Tough New Carpark Terms & Conditions

Elppa8 on 01/06/2017 - 18:37
Last edited 02/06/2017 - 01:30 by 1 other user

Local shopping centre car park now has new parking restrictions. It's an open type car park with no booms for entry or exit and was previously free.
Notice Image
T&C Image
Now restricted to one free period upto three hours in any one day so can't visit twice a day.
Using number plate recognition
$77 infringement charge
The vehicle can be retained until any money owed is paid and they can sell the car after 30 days if not paid.
You're liable for any damage to the car park including oil leaks.

Is this standard practice at other car parks, it seems a bit over the top to go shopping in the morning and then get a charge for going back in the afternoon.

Automotive

Comments

  • jjjaar on 01/06/2017 - 18:49
    +3

    Is there anything about additional fees for staying beyond 3P, or returning twice in one day?

    I'd contact the Centre that manages the car park and ask why it's so restrictive. If that fails, contact the anchor stores in the centre (Coles, Woolworths, kmart, big w?) and let them know you, as a customer, can no longer come before and after work, and that it is bad for their business. They'll lobby the centre management then.

  • tranter on 01/06/2017 - 19:01

    Who runs the carpark?

  • Stewardo on 01/06/2017 - 19:48
    +2

    Print out some number plates on cardboard and blu tack them over real ones before you drive thru in the afternoon

    • Mad Max on 02/06/2017 - 00:02

      Great idea! Have you tried if it works?

    • kiitos on 02/06/2017 - 08:10
      +1

      For bonus laughs, print the letters of your rego CAPTCHA-style.

      "Recognise THAT, you robot!"

  • chumlee on 01/06/2017 - 19:50

    Put some mud on your number plates

  • cjbowden on 01/06/2017 - 20:17
    +7
    1. If you got a 'fine', ignore it. They issue you a notice that looks just like a fine, but is in fact a settlement for breach of contract. If they were to take it to court, they would have to show how they suffered economic loss as a result of your breach. Hard to justify a loss of $77 if you parked in a $5/hr carpark for an hour.
    2. I suspect (but don't know for sure) that clamping you would be illegal.
    3. Complain to the shopping centre, and tell them you will be taking your business elsewhere.
  • djkelly69 on 01/06/2017 - 20:17

    If there are no boomgates, how do they stop you leaving without paying your 'infringement'?

    • [Deactivated] on 01/06/2017 - 20:21

      boom gates are coming soon…

    • Elppa8 on 01/06/2017 - 21:26
      -1

      Number plate recognition, next time you visit if overdue payment they could clamp.

      • djkelly69 on 01/06/2017 - 21:58
        +1

        Not sure they can legally. Maybe on the day you park there, but not the next time you are there.

        Kinda like stealing from someone because they owe you money - you breached a contract last time so I am going to lock-up/impound your car this time.

        Could definitely stop you parking there though.

  • [Deactivated] on 01/06/2017 - 20:18
    +1

    Is this standard practice at other car parks, it seems a bit over the top to go shopping in the morning and then get a charge for going back in the afternoon.

    Several shopping centers in Sydney have done similar, ie 2 hour limit per day … but they have several exemption, eg free parking after 6pm, can vaidate your ticket if you're watching a movie or dining.

    The vehicle can be retained until any money owed is paid and they can sell the car after 30 days if not paid.

    I'm pretty sure they can't legally do this, regardless of what the t&c say.

    You're liable for any damage to the car park including oil leaks.

    Pretty sure this is illegal as well, unless they agree to be responsible for damage to your car as well.

    I would just shop somewhere else … plenty of choices.

  • djkelly69 on 01/06/2017 - 20:24
    +2

    Haha just saw the oil spill part. Would love to see how they are going to prove your car leaked the oil!

    Also there is a rule in contract law that the more onerous the term, the more must be done to bring the other party's attention to it (bold, large font, red, etc). So the fact they think they can hide in normal tiny text the term saying we can hold then sell you car worth 100-1000x the value of the 'fine' is not particularly clever.

    • Almost Banned on 01/06/2017 - 22:54

      Can you cite the source of this rule in contract law?
      I'd be interesting in seeing it.

      • djkelly69 on 01/06/2017 - 23:20

        Not off to top of my head. Pretty sure it was a carpark case, but doesn't cut it down much for contract law.

