so car stolen who will be responsible？

i happy if can ask super market to pay.

Then at whose risk are we parked?

presumably, it's the operator of the parking lot's risk.

good news.

building owner can't simply lepas tangan.

Insurances

Yup the operator cannot hide from the park at your own risk because as an operator they have a duty of care to make sure all car parks at the premise is safe. If you notice Sunway Pyramid install big signboard that they will not responsible for any damages or loss but still they can’t run. Can take them to court.

It's not recent at all. The ruling has been around like 15 to 20 years ago provided it's a paid parking. Iinm, one of the case was a mall parking somewhere in KL. Was it imbi plaza, I can't recall. Car owner managed to get compensation for items in his car that was missing together with his car (car got stolen). The car itself is insured so parking lot operator didn't have to compensate the car itself . It was in the news when I was a student. Circa 1995-1999.

Free parking on the other hand yes, parking owner can be exempted from liabilities. I recall years ago got a case where car owner sues Tesco for damages his car suffered while being parked at Tesco parking lot. The court sided with Tesco as the parking area is free for all.



This post has been edited by tupai: Apr 28 2023, 07:36 PM

2017 case

if you have to pay for the parking then they are liable.
if its some free lot that some guy owns but he lets you park for free then kasi chan la, deal with the theft and issue on your own

Good

DSAI terbaik

Habis la lepas ni semua harga parking naik, dengan alasan beli cctv and hired nepal

so kena langgar in car park can claim management ??

Difficult to prove these days which cashless parking 🤦‍♀️ as they don’t state whose the parking operator

The only thing they can prove is the entry and exit time and building

Makes sense

Piap at own risk also

Look at how many kepochi our thwre

so zalim, no wonder car park so expensive nowadays

it's already a thing after a judge ruled it a few years ago
but parking operator still love to put the term behind their ticket or on the wall of the parking as if it's legal binding

unless of course your parking is free...thn yes

parking kena hit and run,.. can claim or not ??

Can we sue majlis bandaraya since we paid parking fees?

Depends where you park la and how you park. Also if you know who hit and run.

In Penang kenot cos if not mistaken the ruling is "it is in public roads not private road" - you are paying for the usage of the public road maintain by the majlis.

if u know,.. it's not hit and run liao,..

RM2 jadi RM3.
Extra RM1 tu insurance

next lemon law pls

just discovered old news eh?

paid carpark.
you pay to have your vehicle in a safe space.
provider cannot deny.

public liability.

i think (roadside) parking by municipal is covered separately under law, bylaw, ordnance. iinm not covered.

kpdnkk already said before in newspaper; even displaying such term itself is an offence worthy of saman.

this is good for consumer but also means quite likely once this catches on, parking operators will increase the cost of parking as added "insurance" in case there's a payout needed.

Usually this is done during the disclosure/discovery phase (pre-trial).

All parties must all the documents that any party intends to rely on or refer to during the trial later.

At that phase... Any contract/agreement between the building/mall/hotel owner with the parking operator should come to light.

then expect price of parking increase, as business owner will have to divert their loses to the customer as well

insurance how? happy la itu macam

Yes. I have been thinking about this for a very long time. We pay for parking. And very expensive one at it also. In comparison 50 cents for council street parking vs rm2-10 for private parking per.hour. So the question is why pay so much to park a car in private lots when there are no advantages for the high price at all?

How do car operator know if your car are being stolen? It could be you passing your car key to your friend or relative to pick up your car.

so if roadside parking under local council also same?

lolkek this is old story

convenience lor, cibai Malaysians will park as close as possible if can they will park inside the store they want to go to la. if not die die will double park. thankfully since most private parking ada abang security buat clamping, usually tak kena double park lol.

Nowadays got CCTV mah like you said stolen or not police decide

Anything stolen you got to report to police the owner , vehicle or operator

You can get away if you are pro

You will get arrested if this is your first time because beginners always make a mistake in report rahsia bocor question and answer doesn't same as previous, because we human not good in keeping secrets

parking provided by municipal council is not liable for your loss, regardless it is paid. i can't remember which law i was reading through, but it is law. probably the law governing local government i.e. municipal.

paid parking by private entities on the other hand is responsible to provide facility and security, so they cannot wash their hands when things go broken and/or missing. keyword: paid. if you park for free, then different story lah. who wanna be kuli percuma to guard your belongings, right?

noice

If this applicable to "Trade At Your Own Risk" term from guru saham......... oh yes

it is illegal for carpark operators to even display or tout "park at own risk".

Since early 90s lg duhhh

If really go to court

It's David Vs goliath situation

Sunway got infinite money to drag the case,

yes, "duhh".
but not many drivers already know this.
and the point being stressed in 1st post is, all the judgements are now cemented by Court of Appeal.

DSAI terbaik, the heck?

Not just 20 years ago, In fact even longer. "Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking - 1971" has become a standard case study for all business law first subject on Contracts where the imposition of "park at your own risk" notice on the ticket is deemed not enforceable because it is a clause after a customer entered the parking area to obtain a ticket.

This post has been edited by andrewhtf: Apr 29 2023, 12:29 AM

It never valid in first place.

But operator will always taichi until you hired a lawyer

wow. that long. i only sort of recall the news i read 20 years ago. now that you mentioned it, the ruling does based on previous ruling. it could be the 1971 case.

Good for car owners.
at least a bit assuring

What about if they put this notice at the place before the driver take the ticket?

Ofcos can la….

Only those who is willing drag to court

But I am sure most would go to a tribunal 1st to settle before dragging it out to court

That's what parking operators does AFTER this court case lol

tribunal is court,...

could see a rise in parking fare if parking businesses would to uptake insurance against theft/damage

Tribunal is not a court and it is different 🤦‍♀️

The tribunal can be a party to the dispute, whereas a court cannot be a party to the dispute.

Tribunal is to settle dispute amicably with win win situation at best 🤦‍♀️ while court is to decide only single party to win 🤦‍♀️

Do you think why ppl like to settle cases outside of court instead 🤦‍♀️

old news, nothing new