Got an $85 Parking Ticket in an Empty Carpark at Night

doubledippps on 15/05/2025 - 16:12
Last edited 15/05/2025 - 16:14

I parked here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/FqtH1C1vHVgadi1TA
Arrived around 7pm, left at 8:20pm — got hit with an $85 ticket for going over the 60-minute limit (P60).

It’s a free customer carpark with signs saying “P60” and managed by Smart Compliance Management. But here’s the thing:

  • All the shops were already closed

  • The carpark was completely empty

  • It was night time and dark

  • I just took my family to a nearby restaurant to eat

I honestly didn’t think time limits would be enforced in a situation like that — especially in an empty lot after hours. But turns out they have ANPR (camera) setup and it caught my plate.

Didn't someone post here before about disputing a parking ticket? How do I go about disputing this?

General Discussion

Comments

Best
Search through all the comments in this post.
  • CheapAzChips on 15/05/2025 - 17:04
    +2

    I think the reason these "infringements" are set around the $85 mark is that it's at the upper limit of cost where people think "stuff it, it's SO wrong but it's not worth my time to argue it". If it was $100+ I'm sure they'd get a lot more push back.

    Your options are:

    • suck it up and pay
    • fight it: go back to the carpark and find ANYTHING that might indicate that the infringement was wrongly or unfairly applied. Look for obscured signage, lack of adequate lighting around parking conditions (since it was after dark), inadequate detail in the signage, discrepancies in displayed hours of operation, etc, etc. Ask a good AI to help you argue your case and craft a response to the company outlining your rebuttal. Take it to small claims and … You might win and get to keep your $85. If there's any possibility of them adding additional "administration" fees, pay the amount they say you owe before the due date and then fight to get it back. I think the likelihood that you can win is relatively high, but the cost to you is high as well and you can't impose any additional costs on them, even if you do win. Your only claim is for a release (or refund) of the infringement fee.
  • Everettpsycho on 15/05/2025 - 20:22
    +2

    We had one from a Maccas, little one was having a great time in their playground so we purchased a coffee and overstayed by accident. In that instance we wrote to the Maccas in question which did waiver the ticket for us as we had proof of purchase that far apart in their facility to prove we were there. We also had my wife have a ticket scrapped one day as it was a mistake made in the app that meant no parking was paid for. She did contest that in the basis of looking at the records, I pay every day in that car park at the same time, it was clearly an accident it didn't push the confirmation button. They took pity and waivered that in that basis.

    Anecdotally seems if you question it they are often willing to waive the fee instead of bother arguing back. Definitely helps to have a justification or reason though.

    • Surreal on 16/05/2025 - 08:42

      This matches our experience and some of the other anecdotes on Reddit.

      e.g. Wife overstayed at spotlight but conveniently made two separate transactions there that day. So we argued that she left and returned later, and didn't overstay. Cameras make mistakes.

  • CheapAzChips on 15/05/2025 - 17:08
    +1

    FWIW, here's what Gemini says about the likelihood of winning such a case. Ironically, your AI-assisted case is almost certainly going to be rebutted by an AI-assisted answer, so YMMV:

    Yes, it could absolutely be argued in a New Zealand car park that a fee of $85 for an infringement notice issued solely based on Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) could be considered unfair, especially when arguing about the "cost to the enforcement agency." Here's a breakdown of the potential arguments:
    Arguments for Unfairness Based on ANPR and Cost:

    • Disproportionate to Actual Cost: The core of your argument lies in the minimal cost incurred by the enforcement agency when using ANPR compared to having a physical enforcement officer present. You could argue that the $85 fee is not a genuine pre-estimate of the loss suffered by the car park operator due to the infringement. With ANPR, the primary costs are the initial setup and ongoing maintenance of the system, not a per-infringement cost of a human officer's time.
    • Lack of Human Discretion and Context: ANPR systems are purely technical and lack the ability to exercise human judgment or consider mitigating circumstances. A human officer might, for example, choose not to issue a ticket for a very minor overstay or a genuine misunderstanding. The automated nature of ANPR can lead to inflexibility and potentially unfair outcomes.
    • Focus on Revenue Generation: You could argue that a high fee for ANPR-detected infringements suggests a focus on revenue generation rather than genuine deterrence or covering actual losses. If the cost to the agency for issuing the notice is minimal (primarily the cost of processing and mailing), an $85 fee could be seen as excessive profit-taking.
    • Lack of Opportunity for Immediate Explanation: Unlike a situation with a physical officer, there's no opportunity to explain a potential misunderstanding or minor infraction at the time it occurs. The first you know about it is when the notice arrives.
    • Potential for Errors: While ANPR systems are generally accurate, there's still a potential for errors in reading number plates or processing the data. A human officer might be able to double-check or clarify a situation on the spot.

