / Applicant had a duty to mitigate loss / Some of the mileage and accommodation costs claimed by the Applicant were not reasonably foreseeable / Compensation of $1,200.00 reasonable, covers reasonable cost of airfares and a contribution towards storage or parking costs / Respondent ordered to pay $1,200.00 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Applicant parked in Respondent’s carpark without paying fee / Respondent issued Applicant with breach notice charging them $65.00 / Applicant paid $1.50, being fee for 1 hour of parking / Applicant claimed fee was unenforceable penalty / Held: fee was enforceable penalty / fee was reasonable to protect legitimate interests of Respondent / Applicant to pay Respondent $63.50, being $65.00 fee minus $1.50 already paid / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant parked in private parking spot managed by Respondent / Respondent issued breach notice to Applicant’s previous address / Applicant received notice after due date and paid $245.00 to Respondent and explained notice had been sent to previous address / Respondent sought further late fee of $75.00 / Applicant refused to make further payment / Applicant claimed refund of $245.00 fee, declaration they were not liable for further $75.00 fee and $200.00 for stress and anxiety / Held: Applicant trespassed on land / Applicant entered into contract with Respondent / Contract terms set out $95.00 infringement fee / Any further fees not clearly signposted / Applicant not entitled to compensation for stress and anxiety / Respondent to refund Applicant $150.00 / Claim partially upheld.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant parked his car in the Respondent's paid carpark / Upon return Applicant found his car had been stolen / Applicant claimed $12,000.00 from his insurer but did not get the $16,000.00 he paid for his car / Applicant claimed the difference / Applicant claimed Respondent breached a term in the parking agreement to keep his car secure / Respondent claimed they took responsible care by their actions in securing the car park / Held: vehicles parked in the car park at the owner's risk / Applicant could not prove Respondent failed to show reasonable care and skill that would be expected of a car park owner / Claim dismissed.

Contract/ Enforceability / Vexatious claim / Applicant parked their vehicle in car park owned by the respondent / Applicant was unable to get a ticket to authorise their parking / Applicant stayed in their car for 54 minutes / Applicant was issued with a parking ticket of $65.00, “plus further administration costs” / Applicant claimed there was no contract / Applicant claimed that the penalty was unenforceable / Respondent claimed that the claims of the applicant were vexatious or frivolous / Held: there was a contract between the applicant and the respondent as the applicant knew that there were conditions for parking in this location / Held: The penalty of the $65.00 “plus further administration costs” is enforceable to protect the respondents reasonable interests / Held: the applicant’s claim is not vexatious or frivolous as they genuinely believed they were being treated unfairly / Applicant to pay respondent a total of $127.50 / Claim dismissed

Contract / Tort / Trespass / Applicant instructed his son to park in a private carpark / Respondent issued Applicant with a letter to pay $95 for the breach and $75 late payment / Applicant advised Respondent he had not received the first breach letter but paid the $95 / Applicant later received notice from a debt collection agency to pay $288.75 / Applicant sought declaration he was not liable to pay any further monies to the Respondent and claimed reimbursement of the filing fee / Whether the Applicant trespassed onto land by parking without authorisation / Whether the Applicant was a party to a contract by parking where he did / Whether the Applicant was entitled to a declaration that he was not liable to pay the breach fees / Held: $95 paid by Applicant for trespassing onto the Respondent’s land was more than sufficient compensation / No contract between the parties / No foundation for the Respondent’s notice seeking late payment or debt collectors’ fees / Applicant was entitled to…

Parking / Contract / Applicant parked car in a commercial car park owned by Respondent / Respondent sent demand to the Applicant for $65 parking fee / Applicant paid $5 of $65 parking fee / Applicant claimed pricing sign in a poorly lit area and sign difficult to read / Applicant sought a declaration he was not liable to pay $65 to the Respondent / Whether Applicant formed a contract with the Respondent / Whether $65 was unjustified penalty / Held: a motorist who enters a public car park which is clearly signed and owned by a commercial operator must be taken to be entering a contract with that operator and to comply with stated conditions / $65 a reasonable sum to protect legitimate interests of Respondent in operating commercial car park / Request for declaration of non-liability dismissed / Respondent not liable to refund the Applicant $5 / Applicant must pay Respondent $60 / claim dismissed

Property / cross lease / Fencing Act 1978 / fence between exclusive area and common area / entitlement to park in common area / enforcement of requirement not to park in the common area / claim for compensation / Held: entitled to have a fence as no term in the lease preventing this / respondents not entitled to park in the common area / Tribunal not able to make order preventing long term parking / claim for compensation dismissed as not supported by evidence

Contract / Implied terms / Breach / Damages / Respondent contacted Applicant to repair truck and complete COF check / Truck failed COF and Applicant prepared quote for necessary repairs / Respondent delayed making decision on repairs and became difficult to contact / Applicant emailed Respondent advising it would start charging parking/storage fee / Respondent did not reply / Applicant claims $10,000 from Respondent for repairs, COF, labour and storage / Held: there was an implied term that Respondent would make decision regarding repairs within reasonable time and would remove truck if required by Applicant / Held: Respondent is liable for full sum claimed / Respondent breached implied term of contract / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay $10,000 to Applicant

Parking / Applicant charged $65 for not obtaining a parking ticket when he parked at Respondent's car park / Applicant seeking declaration that he is not liable to pay the fee / Held: Respondent had no reasonable basis to think he was parking in a Council car park / Reasonable user of the car park would be put on notice that Respondent put conditions on the parking/ Conditions were displayed / Fee charged not exorbitant or unconscionable / Claim for non-liability dismissed.

Trespass to goods / Applicant visited Embassy and parked in neighbouring property’s exclusive parking space / Respondent clamped Applicant’s car / Applicant claims refund of $150 release fee and $45 filing fee / Respondent does not dispute it clamped Applicant’s car so trespass of goods established / Issue whether clear warning car could be clamped if parked in space in question / Held: signs did not provide sufficient warning whether visitors to Embassy could park there / Held: Respondent unable to establish defence to action / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to refund Applicant fee for clamping car  / Filing fee cannot be recovered by Applicant per s 43 of the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA), ss 32 and 43 / Applicant left car at Respondent’s airport parking facility / employee damaged car while moving it / damage repaired at a cost of $2,275.16 by Applicant’s insurer / Applicant and Applicant’s insurer claim for that amount / Held: Applicant meets definition of consumer under CGA / Respondent’s terms and conditions do not exclude liability as employee was driving the car and Respondent cannot contract out of CGA, under s 43 / driving is an integral part of Respondent’s service and crashing the car is a failure of reasonable care and skill except in extraordinary circumstances / evidence not able to establish any extraordinary circumstances / Applicants entitled to remedy under s 32, CGA / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,275.16