So you don't think criminals have rights - perhaps you should consider that if those (like you) who are not criminal do not defend the criminals right to be protected by the law (not over charged for offending) then the criminals will have no standard to rise up to. Eventually the entire community becomes 'law of the jungle' if we allow police and towies to do as they like. New Zealand is better than that - but it will not be like that for much longer with your attitude.
If you want to live in a law of the jungle society - guess who will be ruling it - NOT YOU!It will be someone who will expoit you unless you are tougher or smarter than they are.No offence intended.
crzyhrse,
Dec 7, 9:50am
It's a shame they didn't also read it.
crzyhrse,
Dec 7, 9:53am
That's a rather poor attitude you have to justice. "First they came." seems appropriate.
smac,
Dec 7, 10:02am
If they're talking trespass notice I can't help thinking there's a weeeee bit more water under the bridge here than you're making out.
Anywho, end result is the same. Let us know how you get on with laying the complaint.
crzyhrse,
Dec 7, 10:10am
Yes, a woman intimidating a towing company. that's quite a turn around. ROFLMAO
richardmayes,
Dec 7, 10:26am
+1. In my experience there is usually a fairly good reason why trouble follows some people around.
It would be interesting (though irrelevant to the story about towie charges) to know what the driver did that attracted the attention of the police in the first place.!
kazbanz,
Dec 7, 10:46am
Not at all. and this isn't a case like that at all.AN UNLICENCED DRIVERdrove a car in such a manner as to attract the attention of the police. If they were not prepared to face all or any financial concequences of that action then simply put they should not have been driving the car. I'd suggest the parents of the person concerned should be looking at their son not whether a towwie charged $50 or even $100 too muchfor storage fees. Incidently I have a different view from the OP. I feel that lawbreakers have far too many rights and the victims of their crimes far too few.
horsygirl,
Dec 7, 11:04am
so much stress .all for $55.
crzyhrse,
Dec 7, 11:31am
Multiplied by all the people they've been doing it to.
crzyhrse,
Dec 7, 11:34am
Who is this 'victim'!
kazbanz,
Dec 7, 12:03pm
NO --multiplied by all the people who have put themselves in that situation. Self inflicted.
carpenter0,
Dec 7, 12:06pm
Good try. Somebody has already tried what you are suggesting and has eventually been knocked back by the Commissioner. So GST at 15% still stands for towage and storage fees that are set as inclusive of GST when GST was 12.5%. We have to give in on that argument thanks to the Commissioner - unless we take the issue up again.
See below:
Section 78(3) of the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985 relevantly provides that, where an alteration in the law is made (such as an increase in the rate of GST), any fee, charge or other amount prescribed by or determined pursuant to any Act or regulation in respect of any supply of goods or services shall, unless provision to the contrary is contained in that Act or regulation, be deemed to be modified so as to increase the amount of fee or charge by the amount of tax chargeable.
We have been asked whether the phrase "unless provision to the contrary is contained in that Act or regulation" in section 78(3) is triggered merely by a reference to an amount being "GST inclusive".
An item in Public Information Bulletin No. 181 (June 1989), stated that where an Act or regulation provides that a fee or charge is inclusive of GST, section 78(3) will not apply to allow the relevant Department to increase that amount to take into account the increase in the rate of GST. Such a provision was considered to be a contrary provision for the purposes of section 78(3).
The Commissioner now considers that the above statement is incorrect. For section 78(3) to not apply when the GST rate increases from 1 October 2010, there must be an explicit statement in the Act or regulation that the amount charged must not be increased by the change in the GST rate. It is not sufficient that the amount is stated to be "GST inclusive". If there is no contrary provision in the Act or regulation, the relevant Department will be able to increase the amount to take into account the change in the GST rate effective from 1 October 2010.
smac,
Dec 7, 1:11pm
Which commissioner are we talking about here! Do you have an online reference to that decision!
crzyhrse,
Dec 7, 1:33pm
Nobody is ever falsely accused. Wow. Did you see that pig flying past the window!
crzyhrse,
Dec 7, 1:35pm
But this is not Departmental. the payment is made to the private company, and in any case the relevant Department hasn't thus amended the regulations.
elect70,
Dec 7, 1:39pm
Probablysay that for every car they impound ,no autorisationto do it, just anotherscummy towoperatormaking a few extraoutevery impound .Put abillboardup outside saying they are rip offscum & run .
The same pig that the OFFENDERquoted no doubt Note not alleged but clearly stated as an offender by the OP They broke the law by driving with no licence now theyre whining because the towie charged $50 too much. CRY ME A RIVER
crzyhrse,
Dec 7, 4:51pm
Still not the point of the thread.
pollymay,
Dec 7, 5:08pm
Return the petrol in a bottle with a lit rag in the top for a refund
kazbanz,
Dec 7, 5:20pm
lets just agree to disagree matey You have a different POV from me on this subject. I entirely get your point-the towie charged too much, My point being if it wasn't impounded then there wouldn't be the problem in the first place
snoopy221,
Dec 7, 5:22pm
2 ways 2 look. 1 yip 55 pingas. 2 Precedent set 5000 companies use precedent on daily basis. 55 pingas x! [Mind you telescum got around people owin em by pre pay aye.]
snoopy221,
Dec 7, 5:24pm
Note-kaz. a search WOULD reveal a thread where you PERSONALY had a problem. With SPECIFICIALYa towing company and a lack of regulation to their charges- I.E. a towing company basiacly **rippin people-alias Joe Bloggs**
kazbanz,
May 12, 12:53pm
Sorry snoops Perhaps as a result of recent happenings around camp KazI have apsolutely NO sympathy for lawbreakers. Dare I ask -Had said unemployedunlicenced driver "for example" hit a parked carwhat do you think the car owners chances are of getting their money back! -I KNOW the answer to that. about zippo of getting it all and maybee $10 a week if they are lucky So NO sympathy for all or any extra charges put on a car impounded whilst driven illegally Sorry if this sounds harsh dude but I'm personally carrying the costs of almost exactly this senario
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.