Search

Woman fined after paid car park gets set up around her parked vehicle

Josephine Williams had been leaving her car in a gravel clearing at Westgate in Auckland, alongside other commuters to catch the bus into the city for months. The New Zealand woman was left with a "nasty surprise" when she returned from work on Monday to find a NZ $85 ($77) fine sitting on her windshield. "To my unfortunate surprise - and many others - I was greeted by an $85 parking ticket for a breach and a flyer from Wilson Parking saying paid parking had started that day," Williams told Stuff. "But what breach exactly was made? How was I supposed to know paid parking started that day when there was nothing at all displayed anywhere in the car park?" Williams claimed that the Wilson Parking car park had been set up around her already parked car, even providing dash cam footage that showed her pulling into the gravel clearing at 7.45am, with no paid parking signs or Wilson branding in sight. By 6pm, a large red and white Wilson sign had been put up at the entrance, with "12 hours for $4" written on it. "Wilson deliberately put their sign up sometime after 9am and then took it upon themselves to fine every single car that was already parked there from the morning," Williams said. "$85 is a lot of money - it would have been two weeks' worth of grocery shopping for me," she added. "I'm lucky that I know the law and my rights, but some other people might not. What about students or the elderly or people who don't know English well?" She estimated that there was usually around 50 and 100 cars in the gravel clearing. Wilson argued that the carpark was always there and they had just added more signage, but have since waived Williams' fine after she lodged a request to have it reviewed by Parking Enforcement Services. Wilson Parking also said that they had started to set up the car park and installed a "clear signage" on April 22. "It was not set up around parked cars on 29 April as suggested," a Wilson spokesperson said. "Several payments were made by customers via the Parkmate app from 22 April proving that signage on the site was clear and effective," they said. They added that on April 29 more signs were added to all entry points of the car park. "In acknowledgment of the increased signage added on the 29th at the entry we've made the decision to refund all payments made until 30 April and waive any breach notices issued up to this date." They also denied issuing any breach notices before the signs were put up. "Payment options were available and signed from 22 April - but no infringement notices were issued prior to the 29th." Images: Stuff

Legal

"A little bit steep": Jetstar passenger hit with "wild" excess baggage fee

A Jetstar passenger has been slapped with a "wild" excess baggage fee after her luggage was less than just one kilogram overweight. Monique McCreanor was flying from Melbourne to Sydney after competing in a fitness competition when she was hit with the unexpected fees. Travelling with only carry-on luggage, Ms. McCreanor said she made a mad dash to the airport to catch her flight, only to be stopped at the gate due to the weight of her bag. Because of the prizes she won at the competition, her bag was just 900g over the 7kg limit, and she was issued a $75 fine. Ms. McCreanor took to TikTok to share a warning with other travellers to triple check the weight of your bag, as even being over the limit by mere grams will set you back. “This isn’t a complaint, this is merely just warning you guys,” she said in the clip. “If you do fly with Jetstar on a domestic flight, and your bag is even 100g overweight, you’re going to get charged $75 at the gate for that excess luggage." “Now, this kind of sucks, because I’m like damn, I could have had 15kg in this bag to really make it worthwhile." “I got hit with $75, so just make sure are booking the extra checked baggage, it is better to be safe than sorry, because $75 is a little bit steep for just 900g overweight.” While her video quickly garnered thousands of views, many were left divided in the comments about her complaints. One person sided with the airline, saying, “No sorry, it clearly gives a weight allowance. You went over, you pay.” “Seriously it doesn’t matter who you are with, you will have to pay any way, they are the rules,” another added. Others were quick to empathise, sharing their own experience of encountering excess baggage fees. “They did this to me on my honeymoon... I was p****d,” one person said. Image credits: TikTok

