Wisdom » It Happens

RIMI Loyalty Card and an 8-Lat Fine

It must be said - a long-awaited step from RIMI's side: loyalty cards. Although the benefit is measurable in a few cents, from a loyalty perspective it is a small but pleasant step towards the customer. But this story is not about that, but about an unpleasant incident in the RIMI car park.

Updated: 17 January 2011 at 19:05

One late evening (22:05) I headed towards RIMI. We have grown fond of the one on Pulkveža Brieža Street. Both the approach is convenient and there are fewer people, although queues at the tills can be quite long, especially on pre-holiday evenings. This evening was no different from other evenings, except that it was winter outside.

I gathered everything I needed and headed to the tills, where the cashier greeted me with the standard phrase - good evening. After the purchases had been tallied and payment made, the cashier offered me the chance to arrange a loyalty card at the information centre. I had heard about such a thing and was happy to join the ranks of loyal RIMI customers. The registration took several minutes, after which I hurried away, where I was greeted by... a fine notice for 8 lats. Some loyalty programme!

Analysis of the Incident

It turns out that at least two RIMI car parks (on Brieža and Valdemāra streets), SIA EuroPark has been running operations for quite some time. RIMI was prompted to take this step by the fact that many car users apparently leave their cars there for extended periods. Meanwhile SIA EuroPark could rub its hands and count the money. Providing a virtual service - use of the car park. Needless to say, taking no responsibility for anything.

My view is that since the destination is RIMI and using the car park is for the benefit of customers and in RIMI's interest, the contracted SIA EuroPark fully represents RIMI's attitude and position towards customers. I am not interested in what contracted service providers carry out cleaning work, payment processing, goods delivery or car park supervision. For me it is one single RIMI.

Being on private property is not an administrative offence, and therefore the claim "ignorance of the law is no excuse" does not apply. On the contrary, it is the service provider's responsibility to explain the nature and costs of the service, rather than to covertly wait for a driver to leave their car and rush to place a fine notice.

Upon entering the Brieža Street RIMI car park (from Rūpniecības Street), an unnamed lane (apparently) is neatly adorned with a road sign - paid parking with two supplementary signs: 1 hour free upon taking a ticket, and private property. On the left side of the road there is an information board which, apparently, describes the rules.
As is known, signs placed on the left side are not binding for drivers.
When stopping, information signs indicating 1 hour free are visible at intervals. This time without any reference to the need for some kind of ticket.
None of these signs indicates where such a ticket can be obtained. Surely a large part of readers would assume it is at payment machines; I, for example, might not have known this either and thought that, similarly to LIDO, such a ticket can be obtained at the till. Secondly, the service provider allowed entry to the car park without specifying within what time limit this ticket must be placed in a visible location. In practice this means that while you are going to get such a ticket or familiarise yourself with the rules, a fine notice can be placed.
Terms and contract.
a. As explained by a lawyer, a contract is a mutually voluntary agreement. "Entering a territory where it is supposedly announced that I must take on all obligations stipulated by an unlit board does not mean that I have concluded a contract [1]. Let alone with unequal and unfair contract terms, for which EuroPark already earned PTAC criticism in 2007. Consequently, the fact of a contract is questionable.

b. An equally interesting fact - who is a party to the contract. Given that the contractual penalty is to be collected from the car owner, who may not be the same person as the one using the car park services, the recovery of the debt cannot be directed at the vehicle's keeper.

c. The contractual penalty. In a lawyers' forum it is stated - the contractual penalty cannot be recovered, as the parties, in accordance with the meaning of the Civil Law, have not agreed on a specific amount of it [2].
The fine notice.
a. If it is a fine notice (ticket, token), it must have a unique number and corresponding records. In the given case the number is on a sticker, which in my view can no longer be considered unique, or even - forged.

b. If it is an invoice, it must have a clearly legible issuer, signature and stamp, amount, VAT, and other attributes as required by accounting law.
In the given case there is no original signature, no VAT payer number indicated, and no VAT amount.

c. If it is an electronic invoice, there must be a reference to an electronic signature. As stated on a website about e-documents - in practice such invoices have an informational nature - they inform the client about services provided, the extent of services and the price of those services pursuant to the framework agreement concluded in writing between the relevant service provider and the client [3].
Filing a complaint. On the back of the fine notice three methods are indicated - in person at the office, by email, and online. Strangely, when filling in the form online and selecting in the payment method section - payment for car park not made - one is immediately informed a priori that you have violated the terms of use. :)
Stopping. According to the Road Traffic Regulations, stopping for up to 5 minutes cannot be considered parking.

In Conclusion

Knowing the terms of use of a property is of course a good thing, but not mandatory. EuroPark is the most ordinary LLC, whose goal is to collect money rather than to ensure order or whatever a well-meaning RIMI customer might imagine. It is unfortunate that the company concentrates on collecting money for formal violations rather than on its core business. True, upon re-reading what the company does not bear responsibility for, one would also hesitate to call that business a proper business.

Development of Events

12 January 2011 - complaint submitted by filling in the europark.lv online form. An email confirmation was received that such an application had been sent.

14 January 2011 - an invitation was received through the social network Twitter from @mansrimi to fill in this form - http://www.rimi.lv/klientu-serviss/ierosinajumiem/

The following text was sent:

Regarding EuroPark's unlawful (possibly fraudulent) commercial practice. On 11 January 2011 at 22:05 we entered the RIMI at Pulkveža Brieža Street 33a to make purchases (evidenced by the receipt), as well as to arrange a loyalty card at the information department. Upon returning to the car park, an EuroPark fine notice was found on the windscreen.
I wish to draw attention to the following: 1. to impose a contractual penalty, a contract must have been concluded in accordance with the Civil Law, 2. the fine notice does not contain a typographically printed number, a clearly legible signature and issuer, 3. according to the Road Traffic Regulations, stopping for up to 5 minutes (the time between the RIMI receipt and the time on the fine notice) cannot be considered parking.
A complaint has been submitted regarding the above fact on the europark.lv website (pursuant to information on the reverse of the fine notice), to which no response has been received. I ask you, as the possible property keeper and interested party, to intervene in this misunderstanding, causing SIA EuroPark to declare the fine invalid.

17 January 2011 - a response received from EuroPark. Not worth quoting, as it lists the terms provisions that were violated. Not a single word about the fact of the contract, the methodology for recording parking and stopping, etc.

17 January 2011 - the case materials (a suspiciously-looking fine notice, 1 piece) passed for review and assessment of possible legal consequences to Laura Klagiša law firm.

Until now I have had cooperation with Laura Klagiša law firm in company matters across several areas - commercial law, administrative procedure, as well as matters related to labour protection. A full description of services can be found on the website - http://lkbirojs.lv/services.html

9 March 2011 - an important PTAC decision, unrelated to this case.

Žunde explained - in the event that a consumer finds that their car has had wheel clamps applied in SIA "Parking Control" car parks, the State Police should be called to the scene, who will order the car park representative to remove the wheel clamps.

In the event of refusal, the police will have the right to detain the car park representatives for non-compliance with police requirements and to independently remove the wheel clamps or call specialist services to remove the clamping devices.

press release

Stay tuned for further developments!