7.6 improper demand for payment served on council … · the meeting went over time so i was...

Council Meeting, 28 July 2015 Section 7.6- 4

Improper demand served on Council and unfair conduct by private parking operators

7.6 IMPROPER DEMAND FOR PAYMENT SERVED ON COUNCIL AND UNFAIR CONDUCT BY PRIVATE PARKING OPERATORS Submitting Councillor: Cr Lake

NOTICE OF MOTION

That Council: 1. note with concern: a. the lack of response from Mr Jim Parke to the serious concerns raised at the

June Council meeting in relation to his conduct and the conduct of Care Park Pty Ltd, Parke Lawyers Pty Ltd and Crown Collections Pty Ltd in relation to the issuing of unenforceable payment demands by Care Park Pty Ltd on members of the public, including on Monash City Council;

b. that the Victorian Minister for Consumer Affairs, Jane Garrett, has labelled such demands as ‘fake fines’ and commented that, ‘these private car park operators have been clogging our courts, wasting taxpayers' money and ripping people off’; and

c. that the Victorian Administrative Appeals Tribunal (VCAT) has held that these ‘fake fines’ are unenforceable yet Care Park Pty Ltd, Parke Lawyers and Crown Collections Pty Ltd have continued to pursue aggressive tactics against unsuspecting members of the public to require payment of these ‘fake fines’;

2. given the lack of justification or even response by Mr Jim Parke to the questions raised at the previous meeting, resolve to now formally express its grave concern in the conduct of Car Park Pty, Parke Lawyers Pty Ltd, Crown Collections Pty Ltd and Mr Jim Parke for their respective involvement in Victoria’s courts being clogged, taxpayers money being wasted and ordinary members of the public being ripped off; 3. congratulate the Victorian Government on its announcement that it will legislate to stop private car parking operators from accessing registration details through court orders, such as Care Park Pty Ltd did recently in the instance of the Monash City Council mayoral vehicle registration plate; 4. resolve to write to: a. the Legal Services Commissioner to raise concern in relation to the conduct

of Mr Jim Parke and Parke Lawyers Pty Ltd as outlined in this report and to seek an investigation into whether there has been any breach of legal ethics and/or standards by Mr Jim Parke and/or Parke Lawyers Pty Ltd;

b. the Minister for Corrections to express its concern that Mr Jim Parke sits in the trusted position as a representative of the Victorian community on the

Council Meeting, 28 July 2015 Section 7.6- Page 15


Adult Parole Board and request that he be removed from this role as his involvement in the conduct outlined in this report is incongruous with him holding such an important role on behalf of the community;

c. Mr Jim Parke requesting that he make himself available to attend a meeting with all councillors to answer questions on oath or affirmation on his involvement and conduct over many years in relation to the issuing of ‘fake fines’; and

d. Consumer Affairs Victoria and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission requesting an investigation be launched into Care Park Pty Ltd, Parke Lawyers Pty Ltd, Mr Jim Parke and Crown Collections Pty Ltd to consider whether they have each engaged in deceptive and misleading conduct; and

5. resolve to undertake any further investigations as appropriate into this matter in the interests of protecting members of the community in Monash and the wider Victorian community from unethical conduct.

INTRODUCTION Care Park Ptd Ltd is a private car park operator. It has a history of operating in an unethical and misleading way by issuing ‘Payment Notices’ which mislead people into believing they have been issued a legally valid infringement notice which they are legally obliged to pay. Robert Belteky is the CEO of Care Park Pty Ltd having set up the company in 1998. He is also the former chief executive of a failed private car park operator which was liquidated after his co-owner Benjamin Kamer was charged in 1998, but not convicted, of stealing $1 million from Melbourne City Council. For many years, Care Park Pty Ltd has relied on legal advice from Jim Parke and Parke Lawyers Pty Ltd to fortify this unethical and misleading practice to hoodwink unsuspecting members of the public to pay up. Care Park Pty Ltd has developed a well-honed approach of various points of faux escalation to intimidate members of the public into paying its unenforceable demands. Their business model typically operates something like this:

1. initial letters of demand are sent by Care Park Pty Ltd; 2. letters are then sent by Parke Lawyers Pty Ltd threatening legal action and

increased costs if payment is not made; and 3. a further point of escalation then occurs with letters sent by Crown

Collections Pty Ltd demanding payment as a debt collector. Each of these steps is designed to intimidate ordinary members of the public into paying money to Care Park Pty Ltd – money to which it is not legally entitled.