    Legal Principles to Invoke:

    • Contract Law (Private Car Parks): If it's a private car park, you can argue that the $85 fee is an unenforceable penalty because it's disproportionate to the actual loss incurred by the operator. You'd need to demonstrate that the cost to them for an ANPR-detected infringement is significantly less than $85.
    • Reasonableness: Even without a specific law mandating "fair and reasonable" fees, the general principle of reasonableness underpins many legal and contractual interpretations. You could argue that charging $85 for an infringement detected by a largely automated system is not reasonable.
    • Consumer Protection: Depending on the circumstances and the nature of the car park, consumer protection principles might be relevant if the fees are deemed unfair or misleading.
      How to Strengthen Your Argument:
    • Gather Evidence: Try to find out the typical costs associated with operating ANPR systems. While this might be difficult, any information you can find about the minimal operational cost per infringement would strengthen your argument.
    • Compare with Other Fees: Research the typical infringement fees charged by local councils or other parking operators for similar minor offences detected by human officers. If ANPR-only infringements are significantly higher, this could support your claim of unfairness.
    • Focus on the Lack of Actual Loss: Emphasize that the car park operator's actual financial loss due to a minor infringement detected by ANPR is likely minimal compared to the $85 fee.
    • Highlight the Automated Nature: Stress the lack of human intervention and discretion in the process.

    Important Considerations:

    • Signage: The clarity and prominence of the signage outlining the parking rules and the infringement fees are crucial. If the $85 fee is clearly displayed, it weakens the argument that you weren't aware of the potential cost. However, you can still argue that the fee itself is unreasonable.
    • Terms and Conditions: The full terms and conditions of using the car park might contain clauses about ANPR and infringement fees. Review these carefully.
    • Success is Not Guaranteed: While the arguments above have merit, the outcome of a dispute will depend on the specific circumstances, the evidence presented, and the interpretation of the relevant laws and contractual terms by the decision-maker (whether it's the enforcement agency's internal review process or the Disputes Tribunal).
      In conclusion, yes, there is a strong argument to be made that an $85 infringement fee based solely on ANPR in a New Zealand car park could be considered unfair, particularly when focusing on the minimal cost incurred by the enforcement agency compared to the substantial fee charged. You would need to clearly articulate this argument, potentially referencing the legal principles discussed and providing any supporting evidence you can gather.
  • Frisky Grandma on 15/05/2025 - 16:22

    I don’t think there’s anything you can do.

    There’s oodles of OUTDATED advice about how it’s not a fine and not enforceable and you should just send them $5. This is no longer the case after some high court precedent (or similar)

    Most carparks have signage. South city carpark in chch for example has the option to pay at night

    • LupinS on 17/05/2025 - 16:34

      The arguement is that they can ask for compensation for loss only. They can't fine you, they dont have that power.

      An hour in an empty car park does not equal $85 loss. The max that would be reasonable is the cost of parking for an hour.

      • Alan6984 on 17/05/2025 - 17:19
        +1

        An hour in an empty car park does not equal $85 loss. The max that would be reasonable is the cost of parking for an hour.

        Would it not also be fair to claim their (reasonable) costs of finding, and contacting the person that parked but did not pay, plus costs of processing a manual payment that they might make?

        It seems to me that the owner of the property would have incurred none of those costs if the person had paid 'normally' via a machine (say).

        Whether that is $85 or more or less is, of course, debatable, but it still seems to me to be some amount more than the person should have paid for parking for an hour 'normally'.

        • Everettpsycho on 18/05/2025 - 11:43
          +1

          Considering what companies charge out rates are compared to what they pay their staff $85 seems cheap, it's not uncommon for charge out rates to be 3 or 4 times the salary so if they are paying staff $23.50 an hour as minimum wage, 1 hour minimum charge, there's your $85 just form opening the ticket to look at it. Not saying that's right but in commercial industry it's common practice and they could easily present an invoice to that effect.

  • huffboy on 15/05/2025 - 20:21

    you went over 60 mins. pay up.

  • Fantail on 16/05/2025 - 09:37

    We have had a ticket from this carpark waived by showing receipts from the stores we had gone to. Was the restaurant part of that complex or further down Riccarton Rd?

