Let’s Have A Wilson Parking Thread

[nuthin' fancy]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Watch the youtube video. They are not legally allowed to fine you under the law. Only the government can do it.

As I understand it, by entering their premises you agree to pay the maximum amount and they then discount for a variety of reasons (time incl).

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

only the police and road authorities do, local councils have 'bylaws' which are legal standing, a privately run car park has no legal standing

No private carparks here, but the ones in major supermarkets are controlled by the council.

My wife got booked for the front bar on the Fairlane protruding into the space in front of her once (carpark was only half full at the time).

$175 fine for incorrect parking

[aussiblue]

the courts don't give them access to your details, they must get them through the roads authority, like Vicroads or RMS somehow

Again in WA things are different see https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa...parking-debts/

Wilson hunts down parking debts


GARETH PARKER September 1, 2010, 1:02 pm

Private parking operator Wilson has won an order through the WA Supreme Court for access to the names and addresses of 20 motor vehicle owners the company says have not paid parking breach notices.

Wilson says the Supreme Court order is a precedent and now plans to hit the Department of Transport with a request for the details of a further 10,000 motorists, who represent about $600,000 in unpaid breaches.

The development comes more than two years after revelations the former Department of Planning and Infrastructure breached its own policies by selling personal details of 25,000 motorists to Wilson.

The company sought motorists' details from the Department of Transport in June, arguing it had the power to exercise statutory discretion, but the Department refused.

On July 2, Wilson commenced an application in the Supreme Court, which was granted on August 9.

As opposed to local government parking operations, Wilson has no legal power to issue fines.

Instead, it issues parking infringement notices which are effectively obligations created under contract law and set out in each parking lot's terms and conditions.

Also unlike local government, Wilson has no recourse to the Fines Enforcement Registry.

"The order provided by the Supreme Court of WA is consistent with the position Wilson Parking has taken over the past few years - that it is entitled to obtain vehicle ownership details in order that we can pursue claims for outstanding breach notices," the company said in a statement.

Wilson Parking chief Craig Smith said the company issued about 1000 breach notices a month.

The $60 penalty was not a fine but a "pre-calculation" of Wilson's lost revenue and enforcement costs.

He said the company would prefer to write to motorists to ask for payment than clamp wheels but until now it has not had access to motorists' details.

"Clamping is absolutely our last preference," he said.

The Department of Transport has been contacted for comment.

[Trump]

Interesting, a private company seeking recompense for breach of parking conditions gets told to suck a lemon, govco does the same thing with legal sanction and can put you in jail for non-compliance.

"Don't steal, the government hates competition"

- Ron Paul

[SYZ]

I can't see Wilsons (aka PES) applying to the Supreme Court to recoup a $65 parking fine. The WA Supreme Court (General Division) Filing originating process/Commence Proceedings cost is $1,085. If they lost, Wilsons would be up for this amount plus your court costs and legal fees. Would they risk it? I'm betting not.

Just bung it in the circular file.

[Phildo]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Clamping is still legal in WA; see http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation..._homepage.html
Fines, Penalties and Infringement Notices Enforcement Act 1994

Immobilisation of vehicles
(1) A warrant issued in respect of a debtor entitles the Sheriff to immobilise one or more vehicles licensed in the name of the debtor using —
(a) one or more wheel clamps; or
(b) another means prescribed by the regulations.
2) A vehicle must not be immobilised under a warrant at a particular place unless the Sheriff is satisfied that immobilising the vehicle at that place will not —
(a) cause the vehicle to be parked in contravention of a written law; or
(b) cause undue inconvenience to persons other than the debtor.
(3) A vehicle must not be immobilised under a warrant if, at the time of the immobilisation —
(a) the number plates of the vehicle have been removed in accordance with section 95F; and
(b) the number plates have not been returned to the debtor.
(4) If the Sheriff immobilises a vehicle under a warrant, the Sheriff must affix to the vehicle a notice that complies with subsection (5).
(5) A notice affixed to a vehicle under subsection (4) must include at least the following information —
(a) that a warrant has been issued in respect of the holder of the vehicle licence; and
(b) the time at which the vehicle was immobilised; and
(c) that it is an offence to remove the notice while the vehicle remains immobilised under a warrant; and
(d) information about what the debtor may do to have the immobilisation of the vehicle removed; and
(e) that the Sheriff may take further enforcement action against the debtor if the debtor does not pay the amount owed under the warrant and any enforcement fees; and
(f) any other information prescribed by the regulations.
(6) A notice under subsection (4) may be in 2 parts.

