Hi all, I've read through this thread, and the last one, thanks for contributing helpful advice!
I'm having hassles with 'Care Park pty ltd' over identical issues as presented by others here, and wish to add my support. I'm at the stage where I'm recieving letters from 'Parke Lawyers', threatening legal action, if I don't pay up for each so-called breach for 'liquidated damages'. I did write an email back to the law firm, stating I'm not paying any money, I don't recognise the validity of the so-called contract, and that I've made written complaints to Consumer Affairs and the ACCC. I've done this, and await there response. (It's only been a week or so..) These are for supposed breaches that occured several years ago. I'm sure I wasn't driving on some of the occasions listed, (I have my roster to show I was working), but my ute was being lent out at different times for carting stuff that doesn't fit into a car. I have no records of exact dates and times from years ago..(who does?).
In Tassie, we don't have VCAT, nor a Consumer Action Legal Centre, nor even a decent legal aid service, but if it comes to court, I'll defend myself if I have to!
I think I'll ignore letters from carepark/ their lawyers from now on, writing back adds fuel to fire, but I'll post any responses I get from ACCC/ Consumer affairs.
Cheers!
Irish.
Am I ever going to use your carpark again? No way get F@#*@d F*@#k off!
For any Tassie forum members, here's the legal process should private car-parks claims make it to court..(I found this useful)
After A Claim Is Lodged What Happens?
The Defendant may:-
• Pay the claim.
• Offer a settlement.
• Lodge a defence and maybe a counter-claim.
If the claim is defended and the amount of claim is under $5000 it will be automatically transferred to Minor Civil Claims and will proceed to a mediation conference. If the amount of claim is over $5000 it will proceed to a directions hearing held before a Magistrate for the purpose of:-
• Clarifying the issues in dispute.
• Ensuring both sides have prepared their case i.e. obtain witness statements, photos, etc..
• Exploring possibilities of settlement.
• Offering alternative dispute resolution procedures (example mediation)
• Making any other pre-trial orders that are considered appropriate.
At a later time before trial, conciliation conferences may be ordered by the Court to assist in settling the dispute.
Conciliation conferences provide the primary opportunity to resolve the dispute by negotiating a mutually agreeable resolution or compromise.
Cost penalties are imposed on parties who do not make realistic settlement offers at the conciliation conference.
So it appears that if the ammount claimed is under $5000, the matter is automatically to go through a 'mediation' process.
That sounds very manageable!
Am I ever going to use your carpark again? No way get F@#*@d F*@#k off!
If it's Care Park, you'll probably get some letters to ignore from Crown Collections next...
By the way, is it just me or do the websites for Parke Lawyers and Care Park look awfully similar?
EDIT
Oooh - now this is interesting...
Just did Whois lookups on Crown Collections (www.cc.net.au), Care Park (www.carepark.com.au) and Parke Lawyers (pl.com.au). Notice any similarities?
Domain Name carepark.com.au
Last Modified 28-Jun-2009 23:46:05 UTC
Registrar ID Enetica
Registrar Name Enetica
Status ok
Registrant A.C.N. 083 921 215 PTY LTD
Registrant ID OTHER 083 921 215
Eligibility Type Other
Eligibility Name CARE PARK
Eligibility ID VIC BN B1402873J (VIC)
Registrant Contact ID RB1037530
Registrant Contact Name Robert Belteky
Registrant Contact Email domreg@techno.com.au
Tech Contact ID RB1037530
Tech Contact Name Robert Belteky
Tech Contact Email domreg@techno.com.au
Name Server pridns.pacific.net.au
Name Server IP 210.23.129.35
Name Server ns1.technophobia.com.au
Name Server IP 210.23.130.195
Domain Name cc.net.au
Last Modified 15-Jun-2009 00:56:03 UTC
Registrar ID IntaServe
Registrar Name IntaServe
Status ok
Registrant Crown Collections Pty Ltd
Registrant ID ABN 92123724854
Eligibility Type Company
Eligibility ID ABN 92123724854
Registrant Contact ID C50666-AD
Registrant Contact Name James Parke
Registrant Contact Email jim@pl.com.au
Tech Contact ID C50666-AD
Tech Contact Name James Parke
Tech Contact Email jim@pl.com.au
Name Server pridns.pacific.net.au
Name Server IP 210.23.129.35
Name Server ns1.technophobia.com.au
Name Server IP 210.23.130.195
Domain Name pl.com.au
Last Modified 15-Jun-2009 00:51:59 UTC
Registrar ID IntaServe
Registrar Name IntaServe
Status ok
Registrant Parke Lawyers Pty Ltd
Registrant ID ABN 68123218048
Eligibility Type Company
Registrant Contact ID PARKELAWYERS
Registrant Contact Name Jim Parke
Registrant Contact Email jim@pl.com.au
Tech Contact ID PARKELAWYERS
Tech Contact Name Jim Parke
Tech Contact Email jim@pl.com.au
Name Server pridns.pacific.net.au
Name Server IP 210.23.129.35
Name Server ns1.technophobia.com.au
Name Server IP 210.23.130.195
In non-geeky terms, the other two organisations run off the same web server and are just fronts for Care Park...