Last year, Care Park Pty Ltd issued one of its payment demands on Monash City Council. Following significant correspondence (see examples included at Attachment A) between me and Care Park Pty Ltd, its lawyers and its debt collector, the demand has since been withdrawn by Care Park Pty Ltd following the uninvited intervention of Jim Parke. However, this experience has illustrated the appalling and misleading conduct of Care Park Pty Ltd, its lawyers and its debt collector. Upon becoming aware of such conduct and knowing that it continues to be visited indiscriminately on other members of the public every day, it is appropriate for Council to take up this matter in the public interest. There are undoubtedly many people – in the Monash community (as well as the broader Victorian and Australian community) – who have been impacted by this conduct. Recently the Victorian government has taken steps to crack down on the unethical business model of private car parking operators by legislating to prevent them from using court orders to access registration details through VicRoads. This is a pleasing development, however it will not prevent operators like Care Park Pty Ltd continuing to leave ‘Payment Notices’ directly on vehicles and for many people to be conned into paying these unenforceable demands. BACKGROUND Issuing of unenforceable demand on Monash City Council by Care Park Pty Ltd On 14 May 2014, I parked the then mayoral vehicle at 443-451 Docklands Drive, New Quay. I paid for a ticket for the period I expected the meeting I was attending to take which I displayed on the dashboard of the vehicle. The meeting went over time so I was slightly delayed in returning to the vehicle. A ‘Payment Notice’ had been left stuck to the window in the same way in which an infringement notice is issued by an authorised public authority. On 12 August 2014 the City of Monash was issued with a demand for payment by Care Park Pty Ltd for payment of $88.00. This demand was sent through the post to Monash City Council at PO Box 1, Glen Waverley 3150. Presumably, Care Park Pty Ltd had applied by court order to VicRoads to release the ownership details of the registration plate of the vehicle which it had recorded on 14 May 2014. Upon receiving the letter from Council officers, I took responsibility for dealing it. Following correspondence exchanged with Car Park Pty Ltd, its lawyers and its lawyers’ debt collection business, this demand has now been withdrawn. Matter of Council Importance This matter was listed as a Matter of Council Importance on the agenda for the June Monash Council meeting. The draft minutes record that the following six



questions would be submitted to Jim Parke following the Council meeting:

1. Why did your law firm, Parke Lawyers Pty Ltd, intervene to have the sham parking fine issued to the City of Monash and to me waived? 2. How many other recipients of these sham fines have you or your firm also personally intervened to seek to have waived? 3. As Care Park Pty Ltd's legal adviser, is it appropriate for you to also operate your own debt collection business on the side which appears to profit from the same unethical business model as Care Park Pty Ltd in pressuring people into paying these sham parking fines? 4. How is this not a breach of the ethical obligations required of lawyers practising in Victoria to keep their role as professional legal advisers to their clients separate from their own private business interests? 5. On what basis does your firm’s client, you as its legal adviser, and you as the sole owner of its debt collector, assert that these sham parking fines are proper and enforceable in Victorian law given VCAT's determination last year in Vico v Care Park Pty Ltd (Civil Claims) [2014] VCAT 565, that Care Park Pty Ltd's sham parking fines are unenforceable? 6. Do you agree with Victorian Minister for Consumer Affairs, Jane Garrett's characterisation of the conduct of private parking operators, and by extension, your legal advice and conduct as the owner of a debt collection company acting for Care Park Pty Ltd, as 'clogging our courts, wasting taxpayers' money and ripping people off’?

Following the meeting, I sent the attached letter (Attachment B) to Jim Parke on 1 July 2015 which I copied to Parke Lawyers and a lawyer at the firm. The letter requested a response by Wednesday 15 July 2015. Upon not receiving a reply by this deadline, I sent a follow-up email to Park Lawyers Pty Ltd on 17 July 2015 which I copied to Jim Parke and the lawyer at the firm I had previously copied in (Attachment C). This email has similarly received no response. Action by the state government On 10 June 2015, the Victorian state government announced it was introducing legislation into Parliament that day to prevent private car park operators from applying to the courts for access to people’s details through VicRoads. DISCUSSION Unenforceable demands Only the government or expressly authorised public bodies can issue 'fines' so private car parking operators are unable to fine people. Instead, they issue ‘Payment Notices’ which they misleadingly design to look like fines. Private car park companies rely on erecting signs in a car park asserting a range of



