Law limiting wheel clamp release charge takes effect

WELLINGTON: Motorists can no longer be charged excessive fees to have a wheel clamp released and should challenge any operator who tries to do so, a consumer watchdog says.

A law change that cracked down on ‘‘cowboy’’ clampers took effect this month and prevents parking companies charging motorists more than $100.

Consumer NZ and the Automobile Association said yesterday operators who tried to charge more than the maximum amount were committing an offence punishable by a fine of up to $15,000.

‘‘Before the law change, wheel clampers could charge any fee they liked,’’ AA principal adviser regulations Mark Stockdale said.

‘‘Fees of $200 were common and in some cases were much higher than that.

‘‘The new law makes it an offence for wheel clampers to charge more than $100.’’

The two organisations said that if any motorist was charged a fee of more than $100, they should remind the operator of the new law.

If they were still asked to pay more than the maximum, they should contact police on the nonemergency 105 number, they said.

The wheelclamping law change came after several businesses indiscriminately clamped motorists and charged hundreds of dollars.

Motorists complained that they had stopped for only a few minutes or were unaware parking was not permitted because of unclear or ambiguous signage.

One of the most notorious examples was a West Auckland retail complex where a company called Elite Parking Services clamped shoppers’ cars and demanded as much as $450 to get their car released.

In many cases, the shoppers had been parked for only a few minutes in what appeared to be a 120minute parking zone.

Another business, Bamford Antiques in Ponsonby, gained a reputation for aggressively clamping motorists, in one case charging a couple $760 to get their car released.

The AA and Consumer NZ said that if the new law change failed to deter rogue clampers, a ban on clamping should be introduced.

An outright ban was considered but rejected by government officials during development of last year’s law change, because they did not see it as a widespread problem. — The New Zealand Herald