Edited by surroundfan - 15/November/2009 at 22:58
I am not a lawyer and this post does not constitute legal advice.
By the way, is it just me or do the websites for Parke Lawyers and Care Park look awfully similar?
It could be as innocent as CC using the same law firm, and it was the law firm that obtained the domain name. I'm not suggesting this, just that there are other ways to explain it than them all being in bed together.
I will point out though, that they're all in the same building (not that that means anything in itself either)
The hearing is tomorrow. The person they've appointed as their "agent" is a professional IR negotiator, not sure if he is entitled to appear for CP (see VCAT section 62), but the address of his firm is the same as for the other three entities, and it seems he and Jim Parke are partners in a fifth firm dealing with HR and IR issues.
If it's a small claim, no professional advocates are allowed...
28BB. Representation
(1) A party to a proceeding relating to a small claim may be represented by a professional advocate only if-
(a) the Tribunal is satisfied that no other party to the proceeding will be unfairly disadvantaged if the representation is allowed; and
(b) either-
(i) all parties to the proceeding agree; or
(ii) the Tribunal directs that the representation be allowed.
(2) Section 62(1)(b) does not apply to a proceeding relating to a small claim.
I am not a lawyer and this post does not constitute legal advice.
I'm not able to say anything about how the hearing went, except that the matter isn't resolved yet.
You should all know that the companies in question read this forum very carefully.
If I had to sum up the theme in this thread, it's "hold the line, and ignore'em". Before the hearing I was thinking that was a good idea, and today hasn't changed that.
Just out of general interest, readers of this forum may be interested in what the proprietor of another forum has to say:
You should all know that the companies in question read this forum very carefully.
It normally wouldn't matter, the law is on your side. However, it might matter if you were to discuss the actutal evidence of a case that was coming before a court or tribunal.
Here is the Whois lookup for Australian National Carparks:
Domain Name ancp.com.au
Last Modified 14-Sep-2008 07:26:04 UTC
Registrar ID TPP Internet
Registrar Name TPP Internet
Status ok
Registrant Australian National Car Parks Pty Ltd
Registrant ID ABN 67076302871
Eligibility Type Company
Eligibility Name Australian National Car Parks Pty Ltd
Eligibility ID NSW BN 66110
Registrant Contact ID TPP244424-R
Registrant Contact Name Sandra O'Neill
Registrant Contact Email headoffice@ancp.com.au
Tech Contact ID TPP244425-C
Tech Contact Name Support Tech
Tech Contact Email iform@iform.net.au
Name Server ns1.iiform.net
Name Server ns2.iiform.net
She may not work for them, but may be the person who built the web site organised it's registration and subcontracts the maintenance of it, this happens with many company sites.
I am NOT a lawyer. Anything said is NOT legal advice.
Thanks for all the info.
Anyone that has fought these idiots please let me know what has happened and how you went about it. I don't know anyone that is willing to pay them or that can prove that they weren't driving/parking at those times. Now Care park have photo proof, whats to say they haven't taken a photo of your numberplate at any given time and just changed the dates? The photos are only of the numberplate and don't show that there was or wasn't a ticket on the dashbord.
Many of us are still unsure as to wether we should pay theses ridiclous 'fines' or to try and fight them.
How many letters from any 1 of these companies do you have to recieve before you can have them in trouble for harrassment?
There are many people who have spoken to them and quiet often just been led in circles by the phone operators or that the 'accounts manager' is convienently out of the office at he present time.... How the hell are people supposed to sort these things out when no one wants to speak to them??
Any more info that relates to carepark and associates is greatly appreciated!
1. It questionable wether a contract has been entered into, for example, the fine print not visibile from a car when entering the car park, etc.. Additionally, in some cases the signs which set out the contract, are erected illegally, ie. without DA approval.
2. The validity of the payment notices / invoices, is questionable, only a statutiry authority can dispense "fines", and whilst the word "fine" is never used the behaviour of the contract and the penalties imposed are effectively fines, ie. it does not represent a genuine assessment of the company's loss.
3. In the unlikely event that they could prove it is "contract" you have entered into and it is somehow a payment notice and not a "fine". The Consumer Action Law Centre, indicate because of the type of contract you have entered into, they cannot affect your credit rating WITHOUT them taking you to Court.
