How Come Private Businesses Can't Enforce Parking "Fines" but They Can Enforce Toll Fees?

SlavOz on 17/05/2022 - 10:15

So if you get caught parking against the rules of a shopping centre or some other private business, they usually leave those bogus "fines" on your car demanding payment. Of course, everyone knows these are a total scam because they're not really enforceable. Apparently the main reason is they can't prove who was driving the car because they don't have access to registration info.

So how come the practicality is so different when you use a toll road? They're also privately owned but they can track down your personal details using your rego and demand payment. Not sure what happens if you don't pay your toll debts but I've heard that the state government used to intervene and threaten demerit/license loss if you don't pay up.

Is there a reason toll road owners have this privilege but others businesses don't?

Automotive

Comments

  • forged on 17/05/2022 - 10:16
    -6

    Oh boy, here we go

    • djsweet on 17/05/2022 - 10:24
      +16

      How about we judge the post by its merit? Legitimate question imho, no need to get in a twist.

      • Domicron on 17/05/2022 - 23:15
        +1

        If OP can be bother doing some googling, the answer is very easy to find.

        Short answer - it is the LAW.

        • SlavOz on 18/05/2022 - 15:35

          Long answer - when adults reach a certain age, they start to think beyond black and white lines and question why certain things are the way they are. This can be done in a variety of ways, common to which is spirited discussions among others, rather than simply relying on legal presumptions to form a worldview.

      • HeWhoKnows on 18/05/2022 - 09:16

        Not sure there is any merit to this post.

        But just imagine if we had SlavOz (OP) issuing parking fines ad lib.

  • Quantumcat on 17/05/2022 - 10:17
    +23

    The companies that build toll roads are in a partnership with the local government (the company provides the investment and is allowed to charge tolls for a certain timeframe as compensation, so the government doesn't have to come up with the money to build the road themselves).

    Companies that build car parks are just doing it as investment for themselves, no partnership.

    • dust on 17/05/2022 - 10:29

      Yes. If private companies weren't allowed to enforce toll fees then they'd lose the incentive to build/fund more toll roads.

      • SlavOz on 17/05/2022 - 10:45
        +1

        I'm all for encouraging the free market but isn't the whole point of having a government to build infrastructure?

        What good are they if they can't even do the one thing we all agree they should do?

        • Drakesy on 17/05/2022 - 10:56
          +13

          Ask that to Gladys and Perrottet.

          If it were up to them they'd privatise everything and then everyone would get to pay tolls for using parks or any infrastructure.
          It's the liberal way, hand it to privatised companies and handball the load onto the population (that they're already paying tax for).

          Meanwhile in WA we have a grand total of zero toll roads.
          Privatisation just ends up in a population that pays twice. And the coalition will happily rort the system all the way to election.

          • SlavOz on 17/05/2022 - 11:29

            @Drakesy: Pretty sure there are toll roads in Victoria and other Labor states, and we still had toll roads all over the country with Gillard in power.

            I don't think Albanese has any plans to end toll roads either. It'd be a very popular policy which would guarantee Labor victory but no way any party is going to ignore corporate interests.

            • Drakesy on 17/05/2022 - 11:37
              +3

              @SlavOz: Roads are largely a state issue so Albanese and Gillard even Scomo can't really be blamed for it.
              Admittedly as Sydney and Melbourne are legacy cities building roads is far more expensive as tunnels have to be bored and overpasses installed. Especially boring tunnels through Sydney sandstone is a cost prohibitive exercise.
              WA is lucky in that all the roads are at grade and relatively cheap.

              But still it does fall back to the states in terms of paying for roads with federal budgets propping it up.

              What does piss me off though is that these tunnels are built based on forward estimates from traffic models. If the estimates/traffic numbers don't come into fruition, like it's done in the past, the government (taxpayer) gets to pay out damages to the operator (transurban etc.) Basically the operator can't lose.