Travel Trouble

"Unfair" parking fines could soon be a thing of the past

In recent years, road users in one Australian state have found themselves at the receiving end of unwelcome surprises in their mailboxes. An experimental parking fine process, initiated with the aim of streamlining administrative procedures, has instead garnered significant backlash from unsuspecting motorists. However, relief seems to be on the horizon as the New South Wales Government steps in to rectify the situation. The issue revolves around the introduction of ticketless parking fines, a system that was implemented with the intention of simplifying the issuance of penalties for parking violations. Under this scheme, parking officers could send details of fines directly to Revenue NSW, which would then dispatch infringement notices either by post or through the Service NSW app. However, what was meant to be a simple and streamlined modernisation effort has led to a surge in revenue from fines and a subsequent erosion of trust in the system. Concerns about the fairness and transparency of ticketless fines have been mounting, prompting action from the NSW government. Reports indicate that Finance Minister Courtney Houssos has written to all 128 local councils in the state, urging them to halt further adoption of the ticketless parking fine system. Instead, councils have been instructed to revert to traditional ticketing methods and ensure that drivers are promptly made aware of fines at the time of the offence. The move comes in response to a range of issues highlighted by critics of the ticketless system. One major concern is the lack of immediate notification, which diminishes the deterrent effect of fines and makes it difficult for motorists to contest them effectively. Without receiving timely notification, drivers may struggle to gather evidence or address issues such as inadequate signage, hidden signs, or other circumstances that could warrant a review of the fine. Organisations like the National Roads and Motorists' Association (NRMA) have been vocal opponents of the ticketless scheme, labelling it as "unfair" and criticising its impact on transparency. According to NRMA spokesperson Peter Khoury, the system reduces the ability of drivers to contest fines, thereby undermining their rights and contributing to a loss of community trust in the administration of fines. The NSW government's intervention signals a recognition of these concerns and a commitment to restoring confidence in the fines system. By prioritising immediate notification for drivers, authorities aim to address the shortcomings of the ticketless parking fine process. The decision to reverse the experimental system comes amid staggering revenue figures, with nearly $140 million generated from ticketless fines in 2023 alone. While the financial gains may be substantial, they come at the expense of public trust and fairness, prompting a much-needed course correction. As Minister Houssos asserts, providing immediate notification to drivers is not only the right thing to do but also a crucial step towards rebuilding community trust. By ensuring that drivers are promptly informed of fines and have the opportunity to contest them, authorities can strike a balance between effective enforcement and procedural fairness in managing parking violations. As road users await the reinstatement of traditional ticketing methods, they can take solace in the prospect of a fairer and more transparent fines system in the future. Images: City of Sydney

Legal

Restaurant sparks outrage for "ridiculous" fee

As inflation rates continue to rise it is not surprising that restaurants are charging extra fees, but one disgruntled customer was particularly shocked to see this "ridiculous" fee on their bill. The customer, who dined at restaurant and cocktail bar in Georgia, USA shamed the restaurant for charging their customers a $20 fee for “live band entertainment”. They shared their complaints on Reddit with a copy of their receipt and an unexpected fee at the bottom which read: “Two Live Band Entertainment Fee — $20”. Most people in the comments were equally annoyed and called the fee "ridiculous". “This is one of those leave money on the table, hand the waiter a tip and leave, sorry but if I didn’t order it, I’m not paying for it,” one wrote. “Great way to not have repeat customers,” said another. “This will backfire for them, just be honest and upfront," a third added. Other commenters were less sympathetic and did not understand why the customer was complaining when it looked like they could afford it. “When you’re paying seven dollars for a bottle of water, you really don’t get to complain about ‘unexpected costs.’ You knew what you signed up for," one commenter wrote. “Imagine a live band getting paid, huh,” another added. “They’re buying $7 bottles of water, they can probably afford it,” added a third. Image: Getty/ Reddit

Money & Banking

Big W customer gobsmacked over $4000 shipping fee

A Big W customer was only trying to buy an outdoor play set for her kids but got the shock of her life when she saw the "ridiculous" shipping fee that was over three times the cost of the play set. The Singleton mum had added the $1,200 item to her cart while shopping online and was about to check out when she was greeted with a $4,466 shipping fee. "How in God's name can they charge $4,466 for delivery! Big W are slowly losing my vote!" the outraged mum wrote on Facebook, even swearing off the department store for the apparent money grab. According to the Big W website, the play set is sent via Plum Play, a "trusted partner", and not by Big W stores, and because the woman lives in a rural area, she initially believed that was the reason for the extortionate shipping costs. A few other shoppers criticised the high fee. "That is fricken ridiculous!!!! No one would pay that," one said. "Jesus, are you ordering a few pallets of bricks? No way normal merchandise would cost that much to send," another wrote. A few others questioned the weight of the item and where she lived, while others tried to buy the same item and got even higher shipping fees. "It jumped a few grand for a couple of ks for me," one wrote, with the cost of standard delivery for the play set at $7,858. Some reported fees of up to $50,000, but most were $7,000 to $10,000. The department store has addressed the issue and told Yahoo News Australia that an "error on the website" was to blame. They have since corrected the delivery charges which should have been about $100 for the woman's location. "We were made aware of a delivery calculation error on our website which has since been resolved. We apologise for any inconvenience this has caused," a spokesperson told the publication. Image: Getty