purported ‘small print’ conditions for parking there. They argue that by parking in the car park, a person is entering into a binding contract to accept those conditions. If a valid ticket is not displayed, they typically argue that the person in question is in breach of that contract. While the legal position is complicated, consumer law centres take the view that even if there is a binding contract – which may or may not be the case – the terms of that contract are unfair and the amount demanded by the operator is a penalty rather than a genuine assessment of the private car company's loss. Private car park operators such as Care Park Pty Ltd use the term ‘liquidated damages’ in their collection notices, based on the premise that the motorist has entered into a contract by using the car park. However even if such a contract exists (which is debatable), under contact law a contract cannot lawfully claim a sum that is greater than the reasonable loss suffered by the company as a result of the breach of contract. It might be possible for a company to demonstrate that a loss of a few dollars has occurred, but it is totally inconceivable that a loss of $88 (and liquidated damages sum asserted by Care Park Pty Ltd in these situations) would be able to be reasonably established. On 2 May 2014, VCAT ordered that Care Park Pty Ltd’s claim of $88 for ‘liquidated damages’ in relation to breach of a car park contract was a penalty and was therefore unenforceable. In the case of Vico v Care Park Pty Ltd (Civil Claims) [2014] VCAT 565, Member Wilson ordered that the consumer, Mr John Vico, did not have to pay the $88 amount demanded by Care Park. Member Wilson did not accept Care Park Pty Ltd’s evidence in relation to how it justified the $88 amount and found that its claim for loss was ‘overstated’. The Member also found the $88 amount was ‘wholly unexplained’, with ‘no forensic veracity’ and ‘no legal or factual providence’. Care Park Pty Ltd chose not to appeal this decision. On the basis of this decision and in the absence of an appeal or subsequent consideration of these issues by a higher court in Victoria, it is reasonable to conclude that such demands are unenforceable in Victoria. Closeness of Jim Parke to Care Park Pty Ltd Jim Parke is a close business associate of Car Park Pty Ltd through his law firm Parke Lawyers Pty Ltd and his wholly owned debt collection business, Crown Collections Pty Ltd, and has been for several years. Parke Lawyers Pty Ltd was created on 20 December 2006 and Crown Collections Pty Ltd on 1 February 2007. It appears these were created consecutively as Jim Parke dived into his relationship with Care Park Pty Ltd and he has effectively been a ‘business partner’ of Care Park Pty Ltd ever since taking care of all of legals, enforcement and follow up. As Care Park Pty Ltd has grown through this period, so has Parke Lawyers Pty Ltd and Crown Collections Pty Ltd on the back of this dodgy business model.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2014/565.html



To demonstrate the closeness of these three businesses, Care Park Pty Ltd, Parke Lawyers Pty Ltd and Crown Collections Pty Ltd all operate from the same building at 370 St Kilda Road, Melbourne. A Whois internet search in June 2009 shows that each of the respective websites of Care Park Pty Ltd, Parke Lawyers Pty Ltd and Crown Collections Pty Ltd were each run from the same web server. These examples demonstrate the intermingled and intertwined nature of these three businesses. Possible breach of legal ethics It appears that as an active business partner with Care Park Pty Ltd such as through the operation of his debt collection business, Jim Parke may not be operating as an arm’s length legal adviser of Car Park Pty Ltd and this raises questions over whether or not there may be a breach of ethical obligations he owes as a lawyer. It is an obvious question to ask why Jim Parke, as a lawyer who has a professional duty to remain at arm’s length from his clients, appears to be so entangled and involved in Care Park Pty Ltd’s questionable business practices. The following are legal practice rules which may have been breached by the apparent conduct of Jim Parke and Parke Layers Pty Ltd and which ought to be considered further:

• Possible breach of Part 2, clause 4.1.4 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015: A solicitor must also avoid any compromise to their integrity and professional independence.

• Possible breach of Part 2, clause 12.1 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015: A solicitor must not act for a client where there is a conflict between the duty to serve the best interests of a client and the interests of the solicitor or an associate of the solicitor, except as permitted by this Rule.

• Possible breach of clause 8.1.1 of Legal Profession Uniform Legal Practice (Solicitors) Rules 2015: A solicitor who engages in the conduct of another business concurrently, but not directly in association, with the conduct of the solicitor's legal practice must ensure that the other business is not of such a nature that the solicitor's involvement in it would be likely to impair, or conflict with, the solicitor's duties to clients in the conduct of the practice;

• Possible breach of clause 8.1.4 of Legal Profession Uniform Legal Practice (Solicitors) Rules 2015: A solicitor who engages in the conduct of another business concurrently, but not directly in association, with the conduct of the solicitor's legal practice must cease to act for the client if the solicitor's independent service of the client's interest is reasonably likely to be affected by the solicitor's interest in the other business.