    • doubledippps on 16/05/2025 - 09:57

      The restaurant is South Garden Chinese Restaurant, just around the corner, not sure whether it's part of the complex?

  • kyogui on 16/05/2025 - 11:57

    It seems very hard to argue in this case, the "Private Property" "P60 sign" are clearly visible from the google map link you provided at the entrance of the car park, and you didn't go to any of the shops because they are all closed. I guess you could say that you are a regular customer to the asian supermarket there and explain you went to a restaurant nearby and ask nicely if they can waive the ticket.

  • abuch47 on 18/05/2025 - 20:28

    We did this in wellington Bunnings. Store was open at time of parking and I bought something small. Went to go see 2 movies at the cheap ticket night. Came back to a fine that was less than an hour after parking. The sign saying paid parking after store hours was enforced. Recommend parking at Noel Leemings or the war memorial for free parking in the capital

  • blatantus on 30/08/2025 - 14:35

    their property there rules. u parked for more than 60 minutes so expect a consequence. no excuses sorry. just pay it and lessen learned.

  • Naimady on 16/05/2025 - 19:35
    -1

    Funny was listen to Heather on Newstalk ZB this Arvo.
    She said that she fought the companies as she got tickets whilst her husband was in hospital or she was at the Ob.

    She stated that the tickets were disproportionate and that she'll only pay X amount that was fair, did this numerous times after everytime said I'll pay this amount oconsider it fair and consider it the end of the matter.

    Then she said they eventually said next time you park at one of their sites they will tow her. Then she admitted she'd finally conceded to Big Parking and didnt advise to do what she did 😂 (tbh, not exactly sure if they can tow her in time unless they fine her in real time as I assume the tickets are issued at the end of the day/week so she'd be long gone by then)…

    Regardless just a funny situation.

    Agree fines are disproportionate, and you should only pay a ~20% premium to the time you parked for… You could argue. If they're are using camera and automation to issue fines after the fact, then their compliance costs should be coming down… 😂 And therefore the $85 fine should come down over time

    • Jexla on 17/05/2025 - 14:23

      With ANPR, they can just blacklist her plate and either deny entry, or allow entry and call a tow truck.

  • Jexla on 15/05/2025 - 17:53
    -2

    These companies only have access to your personal details by your consent. Remove that consent and you'll never hear from them.

    https://transact.nzta.govt.nz/transactions/PersonalInfoAcces…

    • akhmed on 15/05/2025 - 23:35
      +3

      Unfortunately, this is incorrect information.
      Yes you can request to revoke that consent, but your details can still be shared with parking companies.

      Some authorised users also have access to the names and addresses of persons previously registered to a motor vehicle and/or the names and addresses of individuals who have ‘opted out’ from having their names and addresses released under section 241 of the LTA.
      https://www.nzta.govt.nz/vehicles/how-the-motor-vehicle-regi…

      There is an excel file in this link, and almost all parking companies already have access to your information, even if you revoke the consent.
      https://www.nzta.govt.nz/vehicles/how-the-motor-vehicle-regi…

      • CheapAzChips on 16/05/2025 - 00:12

        Yeah, that's more like what I was thinking. Seems too good to be true. Parking companies are always on the lookout for ways to tighten up operations and bleed more money from unsuspecting drivers. A hole that big in their plan would surely have long been lobbied against and covered over with exceptions to the rule.

        • Jexla on 16/05/2025 - 08:51
          +2

          Yeah, so I wasn't very descriptive. And akhmed has shared some half truths, unlikely on purpose.

          If you are a repeat offender, they'll specifically request the information and give the evidence they have collected against you to support that claim and likely get it. If, like me, you only park in places like this when visiting a city via my own vehicle a few times a year and park a bit longer than you should, you'll never hear from them because it's not worth the effort.

          Their other option is to tow your car if you're a repeat offender. So, yeah… Don't do that.

          You can probably get away with it 2-3 times per vehicle, per parking enforcement company.
          Not sure about you, but I tend to change vehicle every 2-4 years too - I'm sure changing your plate would work too lol.