Money & Banking

"Other cities will follow": Big trouble ahead for SUV owners

Paris residents have voted to charge SUVs triple the cost of parking compared to standard sized cars in a bid to tackle air pollution and improve safety. 54.6 per cent of residents voted to pass the plan, with the new parking tariffs expected to start in September. The price increase will apply to on-street parking for vehicles with combustion or hybrid engines weighing more than 1.6 tonnes and electric vehicles weighing over two tonnes. The change means that the vehicles will pay €18 (A$29.69) an hour for parking in the centre of Paris, up from €6 (A$9.90), and €12 (A$19.79) an hour in the rest of the city, up from €4 (A$6.60). "Parisians have made a clear choice … other cities will follow,” Paris mayor Anne Hidalgo said. Experts are onboard with the move and believe the Australia should do the same thing. Urban access consultant and author of the book Rethinking Parking David Mepham said that the move could help improve safety as: “SUVs are actually some of the most unsafe vehicles on the road for pedestrians with a fatality rate that is significantly higher than other vehicles.” “The injury and fatality rate should be a concern in highly pedestrianised areas such as city centres.” In 2022 alone, SUV and light commercial vehicles made up 76.8 per cent of car sales, coming in eighth on the top 10 vehicle sales according to the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries. With spaces in the cities limited, Mepham added: “If you’ve got a larger car you should expect to pay more for that, you should pay for what you use.” Standards Australia has recently proposed to increase the size of off-street parking spaces by 20 centimetres in Australia, from 5.4 metres to 5.6 metres, which would make it easier for larger vehicles to park, but would limit car spaces. Executive director of the Australia Institute, Richard Dennis also said that SUV owners need to face the consequences of owning a larger vehicle. “If we want to drive much bigger cars, are we going to widen all of our city streets, are we going to have less car parking spaces?” he said. “Because if we want to drive these cars we need to own the consequences.” Marion Terrill, an independent transport expert, also agreed that higher parking fees for large vehicles are “absolutely reasonable.” “If you want more of it you can pay more, it’s the same principle as paying for parking at all," she said. Image: Getty

Travel Trouble

Lisa Wilkinson's fears over losing her home

Lisa Wilkinson's fears over losing her multi-million dollar mansion to cover her legal fees have been detailed in a series of court documents. The former host of The Project entered into a bitter legal battle after being sued for defamation by Bruce Lehrmann, and decided to hire top defamation lawyer Sue Chrysanthou SC and her own legal team to fight the charges. In a series of emotional emails and documents tendered by the Federal Court, Wilkinson was allegedly "almost hysterical" and "sobbing" over the notion of losing her home in Cremorne to pay the hefty legal fees. In a briefing note prepared for Ten’s legal team, Network Ten CEO Beverley McGarvey detailed a “challenging” call she had with the network star on June 7th 2023. McGarvey had called to ask how Ms Wilkinson was going in the wake of Channel 7’s Spotlight program and the leaking of audio provided to police and lawyers but never tendered in court. “Lisa was very upset and emotional and it was a very challenging call,” MsMcGarvey wrote. “She was almost immediately upset and started talking about legal fees and how she would have to sell her house." “I would say her tone was almost hysterical.” McGarvey then did her best to ease Wilkinson's concerns, reminding her of her secure financial position. “She is being paid by us on full salary, and lives in a lavish multimillion dollar home with a pool and a tennis court and harbour views so I hope this is not a real risk,” she said. “She asked if we would pay for her fees and this came up over and over again in the conversation. I told her to talk with Nick, her manager." “But she had chosen her own legal team against our advice and chosen a team we objected to. “She said if I actually cared about her, I would make sure we pay their legal fees.” The documents were released by the Federal Court on Friday after Ms Wilkinson won her legal battle to force Network Ten to pay for her legal fees that are estimated to amount to up to $2 million. The exact amount Ten will pay has not yet been determined. Image credits: Getty Images