        • poppynyet on 02/06/2017 - 07:39

          Shoe Lane v Thornton, I believe.

        • Almost Banned on 02/06/2017 - 13:05

          @poppynyet: Thornton v Shoe Lane does indeed include something LIKE this - but not actually this. Denning MR was talking about a couple principles but mainly the time of the contract and the inability to incorporate further terms after the contract had been made.
          He then goes on to consider the effect of a contract that is made which includes words to the effect of 'terms and conditions apply' where those terms purportedly incorporated into the contract are only available after entry.
          In those circumstances he does indeed say that if the terms and conditions include something which goes beyond the mere regulatory or standard type clauses more should be done to draw a persons attention to them then simply say that conditions will apply or else they fail to be so incorporated because no-one would reasonably expect such punitive conditions would be so incorporated.
          This does not mean that if you are presented with a contract and have the ability to read its provisions prior to entry that any non-standard clause must be written in bold red ink. Where a party has a fair opportunity to consider the terms and decide whether to be bound by them, no further emphasis is necessary.
          The presumption that a person entering into a contract has read it, agreed with it, and intends to be bound by its provisions will still apply.
          See Surfstone v Morgan Consulting for example.

  • [Deactivated] on 01/06/2017 - 20:37
    +2

    Is the carpark near a station
    probably got sick of "park and ride" customers

    • Elppa8 on 01/06/2017 - 21:21

      Could be part of the reason, station is about 600 metres away though apart from Christmas I've never seen the car park full.

  • [Deactivated] on 01/06/2017 - 21:16

    They are a private company. they can keep rego details, but they have no legal avenue to get your details from your rego.

  • [Deactivated] on 01/06/2017 - 21:59

    Rhodes shopping center sort of the same thing, but 3 hrs total all day so can divide that up how many revisits a day but max 3 or you start paying normal shopping center car park charges.

  • Euphemistic on 02/06/2017 - 07:11

    Mosley they are relying on fairly benign threats to get you to good the right thing. In other similar situations it has been showed they have difficulty in enforcing these conditions legally. However, most people would consider the 'rules' and abide by them to prevent future hassle.

  • Stevek1960 on 02/06/2017 - 08:15

    Its standard at all brissy carparks at the big complexes now, 3 hour max in any one day for free then you pay buy the hour

  • Emli on 02/06/2017 - 08:23

    I can think of a few car parks in Perth that have these rules. One is located near a train station and within a few km of Perth. Another one is two hours free and you take a ticket for this. However, you are speaking to the wrong person here - I am not a big shopper and would rarely see the need for three hours of shopping.

  • terrys on 02/06/2017 - 08:28

    But condition 8 is fair - they grant you the `right' to contact them, and they will consider each complaint "fairly and reasonably".
    /s

  • [Deactivated] on 02/06/2017 - 09:49

    Ludicrous set of unenforceable rules. Probably written by the managers 14 year old.

    However, from the OP, apart from the $77 fine, this does not look like a cash grab. They are probably want to deter non shoppers from parking or they think 3 hours is more than enough for their mall.

    Similar time restrictions at a mall nearby. I just choose not to go there.

  • he3at on 03/06/2017 - 09:47

    The signs say "3P" and the T&Cs refer to a "free period" but that's not actually defined anywhere that I can see.
    * 3 Petahours?
    * 3 Parsecs?
    * 3 Paleolithic periods?

    Arguing a 3 hour limit would be pretty difficult to stand up legally I reckon if they actually haven't spelled it out for you given they're not relying on the road rules here.

  • tim374 on 07/06/2017 - 17:08

    Imagine how annoyed the people behind you must feel, as in theory all of this needs to be read before entry into the carpark. The first point says that you can enter and immediately leave without parking if you don't agree, so by not parking chances are you are holding someone up. Necessary evil.

  • Elppa8 on 07/06/2017 - 18:34

    Apparently the restrictions are in response to commuters, movie goers and staff parking near the entrances and under the covered areas for extended periods.

    I was advised that contrary to one of the conditions that parking would be allowed twice a day after 3 hours but further into the conversation it was indicated that they had not read the T&C since they were posted.

    The breach notice will be stuck under the windscreen wipers so I can imagine some of these will be "lost" or blown away in the wind or onto another windscreen.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join