              • SlavOz on 17/05/2022 - 12:30
                -1

                @Drakesy: It is incompetence. They wouldn't need to dig expensive tunnels and elaborate road links if they had the foresight to plan ahead. Roads are an afterthought in most states. They sell off as much as land as possible to develop properties or other corporate projects, then when the need for a road emerges they have to squeeze it in somewhere.

                Ideally they should be building roads first or reserving space for roads to be built into the future.

                • Drakesy on 17/05/2022 - 12:38
                  +4

                  @SlavOz: Or, we should be planning a public transport network that focuses on a more efficient mode of transportation rather than cars, say for example Singapore where very few people own cars (admittedly you need a high population density to support this).

                  Alternatively with electric scooters and bicycles enabling the masses to now commute it would make sense to divert money from the gridlock that is vehicular traffic an into more sustainable and efficient modes of moving masses of people.

                  I don't understand people who will happily sit in a car for 30 minutes when you can ride/scooter/train somewhere in the same if not less amount of time.

                  • SlavOz on 17/05/2022 - 21:34

                    @Drakesy: Here's what's going to happen when we eventually expand our cyclist/scooter infrastructure.

                    More people are going to start riding to work. Congestion will increase which might cause a few collisions among cyclists/scooterers. The government will respond by introducing speed limits and other safety measures for riders. Then traffic lights and roundabouts in bike lanes. Riding to work will no longer be a self-managed task. You'll need to stop at countless intersections or crossings to let other traffic through.

                    Then they're going to start pulling people over in the middle of the bike lane for using their bell incorrectly or riding too fast. Traffic will increase further. People will try to bypass it by riding on the grass next to the footpath, which will soon also become a traffic offence.

                    Once fuel becomes obsolete and less people are driving, the State will need to make up for the lost income from taxes and traffic fines. So they essentially transfer every bueareucratic measure on the roads to riders. Now there's going to speed cameras, RBTs, random drug tests, and poorly maintained bike lanes everywhere. That pleasant 15-minute ride to work with the wind in your hair turns into a stop-start gridlock of mayhem that now takes over 45 minutes.

                    And that's just the beginning.

                    • Drakesy on 17/05/2022 - 22:57
                      +2

                      @SlavOz: Might want to have a look at your European neighbours in the Netherlands before jumping on the pessimistic bandwagon.

                      • SlavOz on 17/05/2022 - 23:14

                        @Drakesy: Netherlands is Netherlands. Australia is Australia.

                        We can't do anything without overegulating it to death. Most European countries also have housing/zoning laws and their housing is still very affordable. Unfortunately Australia took housing laws overboard and now we're a country full of people who can't even afford to live in it.

                        • Drakesy on 17/05/2022 - 23:40
                          +2

                          @SlavOz: What Australian housing laws are these?

                          • SlavOz on 17/05/2022 - 23:57

                            @Drakesy: Are you kidding? Did you think houses naturally became unaffordable on their own?

                            The entire housing/property scheme is a cluster of poor regulations and policies. LMI, stamp duty, excessive zoning laws, council fees…you can't even chop down a (profanity) branch on your property without getting written approval.

              • Chandler on 17/05/2022 - 13:33

                @Drakesy: Queensland had a toll-road backflip: the Sunshine Motorway

        • MikeKulls on 17/05/2022 - 14:44

          This is a left vs right argument. The right prefer thin govt, less taxes, private enterprise to take over govt functions and to pay more to companies. The left prefer a govt to handle more things and to pay via taxes rather than enterprise. There's arguments both ways. The govt can be very inefficient but private enterprise can make huge profits. I think for Telcos it makes a lot of sense as you can pick 1. For roads you don't have so much choice which roads you travel on.

    • SlavOz on 17/05/2022 - 10:35

      That's what I thought. So they use our taxes to subsidise private corporations because they're too lazy or incompetent to build infrastructure for the public.

      So essentially everyone is paying multiple times for these roads. You pay when you use it, and you also pay when other people use it so the state can provide enforcement services.