Legal

"It's just not fair": Driver slams council for misleading parking fine

A furious motorist has taken aim at a Sydney council's parking solution that resulted in an "outrageous" and "unjustified" fine. Ben drives to the Campbelltown train station in South West Sydney every day for his workday commute, and has recently been forced to find alternative parking plans due to a major disruption. A multi-deck carpark is being built near the station to accommodate the influx of traffic, but while the site is under construction, a makeshift parking lot has been set up. While the new car park will add 500 parking bays when completed, residents have claimed the council has drastically reduced the number of spaces in the meantime. Ben told <a href="https://www.9news.com.au/national/sydney-parking-rules-drivers-outrage-over-tiny-detail-in-parking-fine/4cfe4d45-c311-4587-b68a-fc1d017675fc" target="_blank" rel="noopener">9news.com.au</a> parking had become "a nightmare" since the temporary lot opened, leaving many motorists with no option but to park along the fence line. It's this act that saw Ben receive a $129 parking fine in the mail. He was outraged when he was issued a fine on February 9th for "not stand vehicle in a marked parking space" when he had no other parking option. "They've advertised that the temporary car park is the same amount of spaces lost during the construction, which is severely incorrect," he said. "I can only assume they are fining loads of drivers as that space along the fence line is always full of cars parked the same as mine was." Along with the fine itself, ticket inspectors supplied Ben a photo of a wordy and confusing sign located near the entrance to the lot, which only added to his frustration with the local council. He said while there were no marked bays along the fence line, signage was not clear enough to indicate to drivers they weren't allowed to park there. "I mean it's just not fair. It's a temporary gravel parking lot," he said. "They've created this mess and now they are targeting innocent commuters fighting to just leave their car somewhere to catch public transport into work." A spokesperson for Campbelltown City Council told Nine News they understood the construction of the new car park would "create some disruption". "A temporary 113-space parking lot has been opened adjacent to the existing parking lot in order to offset some of the parking loss," they said. The council was "actively monitoring and reviewing the current parking and signage arrangements as well as community feedback, to identify any further improvements that could be made and inform any additional community notification required". "While this review takes place, vehicles will only be fined where a safety risk to both other vehicles and/or pedestrians is identified," the spokesperson said. Image credits: Nine News

Legal

Dad cops furious note from "egotistical Karen" for parking in parent's bay

A Perth dad has been left hurt after he was targeted by an "egotistical Karen" for parking in a parent's bay, while his wife was inside a shopping centre changing their seven-month-old baby. "Don't park here again, you selfish prick!" the note read. His wife took to Facebook on behalf of her hurt husband to question why someone would go out of their way to criticise him for parking in a space designated for parents. "My husband was putting a baby gate in the boot while I was in the forum changing our seven-month-old baby," she defended her partner, who parked at the Mandurah Forum. "He came back into the forum looking for me [and] when we returned, someone had put this note on our windscreen. "How about next time you be sure before insulting an innocent husband and father, you hero." The woman said that the note left her husband "hurt and almost feeling guilty" and she argued that he had every right to be there as a parent. Her post attracted over 300 interactions with many agreeing with the mum, and saying that the "Karen" should've gotten their facts straight before taking action. "There is no law for who can park in parents with prams spaces they are just convenience but anyone can park there and use," one man wrote. A few others shared the same sentiment and said that "it's not illegal to park in those bays" regardless of whether or not you have a baby. Some parents even shared their own experiences and why it is important to not judge someone based on looks alone. "This has happened to me also. I had a baby and a toddler and my husband took them inside the Mandurah forum while I unloaded our car," the person began. "A couple with a baby parked next to me and the man kept yelling at me that it was only for parents with prams, even though I told him I had young kids and a pram. But he didn't believe me and yelled loudly to move my car." One mum added that she doesn't see the need for parents with prams spaces altogether. "As a mum of just a five-year-old, I personally don’t see the need for parent spaces. They are not any bigger, just more convenient. Kids need exercise and prams have wheels, not hard to walk," she wrote. "I personally think they should be seniors bays instead, they are less mobile and struggle to walk long distances. Give them the spots." Images: Facebook

