Case detailB a c k
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|
|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 practices, product characteristics|
+ Expand all
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.
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.
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?
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|
The trader was penalised for having committed an unfair commercial practice.
|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.|