Consumer watchdog analysing hundreds of car parking ‘breach’ notices

Monday, 6 October 2025

Join the conversation in the comments below.

Parking companies are continuing to demand money from car-owners for unauthorised parking in shop-owned car parking spaces despite multiple Disputes Tribunal rulings indicate they have no right to.

The Post reported in April on rulings by tribunal referees on the legal claims some parking companies make in a bid to get car-owners and drivers to pay for unauthorised parking in places like shop and laundromat car parks.

But since then, more cases have come before the tribunal showing parking companies, which are not named in the case notes, are continuing to make claims tribunal referees rule are not correct.

Among those claims is the baseless claim that car owners are liable to pay up even when they were not the one driving their car when unauthorised parking took place.

Another claim tribunal referees have rejected is that car parking companies are entitled to to slap fees on top of the parking “infringement” tickets they issue.

Vanessa Horne, Commerce Commission general manager for competition, fair trading and credit, said in the last 12 months the commission had received 350 parking-related complaints.

“The majority of these relate to breach notices,” she said.

“We are currently carrying out an initial analysis of concerns we've received and trends in the parking and associated debt collection industry. This will inform what compliance, engagement or enforcement action we initiate,” Horne said.

The latest cases on which the tribunal has published a case note, included a parking company getting a debt collector to send a $460.99 demand to the owner of a car that was parked briefly in a laundromat’s carpark. It also wanted $53.97 in “interest” on top.

The car owner was not the driver, having lent his car to his daughter, who was popping into a neighbouring vape store.

But the case combined two claims by the car parking company that were dismissed by the tribunal.

The first was the car owner was responsible for paying the fine.

The second was the car parking company had the right to add fees, and to allow a debt collector to add their fees, to the amount claimed.

The unauthorised parking was a trespass, the tribunal referee ruled. That only allowed the owner of land trespassed on to charge a reasonable fee for use of the land.

Signage on the car park indicated unauthorised parking risked cars being towed, and could face a $95 “infringement fee”.

That $95 was “on the high side” for a trespass fee, the tribunal referee said, but on balance accepted it was reasonable.

However, the tribunal referee said trespass did not imply that there was any contract between the car park owner, or its agent, in this case a car park management company, and the driver.

That meant there was no legal right to add other fees, a claim that has been dealt with in multiple previous tribunal rulings.

The tribunal ruled the daughter was only liable to pay $95, and the car-owner had no liability at all.

In another case since The Post last covered legal claims made by car parking companies, a car parking company tried to get the tribunal to enforce a $513.44 claim against a car-owner whose car was parked without permission in a space owned by a laundromat.

The driver was her son.

But when sent a $95 bill, the woman told the car park manager she had not been driving.

It told her: “If you were not the driver, please complete a statutory declaration … so you can transfer liability to the driver”.

The woman said she was under no obligation to complete the statutory declaration.

The tribunal referee found there was no liability to transfer.

“I am not aware of any legal basis that [the company] has to seek payment from [the car owner] simply because another person had chosen to park her vehicle on private property,” the referee said.

“It is not the vehicle conducting the action, but the person driving it, and therefore that person may be liable, not the vehicle itself or its owner.”

The car parking company managing the laundromat’s parking even had a picture showing the driver was not a woman, though the tribunal referee acknowledged the car parking company’s argument that gender cannot always be determined from a photo.

Horne said the commission had already “engaged” with several car park operators to provide Fair Trading Act guidance about pricing, disclosure, surcharging and contract terms.

“We have emphasised the importance of accurate information for consumers to make informed decisions,” she said.

“We encourage anyone who believes a business has breached the Fair Trading Act or one of the other laws we enforce, to report it, using the report a concern form on our website,” she said.

i