Legal

Woman sparks debate after copping $116 fine for "absurd" rule

Shakira Coldwell, 21, has sparked debate online after copping a $116 parking fine for an "absurd" rule she claims she didn't even know existed. The Aussie woman took to TikTok to share her confusion, and asked if anyone else was aware of the rule. “Was I the only one that didn’t know you can get a parking fine for parking nose in, like the front of your car goes in first instead of backing into a car park?” she asked. She then asked whether the rule was only enforced in Noosa, saying that she was "pretty sure" you could park in any way as long as you stay between the lines. Coldwell then shared a photo of how she parked her car when she received the fine and said that she was “clearly” within the parking lines but hadn’t backed into her space like the car next to her. “Does that not just seem a bit absurd, a bit bizarre?” she said. She also said that she was only just made aware of the fine, as she had been travelling, which means that she may be copping even bigger fees as her payment was now overdue. “I’ve asked a couple of people about this and they literally had no idea that rule even existed. Like, I’m within the lines, it doesn’t matter how I’m parked,” she continued. According to the Brisbane City Council website, failing to park as indicated by an angle parking sign will result in a $116 fine, but Coldwell claims that she didn't see any signs. “So I am a bit confused. Is this just Noosa rule or does everyone know this because I literally did not know this was a rule. And low key $116 for a parking fine that's a bit absurd, given I was within the lines,” she said. Many commenters were quick to inform her that it was actually a common parking rule that wasn't restricted to Noosa. “As someone who lives in Noosa I can 100% guarantee there was a sign saying you had to back in,” one person wrote. “Being within the lines literally has nothing to do with it lol,” another said. A few others said that parking the wrong way in angled spots can make it “dangerous” when backing out into traffic, with one commenter claiming “everyone knows this”. However, a few others were just as baffled as the 21-year-old. “I’d be challenging that. I have never heard of it and there should definitely be signs so if you can go and check the signage,” one said. “Never heard of this before I wouldn’t pay it tell them where to go,” another wrote. According to the <a href="https://www.noosa.qld.gov.au/community/local-laws/parking-regulations" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Noosa Council website</a>, rear-in angle parking is enforced in certain areas to “ensure a safer parking experience for everyone in the area," and to prevent cars from crossing into oncoming traffic as they try to exit the parking bay. Images: TikTok

Legal

"No empathy": Grandmother kicked off flight over unpaid fee

An outraged father has unleashed over Jetstar's decision to remove his mother-in-law and children from a flight over an unpaid fee. Father of three Jay Tee took to social media to slam the airline over their treatment of his family on their flight from the Gold Coast to Melbourne. Tee's kids were being accompanied on the flight by their grandmother, who was informed she needed to pay a $35 fee to check in a bag. The woman forgot to pay the fee before boarding, on what was her second time ever on a plane. Tee was then contacted by the airline after his family had boarded and was told they would not be allowed to travel if the charge wasn’t paid for within 10 minutes. “They informed me I had 10 minutes to pay $35 or else they would be removed from the flight extra fees would accur (sic) for holding up the flight,” he said. “I hung up transferred funds and rang back within four minutes. Jetstar did not take payment and had removed my mother-in-law from the flight altogether leaving her and 3 kids stranded at Gold Coast airport no water no food.” The father slammed the airline for “disgusting service” that was “the worst I have ever been treated” by a company. “My anger is not with the payment for luggage, it is how my mother-in-law and three kids under 10 were treated.” The airline confirmed the family were removed from the flight, with a spokesperson saying the airline was trying to contact Mr Tee for more information. “We’re really sorry to hear about the customers’ experience and are reaching out to get a better understanding about what happened,” the spokesperson said. The airline went on to say they had no record of any payment being made, while also clarifying they asked the elderly woman to move to the service desk multiple times to pay the fee, but she didn't. Mr Tee says he was then forced to pay another $600 to book the group on the next flight to Melbourne with discount airline Bonza. The situation stirred up debate on social media, with some blaming the woman for the mishap. “I don’t understand how this is anybody but the mother in laws fault, She would have checked bags in then should have walked over and paid for the excess, not boarded the plane,” one person wrote. But others defended her, and the fact the charge was paid by Mr Tee. “Would have thought Jetstar could have helped in some way, but that sums up Jetstar’s customer service for you. No empathy what so ever.” Image credits: Facebook / Getty Images

