Parking Fine by Private Company

Hi all, parked in a empty private parking lot at around 6pm,as no street parking available. Just went away 15 min for a takeaway, and come back to a bloody $80 fine! Surely..

Now, I'm not gonna dispute I tried my luck there, and got done. It's honestly in the middle of residential area with no cars parked there. I notice the ticket says "this is not a fine,but a breach of contract etc" . The private parking company operator is called pesau in WA. What are odd they will go after me if I don't pay the fine? Will they approach DOT for my details? I honestly not sure how they can police it?

Go easy on me.. I'll admit I'm broke (especially after Xmas) , but let's be fair, I'm only there for 15 min after business hours.. Surely the parking operator must be parked somewhere eagle eye me from far.

Here's the pic to the t&c

Related Store:


    • +111 votes

      Dont talk to them, and definitely dont admit you were the driver - this company has no details other than your number plate and is on a fishing expedition. Courts have been extremely reluctant to give these companies people's details.

      Just ignore it.

      If it goes to court (which it wont), it would be up to them to prove the damage caused to them, which will be extremely difficult given it was a big lot with no one in it.

      It also appears the 'breach notice' does not specify who breached the contract and what the breach was (unless it is on the otherside)?

      • +9 votes

        Best advise op can get, and free of charge.

      • +1 vote

        I wonder how they are legally allowed to place these "fines" which there is precedent for them being unable to legally enforce. Can I go around tricking people into giving me money I'm not entitled to?

        • +8 votes

          They can take action (eg. issue 'breach notices', go to court, etc) to try and recover damages for the breach of contract if they want, but if the amount of damages they claim is not commensurate with the quantifiable damage suffered by them, it is a penalty and not enforceable.

          Eg. in the OP's case, the carpark was empty, so it was not like he was stopping paying customers from parking there and costing them money. Their only damage was him not paying the ~$5-$10 it would have cost to park there. So their loss is say $10, and they are trying to charge 8x this for the breach. Clearly a penalty, as it is not at all in line with their loss/damage.


          If you own an asset that can generate some traffic, you can set terms of use and try fishing for some money. because when the public uses the asset, that has been set out for use by the owner (i.e. not trespassing), the public is willingly entering into a contract (assuming there is signage stating terms of use, like a parking lot). so yes, you can legally do it if you have the right asset or provide the right considerations.

          thats why they say "breach of contract" and not "fine".

        • +1 vote

          @djkelly69: Thanks for your responses. I understand that they package it up as a loss, but equally wonder why they are allowed to continue offering breach of contracts which are 8x the legally enforceable amount. They are still tricking the majority of people into giving them more money than they're entitled to.

      • +1 vote

        Hi mate thanks for your well written response. Do you (or anyone here) know if Melbourne Airport issuing a "fine" is also not enforceable?

        As Melbourne Airport is also a private company. I haven't been fined there but have sometimes overstayed and worried about it.

        I wonder if airports have a partnership with VicRoads similar to how CityLink has with toll notices and fines. Cheers.


        Great advise, don't respond and it will hopefully go away unless they summon you to court.

        Australian case law is a bit tricky, however there is a specific case regarding private car parks that may be relevant to you.
        By entering a car park you 'agree' to the contract to park there. However there must be a clear and visible sign on entry stating that you must pay or be fined. If no such sign exists or its obstructed in such a way that a reasonable person wouldn't see it then you should not pay the fine.

        However if you have been to the carpark before and you knew to purchase a ticket, then you cannot claim that you didn't know the rules and you must pay the fine.

      • +1 vote

        Exactly as outlined in this quality video:


        How about fines from overseas?

        We once went to Italy and got a fine for accidentally driving down a "local vehicles only" road… two fines actually, a minute apart: one for driving in, then another for immediately doing a U-turn and driving out.

        It totaled over $300! We paid it :(

        • +1 vote

          I’m assuming you didn’t do it in your own car, but a rental car. And you aren’t an EU resident.


          The rental car company is fined and then the rental car company charges you for their loss + a hefty “admin” fee.

          It’s pretty enforceable as the rental company will come after you to recoup their losses. They’ll often just charge the credit card (if one was used on the booking) and then tell you about it later. They’ll send you the detail of the fine and how to dispute it, which usually involves going to court in the country where the fine was issued.