      • DashCam AKA Rolts on 17/05/2022 - 12:07
        +2

        So they use our taxes to subsidise private corporations because they're too lazy or incompetent to build infrastructure for the public.

        I don't think it's about laziness or incompetence It's a political underlying belief of the coalition that if something can be privately run and is profitable, it should be a business opportunity that should not be overlooked. Their mindset is that the government should not be doing anything that might take a potential profit from the private sector.

        • SlavOz on 17/05/2022 - 12:26
          -3

          That's a bad take. There are toll roads in Labor states too.

          I agree the government shouldn't get in the way of private businesses. Free market capitalism is the best thing that ever happened to humanity, short of Christ himself.

          But using taxpayer's money to subsidise the operations of private businesses isn't free market capitalism. It's a rort.

          • DashCam AKA Rolts on 17/05/2022 - 12:47
            +2

            @SlavOz:

            There are toll roads in Labor states too.

            You're correct, but who signed the legally binding contracts? Here in SA all of the significant privatization has occurred under Liberal governments.

            • SlavOz on 17/05/2022 - 13:39

              @DashCam AKA Rolts: So why doesn't the current Labor government reverse it, or at least takes steps to defund these roads?

              Too much work?

              • DashCam AKA Rolts on 17/05/2022 - 13:57
                +2

                @SlavOz: Legal cases would take years to unwind these agreements. Then the government seeking to undo the contract would be sued for breach of contract and projected loses.

      • trongy on 17/05/2022 - 13:45

        It's worse than that when the government agrees in the contract to pay compensation to the toll road operator if they build or improve other public roads or railway lines that might give the public an alternative to the toll road.

        • MikeKulls on 17/05/2022 - 15:45

          That's not that unreasonable if done in the right proportions. Who is going to build a freeway if the govt is going to build another toll free one next door?

  • p1 ama on 17/05/2022 - 10:33
    +7

    They're also privately owned

    Toll roads are not privately owned. They are publicly owned and leased to private operators (e.g. Transurban) to operate for a contracted amount of time.

    • SlavOz on 17/05/2022 - 10:40

      What is this amount of time, and how is it determined to be in the best interest of the public?

      In other words, is there any practical sense to this model or is it purely a money deal between corporations and the government at the expense of the people?

      • p1 ama on 17/05/2022 - 11:01
        +3

        The "practical sense" is the point at which the road gets built. You will not get co-investment unless you provide terms that are sufficiently valuable to the private sector.

        Whether it is "in the interest of the people" is difficult to define. We never have enough money for infrastructure, unless you want higher taxes. Oftentimes, it will come down to a toll road vs. no road at all (instead of a toll road vs. a free road). In this case, a toll road works out better for everyone. If you want to use the toll road, you have the option to (though it comes with a cost). If you do not want to use the toll road, you can continue to use existing roads, but will now have less traffic because others will use the toll road.

        Perfect example of this is Springvale Road in Melbourne's east. Since the construction of Eastlink, congestion has markedly decreased (particularly around Nunawading), so even if you did not want to use Eastlink, you are still better off given that Eastlink takes traffic off existing roads.

        • SlavOz on 17/05/2022 - 11:49
          -2

          You will not get co-investment unless you provide terms that are sufficiently valuable to the private sector.

          We still have shopping centres, electricity companies, parking lots, internet providers, and a whole bunch of other private entities that operate without public funding.

          This sounds like a government talking point. If there is high demand for a product or service, companies will provide it. Profit is their motive. If other companies can operate without government funding then so can toll roads.

          We never have enough money for infrastructure, unless you want higher taxes.

          Australia already has one of the highest income taxes in the world

          Either roads are made of gold or they're blowing our money on something else. Government spending is massively inefficient and wasteful.

          If you want to use the toll road, you have the option to (though it comes with a cost).

          You're paying for it whether you use it or not. You just have to pay MORE if you decide to use it. But your income is docked to help fund the management of these roads either way.