Travel Trouble

“This doesn’t make sense": Mum fined for parking in own driveway

A Gold Coast mum couldn't believe her eyes when she found an almost $200 fine in her mail for parking in her own driveway. “I got a lovely fine from Gold Coast City Council for parking in my own driveway,” Megan Pass told 7News. “This doesn’t make sense. “Everybody I’ve shared this with is going, ‘What the hell?’” The council claims that part of her driveway is located on council land so she was breaking the law by parking on it. The mother-of-three said that she has lived in the house for seven years and parked her car there every day and has never been fined before. The <a href="https://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/Planning-building/Development-applications/Development-application-types/Driveways-vehicular-crossings" target="_blank" rel="noopener">council website </a>states that there is an important difference between someone's driveway, which "ends at the property boundary", and a vehicular crossing, which is the section of the driveway between the boundary and the road. The local law prevents people from parking over council land for more than two minutes, so Ms. Pass got fined $193. People took to social media to share their thoughts on Ms Pass' situation. “What a joke - revenue raising at its best,” one user tweeted. While another said: “Yip I got one of those fines lol. Just paid it. Don’t have time spare to go court to be told… you broke the law… pay the fine." “Will the mayor mow the footpath once a week and water it? That bloke’s a goose,” a third added. Images: 7News

Legal

"Surely this is a prank": Council slammed for ridiculous parking restriction

Melbourne City Council has been slammed online for offering free parking, but only for a measly 15 minutes. The new initiative, which was shared in a video to the City of Melbourne Instagram account, details how parking fees will be waived for drivers needing to run a quick errand in the CBD, as long as they return to their vehicle within 15 minutes. Drivers can park in a “green signed” parking space such as a ‘2P Meter’, and start a 15-minute session on the Easy-Park app to claim the offer. The council said they introduced the initiative for those who want to “run an errand, support a local business and take in city vibes”. <blockquote class="instagram-media" style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/reel/C0lApxrt35h/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14"> <div style="padding: 16px;"> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="padding: 19% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"> </div> <div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div> </div> <div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;"> <div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: 8px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: auto;"> <div style="width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"> </div> </div> <p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none;" href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/C0lApxrt35h/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by City Of Melbourne (@cityofmelbourne)</a> </div> </blockquote> The initiative, however, has been rinsed online, with many people pointing out that 15 minutes is not enough time to do anything, especially in the CBD. “Surely this is a prank?” one person questioned. “As if you can take in the vibes in 15min. And based where the carpark spots are, you’d barely make it to the shop or restaurant and back in 15,” said another. “15 mins? Such overwhelming generosity,” another commented. “How can you support any business in 15 minutes time? By sprinting to a shop and run back to the car only to find a ticket on the dashboard?,” wrote another person. Despite the negative feedback, City of Melbourne said more than 90,000 people had taken up the free parking offer since it was first introduced in the central city in July. "Drivers are embracing the flexibility of our new free 15-minute parking system, which is opening up the city by giving more drivers access to free parking outside more businesses and services,” Lord Mayor Sally Capp said in a statement in November. “Early data shows our parking improvements are working exactly as intended – keeping spaces turning over outside city businesses, while making it easier to find a park.” Image credits: Instagram

Travel Trouble

"Hats off to whoever did this": Hilarious act of revenge on parking spot thief

In the cutthroat world of Sydney parking, one fed-up property owner has taken matters into their own hands – or rather, their own clingfilm. A red Fiat, blissfully parked in what turned out to be somebody's private parking spot in the Upper North Shore suburb of Wahroonga, became the canvas for a sticky masterpiece of vehicular revenge. A vigilant passerby, no doubt amused by the spectacle, snapped a photo of the clingfilm-covered car and generously shared it on a community Facebook page. The caption, dripping with sarcasm, read, "And you thought people parking boats on Mosman streets was bad. Look what happens in Wahroonga if you park in the wrong place!" The clingfilm artist didn't stop at just wrapping the car; they took it a step further by scribbling a stern message on the plastic: "Not a public park. Read, you moron. Private property." Talk about a clingy reminder that parking etiquette is serious business in Australian capital cities. While some Sydneysiders chuckled at this clingfilm caper, others questioned the creativity behind the furious act. "Why the hell would you do that to someone's car? Would a note not have achieved the same result? Seems an overreaction," pondered one rational soul, evidently unfamiliar with the concept of "sticky situations". Another concerned citizen chimed in, "Well deserved. Though it's a dreadful waste of plastic." Clearly torn between environmental consciousness and a deep-seated desire for vehicular justice, this commentator encapsulated the internal struggle faced by many Sydney residents. On the flip side, some applauded the clingfilm connoisseur for taking a bold stance against parking transgressors. "Fair enough. We have it happen to us all the time, and I'm at the point of doing this considering I can't park on the street, so I need my parking spot at my own place. Lucky they put gladwrap on the car first and not write straight on the car... hats off to whoever did this," confessed a sympathetic comrade in the battle for parking supremacy. Clearly, as this red Fiat sits wrapped up like a vehicular burrito, Sydney residents have found themselves divided over the ethics of clingfilm activism. Is it a genius way to teach parking manners, or just a sticky situation waiting to be unwrapped? Only time will tell if clingfilm justice becomes the hottest trend in Sydney's ongoing parking wars. Images: Facebook