          The rental company may also engage debt collectors etc if they get no satisfaction from your credit card.


          The rental company has passed on your details to the issuing authority (and will typically charge you for doing this). Then the fine is sent directly to you. Not sure what happens if you don’t pay in that instance, you could find yourself banned from entering the EU as they will have your passport details from the rental company? I don’t know, seems unlikely.

          If they can’t get the money out of you it’s likely they’ll just charge the rental company…. see above. Or they might give up.


          You were actually issued the fines in person. Which is a whole different story for a tourist. They can either demand immediate payment or take your passport until you pay.



          The rental company has passed on your details to the issuing authority (and will typically charge you for doing this).

          This one! First we knew about it was the rental company charged our credit card $54 for giving them the info. We thought it was a scam charge so we contacted the CC company and they said that it was this fee and we could not get it reversed.

          Then the fine came in the mail (entirely in Italian!), state-issued… and we just paid it.

          you could find yourself banned from entering the EU

          Yeah, we googled a bunch, folk said to pay it as they'll sell the debt to a local debt collection company and the fines rise astronomically as soon as they do that (thus making it worthwhile for the debt collectors)… plus yeah, I am a EU citizen (but not resident) so we go to europe a lot so there could be hassles.

          Thanks for your thoughts, makes me feel better that I likely would have had to pay it :)


        I've thrown many into the bin. First comes more fines, then finally some letter from their lawyers. Just throw them all into the bin. They can't prove its you. :)

  • +1 vote

    You can't get blood from a stone ignore it and it will go away after about 2 years.

  • +7 votes

    They need to go after the person who entered into the "contract" and prove who that was. Read all the people just ignoring Carepark and such.

  • +16 votes

    I am not sure what the go is in WA or other states
    But in VIC you can easily get the fine withdrawn

    There is a major operator here called CarEPark
    They issue you with a "Breach of Contract" not a fine (as private operators can not issue fines)

    A quick letter to them sighting the case below points out to them that their "fine" is invalid
    Every single time it will be withdrwan.

    here is the case findings for the Vic matter.

    The sum of $88 described by CP as liquidated damages in CP’s
    infringement notice 83624222 was not liquidated damages but rather that
    sum was a penalty and it is unenforceable by CP.
    John Vico is hereby relieved of the obligation to pay CP the sum of $88.

    • +1 vote

      Thanks for pointing this out. Didn't know the precedence had been set.

    • +12 votes

      But in VIC you can easily get the fine withdrawn

      There is no fine to be withdrawn!

      They would only have registration details right now - sending them a letter will provide them with details of someone to intimidate with further letters and demands!

      Best to ignore.

      • -25 votes

        They are able to get your details from your rego and you don’t have to include you address if you don’t want too.

        Ignoring it will mean it goes to a debt collector and your credit rating will be affected.

        Ignoring is the worst thing you can do.

        • +22 votes

          Contacting them is a mistake. Credit rating won't be affected because there was no loan or credit provided. It won't go to debt collectors anyway.

          They can get details from rego but they don't know who was driving the car. (the person who entered the parking 'contract')

          Best advice is to just ignore it.

    • +2 votes

      Looks like John Vico took one for the team. Onya John!


        John Vico is a tool, he risked having their legitimacy tested in court when the operators NEVER initiate and there has never been very risky to just not pay. This just eggs them on to appeal it using a real lawyer and if they lose to lobby the government to give them real power if their business model breaks

  • +5 votes

    Why are you even entertaining this?

  • +21 votes

    Private companies can not issue fines, these are invoices.

    Chuck it in the bin and forget about it.

    See forum for more info.

        • +1 vote

          Pretty sure they can apply to the state and get the registered owners vehicles. They have in the past.

        • +7 votes

          Some states have introduced specific legislation to prevent private car parks from accessing the information.

          In Victoria, the Road Safety Amendment (Private Car Park Operations) Bill 2015 (BAC) abolishes the right for car park operators to apply to the courts for access to people’s details through VicRoads.

        • +3 votes

          There are some loopholes to obtain the registered owner's details, but there's none to obtain the actual driver's information.