It is readily apparent how Jim Parke’s interest as the owner of Crown Collections Pty Ltd could conflict with his role as a fiduciary legal adviser of Care Park Pty Ltd. For example, such as how his private interest in a matter escalating from the hands of Parke Lawyers Pty Ltd (where he providing advice to Care Park Pty Ltd in his capacity as a lawyer) to Crown Collections Pty Ltd is presumably different from Care Park Pty Ltd’s interest in the matter being resolved as quickly and cheaply as possible. Possible breach of Local Government Act In withdrawing the demand for payment issued against Monash City Council, it appears that I was given special treatment by Parke Lawers Pty Ltd at the personal behest of Jim Parke for the sole reason that I was a local government councillor. On 24 April 2015, Mr Rohan Kimber of Parke Lawyers wrote to me and stated:

Whilst we are astounded that someone of your standing would attempt to cast negative aspersions over the operations of Parke Lawyers, particularly given that our principal is one of your fellow councillors (see http://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/Your_Council/councillors-wards/wards/bellevue), in this instance and to avoid causing you further embarrassment, our Jim Parke has sought and obtained our client’s instruction to waive the notice. Kindly refrain from parking in our client’s facilities in future; if you must park in their facilities, please abide by the contractual terms and conditions applying to parking.

Until this email from Parke Lawers Pty Ltd, I had not mentioned that I was a councillor. Presumably, they had discovered this fact and on that basis (according to Mr Kimber’s email extracted above), Jim Parke decided to personally intervene to seek instructions from Care Park Pty Ltd to withdraw the payment demand against Monash City Council. This is very strange and brings into question why he decided to do that. So, it appears that:

• because Parke Lawyers Pty Ltd’s principal, Jim Parke, is a local government councillor on Boroondara City Council; and

• because I am a councillor as well at Monash City Council (a point I neither pressed nor even raised in my earlier correspondence); and

• because he is personally interested in me avoiding further embarrassment (as Mr Kimber so mockingly puts it),

Jim Parke personally intervened to seek Care Park Pty Ltd’s instructions to waive this infringement notice. My position as a councillor was totally irrelevant to this matter and I did not seek or wish it to be taken into account in any way. In response to this email, I replied to Mr Kimber:



I do not want any different treatment on account of my position as a councillor. Your email below could potentially be construed as me gaining advantage because of my position as a councillor – something which could not inconceivably expose me to allegations that section 76D(1)(a) of the Local Government Act 1989 (Vic) (the ‘misuse of position’ provisions) may have been breached. For the avoidance of any doubt on this point, I make it unequivocally clear here that I do not know Mr Parke, do not believe I have ever met him and certainly have not and do not seek his intervention on my behalf at this time, or ever. Incidentally, I believe your principal’s actions as you have described them below to be totally contrary to the fiduciary obligations he and your firm owes to your ‘client’.

It is interesting whether if I was a plumber or a teacher I would have received this same special treatment. Of course I would not have. It is disappointing that Jim Parke has refused to answer reasonable questions about why he adopted this unusual approach in this situation. State government crack down The recent action by the state government to crack down on private car park operators with its Road Safety Amendment (Private Car Park Operations) Bill 2015 is very welcome. The Bill abolishes the current right for car park operators to apply to the courts for access to people’s details through VicRoads. On average each year private car park operators request the details of more than 50,000 Victorians so that letters of demand can then be sent to them. It is believed Care Park Pty Ltd is responsible for a large proportion of these letters of demand. When it is considered that Care Park Pty Ltd has been pursuing this approach for many years and across other jurisdictions as well, there is likely to be hundreds of thousands of people which Care Park Pty Ltd, Parke Lawyers Pty Ltd and Crown Collections Pty Ltd have hounded. The Victorian state government crackdown follows action taken by Premier Mike Baird and the NSW government to block access to the courts for private car park operators there. The NSW law came into operation on 20 November 2012. NSW Roads Minister Duncan Gay said at that time that the NSW government had become concerned by the behaviour of some 'pay and display' parking companies. He said, ‘Some of these car park companies issue payment notices that look very much like official penalty infringement notices issued by government agencies…If payment is not made, car park companies apply to the Local Court for RMS (Roads and Maritime Services) to release the name and address of the vehicle's registered operator’. Mr Gay noted that RMS had been ordered to release the personal details of more than 150,000 motorists but said NSW had a responsibility to protect that private information. The current Victorian government’s crackdown follows the previous state



government ignoring this issue including calls by the Member for Clayton, Hong Lim on 9 June 2010 for it to take action in the public interest. Speaking in Parliament, Mr Lim requested the then Attorney General, Robert Clark, to:

…initiate an investigation of the practices of Parke Lawyers. Parke Lawyers operates on behalf of Care Park Pty Ltd, a company which has been the subject of previous complaints in the Parliament regarding its claims for liquidated damages in private car parks.