      • Baagin on 16/05/2025 - 06:06

        I dont believe they do if you have opted out. Here is the conditions specifically for Wilsons and it specifically excludes people who have opted out so they would have to apply to NZTA to get your details.

        https://gazette.govt.nz/notice/id/2021-au308

        Authorised Access to Certain Names and Addresses Held on the Motor Vehicle Register

        Publication Date
        2
        Feb
        2021
        Tags
        Land Transport Act
        Access to Motor Vehicle Register information
        NZ Transport Agency
        Notice Number
        2021-au308
        Title
        View PDF
        File Type and Size
        PDF (25 KB)
        Pursuant to section 241 of the Land Transport Act 1998 (“Act”), I authorise the following person, for the purpose(s) and the term, and on the conditions stated below, to have access to the names and addresses of persons:

        who are currently registered in respect of a motor vehicle(s); and
        who have not instructed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to withhold their details.
        Person: Wilson Parking New Zealand Limited (WPNZL)

        Purpose(s):

        To send notices to the registered person where a vehicle has been parked in a car park enforcement of which is managed by WPNZL (WPNZL car park) in breach of the parking terms and conditions.
        To trace persons registered in respect of motor vehicles where the occupants exit a WPNZL car park without paying for parking, in breach of the parking terms and conditions.
        To trace a registered person of a motor vehicle where there is clear footage of:
        the motor vehicle causing damage to property in a WPNZL car park; or
        an occupant of that motor vehicle entering or leaving the vehicle and of the occupant causing damage to property in a WPNZL car park.
        Term: The authorisation is valid for a period of five years commencing 1 May 2021 and ending on 30 April 2026.

        Conditions
        WPNZL must only access personal information for the Specified Purposes.
        Clear signage must be present in a WPNZL car park indicating the presence of CCTV cameras and that registration plates can be searched for the Specified Purposes.
        Personal information obtained under this authorisation:
        must not be disclosed to any other person unless it is necessarily incidental to achieving a Specified Purpose; and
        must not be kept for longer than is necessary for a Specified Purpose.
        WPNZL must have adequate systems and policies in place that prevent access or use of personal information that is not authorised under this notice (unauthorised access) from occurring.
        If WPNZL suspects that unauthorised access has occurred, WPNZL must notify Waka Kotahi as soon as practicable and no later than seven days after forming a suspicion.
        If WPNZL finds that unauthorised access has occurred, WPNZL must immediately notify Waka Kotahi and the Privacy Commissioner.
        Access must be restricted solely to WPNZL staff for whom authorised access is essential to achieving a Specified Purpose, and who have completed training in accessing personal information in accordance with section 241 and the terms of this notice.
        All staff with access must complete a refresher training course no later than 12 months after the date that they last completed the training course.
        WPNZL must keep a record of every time it accesses the motor vehicle register, for a period of at least 18 months from the date of access, that must include:
        the date the motor vehicle register was accessed; and
        the relevant plate number for the information accessed; and
        the purpose for which the portal provider accessed the information.
        Records and details of staff training must be made available to Waka Kotahi on request, as soon as practicable. WPNZL must also provide such information as Waka Kotahi reasonably considers relevant to determining whether and how WPNZL complies with these conditions.
        WPNZL must pay the applicable fees for accessing the motor vehicle register.
        If WPNZL breaches any conditions, then Waka Kotahi may immediately suspend or cancel WPNZL’s access to personal information on the motor vehicle register (under section 241(6) or (2)).
        Nothing in this notice affects WPNZL’s obligations under the Privacy Act 2020.

        Dated this 27th day of January 2021.

        KANE PATENA, General Manager Regulatory Services, Waka Kotahi – NZ Transport Agency.

    • CheapAzChips on 15/05/2025 - 19:15

      I'm genuinely interested, have you tested this? Can you literally park anywhere there's enforcement for as long as you like and they can't do a thing? Something tells me that if it was that easy to get away with it, it would be more widely known.

      Reading the documentation you linked to, it appears as though they may be able to get access still by lodging an individual request with NZTA. The only way to avoid that is by being granted Confidential Status, which is much harder to get. So maybe they would ignore the first instance or two, but if they see repeated instances they'll be much more likely to chase you for payment, and have much more incentive to add excessive "administration/collection fees".

      • Alan6984 on 15/05/2025 - 19:40

        Can you literally park anywhere there's enforcement for as long as you like and they can't do a thing?

        It's just adding an additional hurdle - nothing more.

        In some circumstances, it might mean that a third party doesn't bother pursuing any further, when otherwise they would.

        If someone thinks they might get $30 out of you, then perhaps they would not bother if you have restricted access. If they think they might get $3,000 out of you, perhaps they would go the 'extra mile' (sorry - couldn't resist).

      • Jexla on 16/05/2025 - 12:47

        To answer your question more directly, yes I have tested this. Never heard from them after they left a paper invoice on my vehicle.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join