Wilson Parking has received another broadside after a city lawyer was charged extra for leaving a carpark early and freeing up her bay near the Perth courts.
WAtoday reported a previous unhappy carpark user's experience on Monday when he was fined after paying for Wilson overnight parking via an app.
And the Wilson Parking fine print has now had another "gotcha" moment with a Perth lawyer.
In a letter of complaint to the parking operator, Belinda Lonsdale said she arrived at the parking station near the Perth courts and qualified for an "early bird" offer.
When she left the same day at 1.48pm she was charged $36, well in excess of the discounted $16.
Ms Lonsdale reread the notice and saw that early bird parkers could only leave between 3pm and 10pm.
"Effectively, you get penalised for leaving early, even though you have freed up a bay for another customer to use," she said.
"That makes no logical sense whatsoever."
Ms Lonsdale argued that the whole point should be to fill the carpark early and get as many customers as possible.
"Once a parker has paid the maximum fee, does it matter whether they leave early?" she said.
"I think being charged an extra $20 for two hours less parking is, frankly, daylight robbery."
Ms Lonsdale said she would have "argued the toss" if there had been a human to talk to.
"I'm very concerned that vulnerable people attending court could easily find themselves caught out by this and not be able to afford the difference," she said.
The lawyer also gave Wilson a serve on the state of the car park.
"People have clearly been living there and urinating in the stairwells," she said.
"It absolutely stinks, is visibly filthy and the lifts don't work - which really adds to my resentment at being charged extra"
Ms Lonsdale invited Wilson Parking to refund the $20 difference which they agreed to do while also defending their terms and conditions.
Wilson Parking replied in a letter that the early bird method was used by parking operators throughout the world and was "a discounted all-day product, tailored to city workers".
"Casual parking rates apply to people parking for a few hours," the letter said.
They apologised for the broken lift, but highlighted it was the owner of the building's responsibility to fix it.
Meanwhile, there was a strong social media response to WAtoday's story about Chenxi Zuadong's experience when he was fined $65 after paying for overnight parking at a Wilson's car park on an app, but not displaying a printed ticket.
Many comments supported the notion that the public could not be fined by a corporate entity.
"Can anybody tell me (how) a company that's not a government body (can) fine you? I was of the opinion that only members of the crown and shire can do so? How is it enforceable?" - Glenn Watson.
"The notice is a demand for "liquidated damages" and as such becomes a civil issue. In a court it would be difficult for Wilson to show they have been disadvantaged to the amount claimed on the demand." - Steve Howton.
"It's not enforceable." - Scott Stewart.
"It's not a fine. Just don't pay." - Alexi Christidis.
A spokesperson for Consumer Protection said private car park operators had the right to take civil court action to recover any unpaid fines.
But challenges were possible.
A Curtin Law School academic said there were three general rules when it came to the application of penalties which might be incurred in overstaying a parking limit.
"Are people made reasonably aware of the terms and conditions, has the business suffered a genuine loss; and are they fair?" Kyle Bowyer, a lecturer in contracts law said.
Mr Bowyer said prominent signage making people aware of the terms of parking should be displayed.
"There's also potential for fines to be challenged if people think they are excessive. A company might need to show what level of genuine loss they may have suffered because somebody, for example, overstays their parking limit," he said.
"That would need to be balanced by a deterrent element to ensure compliance, otherwise people would simply ignore the parking limit if it was only going to cost a few dollars more to stay," he said.
The law lecturer said terms and conditions of parking would also have to be fair.
"There can't be a serious detriment to one party. You might well argue that a wheel clamp for a minor overstay of parking was a serious detriment, particularly when you might simply be able to pursue someone through their car registration plates," Mr Bowyer said.
A person would have to consider the cost of legal fees in mounting any challenge and should seek independent advice.
The Consumer Protection spokesman said clamping areas usually had warning signs which gave the car park operator the right to clamp a car.
"When people park and pay in a private car park they are virtually accepting the terms and conditions stated on the sign, which may include giving the operator the right to clamp their car under certain circumstances," he said.