It is a shame that the previous Victorian government did not take the appropriate action in the public interest in response to the matters raised by Hong Lim in 2010. It is a further shame that they did not take the same appropriate action in the public interest that the NSW Liberals did to crack down on these predators in 2012. Indeed instead of taking such reasonable action in the public interest, in the dying days of the previous government during September 2014 and on the cusp of entering caretaker mode, the previous Attorney General, Robert Clark, actually appointed his mate, Jim Parke – the apparent mastermind behind the private car parking business model – to the Adult Parole Board. Appropriateness of Mr Jim Parke to represent the Victorian community on the Adult Parole Board Jim Parke is an active participant in the issuing of unenforceable and therefore misleading demands on the Victorian public. He advises on this practice through his law practice, Parke Lawyers Pty Ltd and he profits directly from it through the debt collection business he founded, Crown Collections Pty Ltd, as part of this elaborate and dodgy business model. A person who is so integrally involved in such an unethical business model of deceiving the Victorian public has no place to sit in such a trusted position on behalf of the Victorian community – responsible for safeguarding the public’s interest – on the Adult Parole Board. Misleading and deceptive conduct Every part of this business model appears designed to mislead and deceive:

• the strikingly similar way that ‘Payment Notices’ are issued by Care Park Pty Ltd compared to how an authorised public authority such as a local council issues infringement notices for parking offences;

• the threatening letters demanding payment for these unenforceable demands which Care Park Pty Ltd send to unsuspecting members of the public;

• the threatening letters demanding payment which Parke Lawyers Pty Ltd then similarly sends to the same unsuspecting members of the public;

• the threatening letters which Crown Collections Pty Ltd also sends to the same unsuspecting members of the public; and



• the ironically misleading name which Jim Parke has chosen to name his debt collection business, Crown Collections Pty Ltd, which appears to be deceptively named to create a further assumption in the minds of members of the public he preys upon that its actions are state-sanctioned.

The state government has labelled these sorts of practices as misleading and unfair. It is incumbent on those with the means, such as Monash Council, to take a stand against ordinary people being ripped off by such predators. Need for action from the consumer protection authorities The public has a right to expect protection from people like Jim Parke and unethical rogue companies like Park Lawyers Pty Ltd, Care Park Pty Ltd and Crown Collections Pty Ltd. The consumer protection authorities like Consumer Affairs Victoria and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission must take strong and robust action in response to these matters. It is appropriate for Council to write to these agencies requesting they take the appropriate action. It is also worth noting here that Consumer Affairs Victoria have previously issued a ‘Public Warning’ about Care Park Pty Ltd:

Public Warning - Care Park Pty Ltd Pursuant to section 162A of the Fair Trading Act 1999, the Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria has issued the following public warning. The Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria warns consumers about the activities of Care Park Pty Ltd [ABN 47 083 921 215]. Consumers are advised to be cautious in their dealings with this company. Care Park Pty Ltd operates a number of car parks on a "pay and display" system. Under this system, users of the car parks are obliged to purchase a parking ticket from a vending machine. This ticket records the date and time of purchase. The users are further obliged to display this ticket on the dashboard of the car. Care Park Pty Ltd employs "parking officers" who patrol the car parks. These parking officers issue Payment Notices and attach these notices to the windscreen of any car which, in their determination, is not displaying a valid parking ticket. These Payment Notices are addressed to the owner of the car and require the owner to pay a sum (usually $88) to Care Park Pty Ltd for breach of "Conditions of Entry". Consumer Affairs Victoria has received complaints and enquiries from consumers concerned that Care Park is issuing fines and/or misleading consumers by adopting procedures which closely resemble infringement procedures open to authorised law enforcement agencies. To avoid any confusion consumers are advised that: * Care Park is not an authorised law enforcement agency. * Care Park is a private company, it has no power to issue fines or impose penalties. * Care Park has no power to require anyone to furnish statutory declarations. Care Park asserts a right to recover "liquidated damages" from users of its car parks where



those users breach the terms of a parking contract. "Conditions of Entry" are displayed on signs erected at or near the entrances to the car parks. The contract is said to be formed when a driver enters and parks a car at the car park. Consumer Affairs Victoria is concerned that the procedures adopted by Care Park, which resemble the infringement penalty procedures used by law enforcement agencies, may mislead owners of cars into accepting liability for a fee in circumstances where they may not be liable. Consumers are advised to be cautious in their dealings with this company.