          It's the driver's information they need.

        • +4 votes


          Yep. And as they cannot prove they have a contract with the owner, they cannot expect the owner to pass over the details of the driver. And being a civil matter, I imagine the only way to could try and get the details would be going through court, but they would probably just get laughed out.

        • +4 votes


          An example I can think of is people who ignore penalties from taking road tolls

          There's actually a bit of a difference with the toll roads because they've got an arrangement with the government. The state agencies will issue real fines and enforcement notices to the registered owner who must either pay or nominate the driver as per the other government fines.

          In a civil case, such as is with the private carparks, the arrangements with the government do not exist and there's no obligation on the registered owner to nominate the driver and advise the carpark operator. Even where a civil case is brought to court, there will not be any fines as such - the operator must be able to prove their losses.

          There are private carparks that have arrangements with local councils and the local rangers can issue fines, but the revenue from the fines do not go to the car park owner/operator so there's no real incentive to make money. The only incentive would be to promote turnover of parking bays.

  • +18 votes


      • +15 votes

        Until it ends up with a debt collector and screws your credit rating.

        Wait, how are they going to prove OP parked in there?
        According to you, any surveillance video they have isn't going to be admissible in court - due to OP not having given his consent to being recorded in their video.


        • +3 votes


          I chose to ignore all the repeated attacks when I made the comment about dash cams as they were not constructive.

          I personally wouldn't have called them "repeated attacks".

          A few people including myself have also had insurance claims experience and the treatment of the issues around videos and privacy differ to what you've said your experiences are. Others who have contested what you've said and have provided the relevant information.

          I'm actually very curious as to what information you're referring to or using (other than simply saying that you used to work in claims) that says that video evidence, filmed in a public place, cannot be used in court due to issues around consent/privacy.

        • +4 votes


          Out of interest, do you have any source to indicate that you would expect a right to privacy for your car on a public road?

          I believe a few people have made reference to indicate that there is no issue (such as Baysew). I see you have referenced the Surveillance Act. Would you happen to know a specific section of the act that would put it there in black and white.

          I think from a previous post, you have indicated as inside your car would be considered a private place, but I imagine the nature of how cars are used (ie. on public land) means that a person could not expect the same right to privacy as to if they are in their own house.

        • +1 vote


          you and I are entitled to certain levels of privacy when in our cars

          Just blur out the faces of the people in the cars then. Inanimate objects are not entitled to privacy.

          It likely won't be in dispute as to who the driver was anyway, just what the car/s did, so all good!

        • +2 votes

          Nope, you're driving on a public road, dash cams are allowed to film you, you have no privacy in public.

        • +2 votes


          This community has a unique way of shooting down those who try to help or share information they have personal experience with if it does not match their own. Even when the info being shared is correct.

          I'm sorry but your comments about video evidence, privacy and now debt collectors for this issue are a long way away from being correct.

          In very specific circumstances some your comments could be correct (maybe..) but for typical scenarios you’re simply wrong. There can be many shades of grey in the law – you seem to be picking up on the lightest shade and calling it black.

          I am sure the attacks will return and I will ignore them.

          @bobbified and others have simply asked in 2 threads for you to backup your statements - you havent done so and now retreat to saying you're being attacked.

          It’s truly worrying where you say you work in insurance and that you could be offering your clients some of this advice.

        • +4 votes


          I chose to ignore all the repeated attacks when I made the comment about dash cams as they were not constructive

          More like you were caught red-handed lying out your ass and had no leg to stand on.

          And here you are again talking shit. Don't you ever learn?



          You're plain wrong. Multiple lawyers have told you that you are wrong.
          You keep insisting you're right..
          There's no arguing with stupid.


          @jimbobaus: Woah, with that many negs from the last post, how have you not reassessed your understanding on the law re: surveillance. You are wrong on so many levels.

          There's so much broken reasoning and incorrect understanding of the law, that i don't even know where to start.

          Maybe here

          For the record when you enter a car park you consent to being filmed. Due to the fact their are countless signs regarding being under surveillance. The law states that implied consent is given when entering and signs are provided (as in shopping centres, car parks etc )

          Have you ever seen surveillance cameras owned by shop owners in the city (and basically anywhere else really) blatantly pointing at the footpath in front of their store? Cause according to you, countless businesses are breaking the law all over Australia.

