Groundhog Day at Disputes Tribunal over car park managers’ misleading claims
Monday, 20 April 2026
It’s Groundhog Day in the Disputes Tribunal as the same spurious legal argument continues to be wheeled out by car park management companies claiming they are entitled to extract hundreds of dollars in penalties from errant parkers.
Last year, The Post reported that companies managing free car parks in front of businesses, and shops were sending large bills to people including collection and default fees.
They justified this by falsely telling drivers that they had entered binding contracts with them when they parked their cars.
But while that is true in a car park where hourly or flat fees are charged, the Disputes Tribunal has repeatedly ruled that in, non-fee car parks there is no contract.
Read more:
Consumer watchdog analysing hundreds of car parking ‘breach’ notices
If free parking is a problem, the solution is obvious: Put a price on it
Instead, it is the law of trespass that covers unauthorised parking in those private car parks, and the law of trespass only entitles the landowner to demand the payment of reasonable compensation, and not charge other fees.
The latest Disputes Tribunal parking case was heard on January 16, but the decision has only just been published. Unlike most courts, the tribunal releases only a small number of its rulings — often months after they’re made — limiting transparency.
The name of the car park management company was not published in the decision as all Disputes Tribunal cases are published with the names of the parties removed.
In the case, a driver asked the tribunal to declare a demand for $95 from the parking company was not valid.
The car parking company counter claimed for $482.96, saying the driver owed it $225 for “outstanding administration and recovery costs” and $140 for “debt recovery fees”.
It also wanted $21.97 “interest” on the money it claimed it was owed following the unauthorised parking by the driver in March last year.
The company claimed that when a driver parked in the car park, they accepted all the terms and conditions of parking there, which constituted a binding contract.
The driver told the tribunal there could not have been a contract as there was “no offer and acceptance”, which are features of a contract for a service. In fact, the driver said, the car parking company was not offering a service at all.
Tribunal referee Justin Kleinbaum found the driver was correct.
“The ‘no parking’ sign does not constitute an offer, as it does not offer anything of value to the unauthorised driver. It does not offer parking for an unspecified period of time in return for a set fee of $95. Instead, it warns the driver that they must not park in the space,” Kleinbaum said.
“It is intended as a disincentive to unauthorised use of the parking space and is therefore the opposite of an offer,” he said.
However, Kleinbaum decided the driver had trespassed by parking in the space monitored by the car parking company, and ordered the driver to pay the $95.
He said: “Given my finding that there is no contract, I find that none of the provisions allowing for the additional charges apply.”
While an unknown number of cases involving car park management companies come before the tribunal, those cases may be a minority of those in which drivers are told they are liable for fees that have no legal basis.
Cases only come before the tribunal when drivers dig their heels in and complain, and an unknown number pay up when issued with demands for illegally-charged fees by car park management companies.
Guidance on the Commerce Commission website only appears to relate to car parks on which hourly, or flat fees are charged for the use of parking spaces, not free private car parks on business and shop premises.
The commission said it was considering changing the guidance.
“We recently started work to update the car-parking guidance on our website and are still considering the scope of these changes. The work is ongoing,” it said in a statement to The Post.
“The commission continues to advise individuals to direct parking disputes first to the parking company, and then to the Disputes Tribunal if the matter cannot be resolved,’ it said.
“This is because the commission is primarily interested in car parking issues that may fall under the Fair Trading Act. For example, companies risk misleading consumers if they do not provide complete, clear, and accurate information on signage. This risks breaching the Fair Trading Act.”
It said: “Anyone concerned a company is breaching the Fair Trading Act should report a concern to the commission.”