While it is pleasing that Consumer Affairs Victoria have taken the previous step of warning the public about Care Park Pty Ltd, this is not itself sufficient. Given that Care Park Pty Ltd’s operations have continued un-impacted through this period and people continue to be misled, a more interventionist approach by the consumer protection agencies is now demanded. CONCLUSION It is concerning that Jim Parke appears to have built a legal practice on the back of aiding and abetting Care Park Pty Ltd to exert unconscionable legal pressure on ordinary members of the public to pay these ‘fake’ parking fines. However, it is extraordinary that right through this period he has also operated the deceptively named Crown Collections Pty Ltd debt collection business on the side – directly sharing in the profits of this unethical business model. There are questions as to whether Jim Parke and Parke Lawyers Pty Ltd may have over-stepped their roles as arm's length legal advisers to their so called 'client' and instead are operating as Care Park Pty Ltd’s active business partners in this deception being visited upon ordinary Australians. Unfortunately Jim Parke and Parke Lawyers Pty Ltd have refused to respond to the questions raised and understandable concerns discussed by Council at the previous meeting. In the absence of their responses, it is reasonable for Council to now seek to raise these matters with the Legal Services Commissioner for investigation. The conduct highlighted in this report also brings into question Jim Parke's fitness to occupy the trusted positions he holds as an elected councillor at Boroondara and as the Victorian community's representative on the Adult Parole Board. It is pleasing that the state government is now legislating to stop people like Jim Parke from ripping off unsuspecting people and amassing a personal fortune out of it.

1 July 2015 Mr Jim Parke Managing Director Parke Lawyers Pty Ltd GPO Box 66 MELBOURNE VIC 3001 Sent by email to [email protected] and [email protected] Dear Mr Parke YOUR CONDUCT IN RELATION TO CARE PARK PTY LTD I refer to previous correspondence sent to me by Mr Kimber of your office and to recent articles in the media concerning your role as a lawyer for Care Park Pty Ltd and the owner of Crown Collections Pty Ltd. At its meeting last night, Monash City Council (Council) considered these matters as a Matter of Council Importance listed on our public meeting agenda. The six questions below were raised and minuted as questions where further information is sought from you in relation to this matter. Can you please provide full and frank responses to each question below so that Council may consider its position further in respect of this matter?

1. Why did your law firm, Parke Lawyers Pty Ltd, intervene to have the sham parking fine issued to the City of Monash and to me waived? 2. How many other recipients of these sham fines have you or your firm also personally intervened to seek to have waived? 3. As Care Park Pty Ltd's legal adviser, is it appropriate for you to also operate your own debt collection business on the side which appears to profit from the same unethical business model as Care Park Pty Ltd in pressuring people into paying these sham parking fines?

mailto:[email protected]


2

4. How is this not a breach of the ethical obligations required of lawyers practising in Victoria to keep their role as professional legal advisers to their clients separate from their own private business interests? 5. On what basis does your firm’s client, you as its legal adviser, and you as the sole owner of its debt collector, assert that these sham parking fines are proper and enforceable in Victorian law given VCAT's determination last year in Vico v Care Park Pty Ltd (Civil Claims) [2014] VCAT 565, that Care Park Pty Ltd's sham parking fines are unenforceable? 6. Do you agree with Victorian Minister for Consumer Affairs, Jane Garrett's characterisation of the conduct of private parking operators, and by extension, your legal advice and conduct as the owner of a debt collection company acting for Care Park Pty Ltd, as 'clogging our courts, wasting taxpayers' money and ripping people off’?

Please provide your response to these questions by no later than 5.00 pm on Wednesday, 15 July 2015. Please note that your response, or failure to respond, will be considered further by Council in the interests of satisfying itself that Monash residents and the wider public are being treated fairly in respect of these matters. If you would like to discuss further, please feel free to contact me on my mobile 0411 645 281 or via email at [email protected]. Yours sincerely GEOFF LAKE Councillor for Glen Waverley Ward


7.6 improper demand for payment served on council … · the meeting went over time so i was...

Documents