(refer to the link in the thread 2 up for details from the Consumer Action Law Centre)
4. Lastly, there does NOT appear to be any cases of the companies taking anyone to court. Presumably, they think they will lose and do not want establish a precendent.
5. In the event you do go to court, there are various organisations/individuals which appear to be happy to act on your behalf.
6. There have been examples of the relationship with other entities, eg. the external debt collecting agencies, which are used, which are mere extensions of the Car Park organisation. Conversely,there are examples, of reputable organisations caught up in this eg. D&B, A'Beckett, etc...
7. The Car Park business practises have been and currently are being investigated by various government authorities eg. ACCC.
On a personal note, I think of there annoying correspondence as spam, no more or less. I will not dignify them with a response, nor, get caught up in the emotion of their correspondence.
I really hate to be a pedantic pain in the bum, but you have to get your terminology right, and call things by their right names (for example, this is a forum not a blog). This is even more important for the legal matters you're talking about.
Originally posted by Frustated@Fine
It questionable wether a contract has been entered into, for example, the fine print not visibile from a car when entering the car park, etc.
Good luck on this one. Most companies wised up a few years ago, and now publish their terms on large and unmistakeable signs.
Originally posted by Frustated@Fine
The validity of the payment notices / invoices, is questionable
They are as valid as the law they're predicated on, i.e., contract law. In contesting something, you'd be questioning the validity of their take on the law, not a piece of paper.
Originally posted by Frustated@Fine
only a statutiry authority can dispense "fines"
You are correct; so much so that in the case of a statutory authority, you don't need the "" around that word, as it is 100% a fine. Fines can be challenged, but the basis for fighting them has nothing to do with private car parking.
The private car parking companies stopped using the word "fine" several years ago. Personally, I think a suitably neutral term is "claim".
Originally posted by Frustated@Fine
are effectively fines, ie. it does not represent a genuine assessment of the company's loss.
Now you're getting to the heart of the matter, except that you're doing yourself a disservice by calling it a fine. The legal term you're looking for is "penalty", and penalties are legally unenforceable.
Originally posted by Frustated@Fine
3. In the unlikely event that they could prove it is "contract"
I wouldn't be relying on this.
Originally posted by Frustated@Fine
you have entered into and it is somehow a payment notice and not a "fine"
A payment notice is just a piece of paper with a faux-scary name. The term you're looking for is "penalty".
Originally posted by Frustated@Fine
Lastly, there does NOT appear to be any cases of the companies taking anyone to court.
It is known that at least one private car parking company has taken people to court, and in some cases, won. However a natural question to ask is "what did they win about?"
Originally posted by Frustated@Fine
In the event you do go to court, there are various organisations/individuals which appear to be happy to act on your behalf.
I can't vouch for any of his services, but this gentleman has offered free representation for a court appearance:
I would presume he's only making the offer in Victoria.
Originally posted by Frustated@Fine
Conversely,there are examples, of reputable organisations caught up in this eg. D&B, A'Beckett, etc...
You make them sound like the victims. Debt collection agencies often buy debt for cents in the dollar, then try to collect it. It doesn't mean that their relationship with the car park company is anything more than at-arm's-length commercial, nor does it mean they are ignorant of what's going on. Companies do what companies do.
Originally posted by Frustated@Fine
The Car Park business practises have been and currently are being investigated by various government authorities eg. ACCC.
That's an interesting one. I am quite interested to hear about any current ACCC investigations.
Originally posted by Frustated@Fine
On a personal note, I think of there annoying correspondence as spam, no more or less. I will not dignify them with a response, nor, get caught up in the emotion of their correspondence.
Well said, I can't speak more highly of your advice. I like to think of it this way: I parked my care at the car park, and a bird shat on it. Wash it off, and keep on motoring.
Thanks so much to everyone on your advice. I've also received an intention to sue letter from ANCP this week for a notice supposedly issued in March 2007! Needless to say I did not receive any payment notice on the day, nor have I received any previous correspondence on the matter.
It looked like nothing but a scam as soon as I opened the letter and I was going to write to them suggesting as much but see now that the best path is to ignore it. I'll also be passing the details onto Consumer Affairs Victoria to add to their no doubt growing stack of complaints about these shonky operators.
The thing is I always get a ticket and display it on my dashboard. I hate the stupid things but never thought twice about it, the machines are there so I get the ticket. It seems to me that given that I was displaying a ticket, I didn't get any notice on the day in question and haven't had any correspondence in the 2 years and 8 months since the date of the apparent notice, that they are now just rustling up fake notices and trying to get people to pay. The letter I have makes no mention of what the Payment Notice is for, i.e. not displaying a ticket, staying over time, etc., it just asks for money.
So my question is, how is their action in this matter not completely illegal??
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Topic Options
top