          That being said, I do see the immense value of toll roads. They're much cleaner, safer, and better than state-run roads. If the government built these roads and made them free, they'd just start falling apart and experience massive congestion anyway.

      • pao2x on 17/05/2022 - 11:07
        +1

        The lease time is in the contract for each toll road and public knowledge. How is it determined to be of public interest is the catch, the studies, the business case and economics are hidden from public knowledge.

        Practical sense? If you don't want to pay then don't use it (Unless you are a truckie in the northconnex where you are forced to use it). I've calculated in most cases you save about a minute for around every 50c-$1 spent in tolls on a private car. Pay up or drive around (most of the time I drive around it). Calculations do not include increased fuel and vehicle use.

  • redvaldez on 17/05/2022 - 11:01
    +11

    The short answer is that toll roads are authorised by legislation, as is the enforcement of tolls. Whereas a private carpark is a contractual agreement between the owner/operator and the person and so that debt would be recovered just like any other private debt.

    • Jimmytshirt on 17/05/2022 - 11:06

      Nice short answer!

      • SlavOz on 17/05/2022 - 11:57
        -4

        It is but it doesn't really justify the reason. The answer is basically "because the government said so".

        The spirit of my question is why are toll roads authorised by legislation while other private services are not?

        • Jimmytshirt on 17/05/2022 - 12:01
          +2

          See my comment below - at least in VIC the answer is because of a shit contract between the state and a listed company. Road operator kicks in money for the build - in return they get to privately toll the road - and for some stupid reason those civil debts were agreed to be put into the infringement system.

    • Almost Banned on 17/05/2022 - 12:13

      Yep - good answer.
      As for OP's

      Apparently the main reason is they can't prove who was driving the car because they don't have access to registration info.

      This is just wrong - the reason is because private companies do not (exempt express legislative authority) have the power to fine.

      • SlavOz on 17/05/2022 - 12:19

        One could argue that the private car park "fines" aren't actually fines - they're just fees imposed by the business for providing you a service, no different to late payment fees on your phone bill.

  • Jimmytshirt on 17/05/2022 - 11:04

    I can only comment on Victoria - the toll debts were built into the infringement system when the roads were "made' as part of the contact between the state and the tolling company.

    Terrible contact IMO - needs to change.

    Some reading here if interested: https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/about-us/news/criminalising-…

    And a report (old but give you some ideas of the scope of the problem - note PDF) here: https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/sites/www.legalaid.vic.gov.a…

  • Euphemistic on 17/05/2022 - 15:46

    Gee I dunno. Maybe because the govt drew up a contract to have the toll road built by private enterprise and legislated they could legally receive payment from motorists to fund it after completion?

  • jakka on 17/05/2022 - 19:16
    +1

    As others have mentioned the toll roads are state government property, not privately owned.

    To build the toll roads the private sector funds it. This is essentially a loan. Rather then making repayments though the toll operator will collect the 'loan repayments' from the users of the road. This is why there are minimum terms and traffic growth projections as otherwise the load would not be able to be repaid.

  • Domicron on 17/05/2022 - 23:08
    -1

    yawns. Is the penalty box full?

    Why people/animal ask dumb questions?

    https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/curre…

    • tonyjzx on 18/05/2022 - 01:50

      better not 'insult' OP too much

      could get banned

      OP doesnt realise that in this shark infested pool some sharks are bigger than others

      it comes down to 'what is my return on effort'

      if wilson parking wanted to make their car park fines the same as say… a council car park then maybe they need to lobby more… they probalby worked out this isnt worth it unlike transfield etc who have their toll charges baked into dev costs

      OP's brain will explode when he works out medicare covers eye tests but not glasses!!

      it OP not out of high school? Man I thought adidas and the whole gopnik think and the ukraine invasion made slavs look bad…

      • Domicron on 18/05/2022 - 08:37
        -1

        You think? ;)

        This person/it all non sense talk and no action. Still fine if idiots keep their mouths shut, worst yet, stirring up excrement for the sake of it.