          When I am in my car driving on the road I am entitled to a level of privacy, I am unable to consent to you filming me via a dash cam. I have given my consent to be filmed by vic roads etc as it’s a condition of my registration and licence.

          So what, if you decide to drive to NSW, suddenly RMS (the nsw equiv of vic roads) is suddenly breaking the law?
          Does vic rd even own the road and camera? Last i checked, those kinds of things are maintained by your local council…

          But since i'm sitting on the train and have nothing better to do, ill give you a quick rundown of the law from what i remember

          • The general rule is that you can film in public places and places which you own without consent. This includes roads, footpath, parks etc

          • There are exceptions, but this is certainly not it (exceptions generally revolve around indecent stuff).

          There's only 2 reason why i think you're misunderstanding so badly

          1. Audio recordings: Most cases you would need consent to record private conversations, even in public. Maybe that's the type of recording you got mixed up with.

          2. Publishing of recorded material: You can legally film and take pictures in public without consent, but aren't allowed to publish certain pics and vids without consent

      • +11 votes

        Ignore Jimbo too.

  • +24 votes

    Send the money to them in the mail. Just slip in a $100 monopoly note and tell them to keep the change.


    Just email and say that you don't know who was using your car that night, but it wasn't you.
    You will be happy to pass on the note if they can confirm that driver and how this cost them 80 dollars.


    Was the notice stuck to the car when you returned? If so, the chances of them actualling getting your details via your rego is slim. They won't bother over $80 as it is too much hassle to get it from Main Roads. Therefore, they won't chase you up.

  • +5 votes

    Do not contact them in any way.
    Ignore it completely.
    Totally unenforceable, even if they knew who you are, which they don't and they can't find out…..
    Do anything else and you are foolish

  • +3 votes

    DO NOT ENGAGE OR CONTACT THEM - If you do so you give them your contact details!

  • +1 vote

    OP, have a look at this:
    PESAU = Wilson Parking

    If you don't pay their """""""""fine""""""""" and they catch you using another Wilson carpark at a later date, they can clamp your car (and from what I understand they do it fairly often).

    You can ignore the ticket you got, but you'll also have to avoid Wilson car parks in future.

  • +6 votes

    ABC The Checkout did a segment on this, here's the 6 minutes clip of it:

    Informative and fun.
    On a side note the VCAT example they used that the tribunal say was unenforceable was also around $80($88).

    As other have said, ignore it and do nothing (amount is way too excessive).


    Anyone remember the old day's of block buster video sending around debt collectors on late VHS tapes that owed $3 in late fees.
    That's how it will end if you ignore it.
    I still owe onetell $50 sorry James and Lachlan but we did have a direct debit contract not my fault the banks stopped transaction


    had this happen to me … just ignore .. they have no legal right to fine you. i called up the accc and they advised me to ignore it, said they had calls from other people about the same thing.

  • +14 votes

    Guess I'll just play dumb and ignore it



      If you receive any further correspondence (you won't), pop it in the mail to the operator writing in big red letters "contract not accepted".

      Do not provide a return address, do not provide your phone number, do not provide your name.

      A contract is only valid if agreed by two parties and with something of value exchanged.

      Only government agency can issue fines.


      Ignore them, they go away.

      I don't make a habit of doing it - I've only ever had one such fine, but it went away. Just don't do it again - I reckon they'll take someone to court if they're a repeat offender.


      As I mentioned above, you're still at risk of clamping if you park in another Wilson car park. WA laws allow the private operators to clamp you, something that doesn't happen in most other states. Even if you drive into a Wilson and buy a ticket 12 months from now, you could come back to clamps on your wheels.

  1. djkelly69 on 10/01/2018 - 07:02
  2. JIMB0 on 10/01/2018 - 06:41
  3. tranter on 10/01/2018 - 15:45
  4. cauilfield on 10/01/2018 - 01:15
  5. iforgotmysocks on 10/01/2018 - 02:17
  • Login
  • or
  • Register
  • to Join The Conversation
  • Top Comments
  • Top