Two things:
- "Sheriff" does not include Wilson Parking, or any of its staff.
- That law also forbids, "(b) cause undue inconvenience to persons other than the debtor." ie the Sheriff must go after the person who parked the car, not the person who owns the car.

[Phildo]

What I received back from Wilson Parking:

Thank you for your email, Due to the driver not contacting us after the Notice was issued to either pay the Notice or to lodge an appeal we had no option but to apply to the Supreme Court for permission to obtain the registered owners details so that we could advise them of the outstanding Notice. Once permission from the Supreme Court was obtained we then applied to the Dept. of Transport for that information. Once we had that information we sent a letter to the registered owner. This process takes several months to complete and the registered owner was notified as soon as we were able to do so.

Sometimes the driver simply ignores the Notice, other times due to one of several possible reasons the Parking Breach Notice is not on the vehicle when the driver returns and the driver is unaware of the Notice.

Parking Breach Notices are issued to the vehicle as we have no way of knowing who was driving at the time. If you lend your vehicle to a friend/family member/business associate it is your responsibility to ensure they deal with any Parking Breach Notices issued.

You can nominate a driver by providing a statutory declaration with the name and address of the driver and we will send that driver a letter requesting payment. However, if the driver does not pay it will remain an outstanding Notice against this vehicle.

------------------------------------------------------------------

What I sent back:

As I was not in any way responsible for the use of the vehicle at the time, there was no contract of any kind between myself and Wilson Parking.

I note that you do not have the statutory authority to impose fines. Accordingly, I make it clear that at no point will I be paying this "parking breach notice".

If Wilson Parking takes any action against that vehicle which results in the loss of revenue then I reserve the right to pursue legal action against Wilson Parking for that loss of revenue.

Furthermore, Wilson Parking has been negligent in contacting me in a timely manner. Due to this delay the driver is no longer available (he has moved overseas). This delay is solely the fault of Wilson Parking.

Details of this matter have been sent to various government organisations, as well as every member of parliament in Western Australia. It will also be published on a dedicated web site in the near future, so that people can be informed of their rights.

I also note the lack of name or details of any contact person in your email.

------------------------------------------------------------------

What I received back from Wilson Parking:

Nothing.

They are not interested in appeals, just blackmail.

[aussiblue]

Two things:
- "Sheriff" does not include Wilson Parking, or any of its staff.

The Sheriff will happily delegate this power to Wilson's or its nominated agent(s)per Section 66.

66. Sheriff may delegate
(1) The Sheriff may delegate to a person any power or duty of the Sheriff under another provision of this Act.
(2) The delegation must be in writing signed by the Sheriff.
(3) A person exercising or performing a power or duty that has been delegated to the person under this section is to be taken to do so in accordance with the terms of the delegation unless the contrary is shown.
(4) Nothing in this section limits the ability of the Sheriff to perform a function through an officer or agent.

..and the owner of the vehicle becomes the debtor if he cannot identify a driver.

[devilcv8]

Originally Posted by SYZ

I can't see Wilsons (aka PES) applying to the Supreme Court to recoup a $65 parking fine. The WA Supreme Court (General Division) Filing originating process/Commence Proceedings cost is $1,085. If they lost, Wilsons would be up for this amount plus your court costs and legal fees. Would they risk it? I'm betting not.

Just bung it in the circular file.

They don't go to court to get details for 1 notice(don't call it a fine), they wait until they have lots more then go for it.
but yes, throw it in the bin.