        Precisely people as such creating hurdle for society to move forward, alot of opinions (often not facts based) and minimal action. In a way, reminded me of this, no backbone - https://mobile.twitter.com/Catbilyk/status/15014266629276467…

        Speaking of being offensive, this clown is not far from kids on the school playground being bullied and now bullying others behind the keyboard veil.

        An example being https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/686651

        "SlavOz on 05/03/2022 - 11:28
        +2
        Jokes aside, I wish all the best to Ukrainian civilians impacted by the invasion.

        The fact that you were only joking, and that you offer all the best hopes and wishes, is a huge relief for the hundreds of people dying every day. For a moment there they must've thought the worst was happening, but thank God you clarified that it was only a joke. Imagine how they'd cope without your best regards.

        Disaster averted"

        In a way, I feel for him/her/it as someone seems to have been hard done by…

        • SlavOz on 18/05/2022 - 13:28

          LMAO holy mushrooms dude, who hurt you?

          Clearly you've got some issues if you're so gravely offended by something that was obviously satire (and not even offensive in the slightest).

          All you've done is show that you have zero experience in the real world.

          • Domicron on 18/05/2022 - 14:13
            -1

            @SlavOz: Well. No idea what led you to think that I have been hurt. A clown can be offensive, but doesn’t mean the recipient is/needs to be offended.

            Satire, clearly it was not a great satire (if it is even one). You have a lot to learn from JV.

            I guess this is the internet, where people make a lot of throwaway comments purely because they can. An invitation was made for a dollar to dollar donation in order to show both our solidarity for the suffering Ukrainians.

            Presumably my real world is your imaginary one. I have no experience in it. Not at all. At least not in a world of expecting an answer on a forum regarding either
            1) facts are simply google-able; and
            2) a naïve expectation to explore underlying issue at a much more in-depth level that academics can spend years and unable to agree on a definitive outcome. It touches on a) public/private law; b) political science; and c) public policy and so on.
            3) The OP also shows a complete ignorance to the private law of contract.

            Indeed, out in the real world, won’t give you much time to learn, but random silly questions is not a good way to learn (despite people always say no question is silly, there's always an exception somewhere).

            • SlavOz on 18/05/2022 - 15:31
              -1

              @Domicron: So you don't like a thread that opens a question up for spirited discussions and debate, and you made your thoughts clear with a spirited discussion and debate.

              Thank you for your contribution.

              FYI, when your username is literally a media punchline, it's very hard to come across as the self-righteous elitist you're pretending to be.

              All the best.

  • HelpMeiCantSee on 18/05/2022 - 08:14

    Long story short, cronyism. Fair question though.

    • TooSerious2 on 18/05/2022 - 08:47
      +1

      Nice reply. I think many responses address how they are different - tolls legislated, parking fines not. OP's question was why does this difference exist. Cronyism seems to sum it up.

      • Domicron on 18/05/2022 - 09:02

        Good answer and sums up how PPP works (or government in general, unfortunately). This is overdue https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/corruption-concerns-…

        Though, OP ignored a fundamental difference that toll roads are owned by the government and "operated" by the private company through PPP. Different to a parking space private owned by Westfield. At least this is the fundamental difference from a legal ownership standpoint.

        In practice, the PPP assets are cash cows that prints money for private operators.

  • 2esc on 18/05/2022 - 11:37

    Both liberal and labour see increased population (residents, work visas, tourists etc) as a easy way to create financial growth. Down side road and other infrastructure falls behind.

  • skillet on 18/05/2022 - 11:41

    Well they can't fine you but they can charge you Parking Fees.

  • afah0447 on 18/05/2022 - 11:58

    Agreements with governments. I.e. the law.

    Governments wouldnt waste their time writing up and passing laws for every carpark operator.

    However, universities are different. Get fined there and you have to pay as they have legal agreements.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join