VIC Received a Breach Notice at a Private Car Park?

[Weston]

Hi (thanks in advance for any help),

I received a 'breach notice' for $77.00 from private company TMS, for 'parking the vehicle while not displaying a permit'. The car was parked inside a parking bay I own, within a large residential building.

As I'm the legal owner of the car park bay, 292a - I pay council rates and body corporate fees for this bay, what authority does TMS have to issue any breach for anything in that bay?

There is a sign displayed upon entering the car park, all vehicles must display a 'valid permit'.

Thanks for your help.

 

[Adam1user]

Hi (thanks in advance for any help),

I received a 'breach notice' for $77.00 from private company TMS, for 'parked the vehicle while not displaying a permit'. The car was parked inside a parking bay I own, within a large residential building.

As I'm the legal owner of the car park bay, 292a - I pay council rates and body corporate fees for this bay, what authority does TMS have to issue any breach for anything in that bay?

There is a sign displayed upon entering the car park, all vehicles must display a 'valid permit'.

Thanks for your help.

You can ask for review and send in your address and rego papers. That should clear things up, if they don't accept that. You may want to go to court, but ask a lawyer about this before going to court, as it may be an infringement for not placing the permit even though you are a resident but forgot to present it.

 

[muz28]

As a lot owner, a body corporate (nor their agents) cannot penalise you for any breaches, only a magistrate can do that. Failing that, it is your designating parking bay, and you're using it to park your car, what's the problem?

I would make a complaint to the body corporate manager/secretary about TMS having no justification whatsoever over your private car park. Is using a whitelist of rego numbers of owners too complicated for the little munchkins to set up?

If this doesn't produce results, I'd take up the issue with Vic Fair Trading. Never ever contact TMS, you are wasting your time dealing with them.

See Enforcing owners corporation rules

 

[Tim W]

....it may be an infringement for not placing the permit even though you are a resident but forgot to present it.

Wrong again, @Adam1user.
These relationships are contractual. Infringements are only issued as a part of criminal procedure.

 

[muz28]

There was a case in late 2012 in the UK, a householder successfully sued UK Parking Control for trespass on his land. In this case, he demanded UKPC stop issuing £100 tickets on land that they had no right to. They ignored this and continued to ticket – even at 4am in the morning!

With no other recourse, he successfully sued UKPC in the county court and was awarded £150 damages and over £1,000 in costs. Sounds like TMS are very keen on throwing unlawful "penalties" around for alleged trespass and it's their employees who are in fact allegedly trespassing on your land as they have no reasonable excuse to be there!

 

[Adam1user]

Wrong again, @Adam1user.
These relationships are contractual. Infringements are only issued as a part of criminal procedure.

Thanks Tim, so it is a "Fine" not "Infringement", I am not a lawyer and I may get my terminology wrong from time to time but the main idea is sound!

So why do they call it "Infringement" when you break the road rules, I am sure there are no criminal aspect otherwise all be in jail! I am sure parking Infringement or No-right turn infringement are not criminal!

 

[Tim W]

A fine is a penalty imposed by a court.
It can be all, or just part, of the penalty for an offence.

An infringement (often also called a "penalty notice")
is a document imposing a penalty for (usually minor) offence.

The difference is that rather than being imposed as a result of court process,
an infringement is issued by some kind of "authorised officer".
Examples of "authorised officer" include a constable, a council ranger, a parking inspector,
a fire brigade officer, a railway ticket inspector, a Park Ranger, WHS agency Inspector.
There are others, and they go by different names in different jurisdictions.
Authorised persons are almost always statutory officials.

Thanks Tim, so it is a "Fine" not "Infringement", I am not a lawyer and I may get my terminology wrong from time to time but the main idea is sound!

No, the main idea (even if was articulated clearly) is not sound.
This is is why.
Authorised persons of the type do not include, employees (etc)
of private operators (or contracted managers) of things like parking lots.
The relationship between a person parking a car and, say, a private car park operator,
is contractual. That is, it is an artifact of civil law, not criminal.
Which is why correspondence from the operator to a "parker",
such as a purported "breach notice" (by whatever name)
is no more than a mere (civil) letter of demand.

You can appeal a fine, but with an infringement,
a person's choices are to either pay the penalty amount,
or, elect to have the offence dealt with by a court.
That's what you did with your Fail To Wear Helmet offence,
when you had your lucky day.

I am sure there are no criminal aspect otherwise all be in jail! I am sure parking Infringement or No-right turn infringement are not criminal!

You can be as sure as you please - but vehement certainty on your part will not make you right.
Please note my repeated use of the word "offence" in this post.
That's because the actions referred to are indeed crimes.
You are confusing the gravity of the offence with the weight of the penalty.

 

[Adam1user]

.
That's what you did with your Fail To Wear Helmet offence,
when you had your lucky day..

There you go again about that helmet offence, I was not wrong about it and I was not lucky. I went to court and the result was better than I expected, I was very positive (not going to say I was sure, although I was) that I will get section 10, but it was waved!

In my answer here, I responded on how to help Weston, I was not giving him a legal terminology lesson. He wants the best way to go about it and that is what I told him, he will find out the proper legal terminology when he goes through the process.

Thanks for bring up the helmet issue, you were wrong about it, I was right, there is no way around that.

(Repeat: still learning how to use the functions of this forum)