Article 7 4. (d)
Article 8 al1
Article 9 al1 (b)
|National ID||Consumer Rights Protection Centre Decision Nr. E03-KREUD-27|
|Common name||Decision type||Administrative decision, first degree|
|Court||Patērētāju Tiesību Aizsardzības Centrs (Rīga)||Plaintiff(s)||SIA “Euro Parking”|
|Court translation||Consumer Rights Protection Centre (Riga)||Defendant(s)||Consumer Rights Protection Centre|
|Subject||aggressive commercial practices|
|Keywords||coercion, payment, price information, telephone, undue influence|
+ Expand all
(1) It constitutes a misleading commercial practice to require a consumer to make a telephone call to the trader in order to be informed on an applicable payment method.
(2) The use of mechanisms that block a consumer's property in case of non-payment for services and requesting payment before releasing the property of consumers, constitutes an aggressive commercial practice.
The plaintiff is an operator of paid parking lots on several locations. The parking lots contained a sign making clear that it is a paying parking lot. However, there were no persons or machines available with whom one could make payment for a parking space. Only a phone number was given for questions.
If payment was not made, the wheels of the concerned vehicle were blocked and a payment of a contractual penalty was requested by the plaintiff. There was a staff hired by the plaintiff to collect the contractual penalty and to install the wheel block, but these persons did not accept payments for the parking services as such.
The Consumer Rights Protection Centre (CRPC) accused the plaintiff of performing misleading and aggressive commercial practices.
(1) Does it constitute a misleading commercial practice to require a consumer to make a telephone call to the trader in order to be informed on an applicable payment method?
(2) Does the use of mechanisms that block a consumer's property in case of non-payment for services and requesting payment before releasing the property of consumers, constitute an aggressive commercial practice?
(2) In addition, it was stated by the CRPC that the use of wheel blocks and requesting payment of a contractual penalty, this before releasing the vehicle, constitutes an aggressive commercial practice.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
Plaintiff was penalized for breaching the prohibition on unfair commercial practices.
|There is no events for this case.|
|National ID||Common Name||Subject||Country||Link type|
|There is no related cases for this case.|
|There is no Legal Literature for this case.|