European Commission

 

Case detail

B a c k

Directive article Article 2 (b)
Article 2 (d)
Article 2 (j)
Article 2 (k)
Article 3 1.
Article 5 1.
Article 5 2.
Article 7 1.
Article 13 al1
National ID Consumer Rights Protection Centre Decision Nr. E03-KREUD-12
Country Latvia Decision date 11/02/2010
Common name Parking Service case Decision type Administrative decision, first degree
Court Patērētāju Tiesību Aizsardzības Centrs (Rīga) Plaintiff(s)
Court translation Consumer Rights Protection Centre (Riga) Defendant(s)
Subject aggressive commercial practices
Keywords misleading commercial practicesproduct characteristics

+ Expand all

Headnote

It is an aggressive commercial practice to apply wheel-locks in order to force car owners to pay a parking fee, in particular when it was not clearly indicated that the parking spots would require payment.

Facts

The defendant was operating a paid parking lot within the territory of a gas station. The persons driving into a gas station were misled about the fact that they were entering a paid parking area and afterwards found wheel-locks on their cars, which were not removed until a certain fee was paid.

Considering all the facts of the case, the Consumer Rights Protection Centre accused the trader of misleading and aggressive commercial practices.

The trader claimed that it had placed all appropriate signs to inform visitors that they would enter a paid parking lot and that it was fully entitled to detain the cars until the owners paid for the parking service.

Legal issue

Is it an aggressive commercial practice to apply wheel-locks in order to force car owners to pay a parking fee, when it is not entirely clear whether a parking fee actually applies?

Decision

The Consumer Rights Protection Centre, having examined all the circumstances of the case, the information provided by the trader and the complaints received, found that the trader was not entitled to detain the cars for the failure to pay the parking fees. The Consumer Rights Protection Centre qualified this behavior as a misleading and aggressive commercial practice.

  URL Decision Decision full text
EN N/A
LV http://www.ptac.gov.lv/upload/ptac_lemumi/2010/parkingservicelatvia_izraksts.pdf Click here

Result

The trader was penalised for having committed an unfair commercial practice.

Additional information

Date Description URL
There is no events for this case.

Related case(s)

National ID Common Name Subject Country Link type
There is no related cases for this case.

Legal Literature

Title Author
There is no Legal Literature for this case.