Legal

"Suck it up": Tourist's parking mistake divides Aussies

A puzzled tourist's question about a $116 parking fine he received at a beach in Noosa, Queensland has divided Aussies, with many telling him to cough up the cash. The motorist shared a photo of his white SUV sitting between two other parked cars under a tree, but what he missed was the faint yellow line behind the nature strip. Confused, he took to a local Facebook group to ask why he was slapped with a fine for “stopping in a no stopping zone” in late October as he believed that he “parked off the road in one of the car parks they offer for free”. “Can I still be charged if I’m parked not impeding traffic or even on the road?” the driver asked. “Is there any way I can go back to them and contest this? I don’t remember seeing any signs that said no stopping near the island.” Residents of the popular tourist town were quick to criticise the driver. “Really. There are yellow lines and parked in a garden bed. It’s not a car park,” one wrote. “You’re lucky you only got non stopping zone ticket. Just because you park in car park doesn’t mean you can park anywhere in there," another added. “You are in a garden … suck it up,” a third commented. While many pointed out that where he had parked “is not a car space," one commenter explained that “yellow line means no parking all over Australia” and the council is “well within their rights”. The driver didn't take the criticism to heart, and quipped :“So due to the faint yellow line that means you can’t park there? Gotta love Noosa, good to know that the $116 will go towards repainting the line — not. "So is there anything I can do or just pay it?” While many criticised his poor judgement, a few others sympathised with the tourist, saying that they also copped a fine in the same spot. “I've gotten the same fine for parking a scooter there too. Not much you can do. There are signs and a yellow line…” one wrote. “It’s a s**t rule but they’ve been getting people like this for years,” another added. A third added that he could contest the fine “as the yellow line is not very well maintained”. While a few others commented that in general there aren't enough car parks to accommodate the number of visitors. "It’s not even full school holidays for all schools yet and yesterday was shocking to find a car park.” According to the local council, it is illegal for a driver to park their car on a nature strip, footpath or in a parkland anywhere in the shire. Images: Facebook

Legal

"What am I missing?" Driver confused over hefty parking fine

A woman has been left shocked over a $300 parking fine, for an offence she had no idea she was committing. The confused motorist was puzzled when she received a $305 fine in the mail, and decided to take to Facebook to ask her community if they could "help [her] understand the fine". The woman, from Sydney's inner west, posted photos of her parking job to a local Facebook page, which show her blue hatchback parked curbside outside a house, with no apparent signal nearby. "I got fined $305 and lost some demerits points. They said I parked parallel close to the dividing line/strip," she explained. "I don't see anything wrong with the pics. What am I missing?" she questioned alongside photos of offence. According to parking rules in New South Wales, drivers "must not park within 3m of any double dividing lines" and those caught doing so can be fined. In the photos, the double lines appear close to the woman's car on a seemingly narrow road. One person explained the rule on in the comments of her Facebook post, writing, "It's possibly because there is not enough room for cars to pass your car without partly crossing their car across the double middle lines — it's illegal for them to do that." So you can't park in a place where there isn't enough space between the double middle lines and your car for other cars to pass." The parking rule surprised many who admitted they "had no idea" the rule existed, with some concluding you "see it all the time". "Sorry you got those fines. Wow. You learn something new every day," said one driver. "I had no idea this was a road rule until now! I'm sorry you copped such a huge fine," said another, to which the driver concluded it an "expensive lesson learnt". Image credits: Facebook

Legal

Parents slapped with hefty fee over badly behaved children

Two parents have been slapped with a hefty fine tacked onto their restaurant bill after their children caused a ruckus during dinner. Kyle and Lyndsey Landmann were dining at a restaurant in Georgia, USA, when they were given a $50 fine for their allegedly badly behaved kids. Two weeks after the incident, Kyle took to Google to leave a negative review for the eatery to say he was “disappointed by the experience”. “The owner came out and told me he was adding $50 to my bill because of my children’s behaviour,” he wrote. “My kids watched a tablet until the food arrived, ate their food and my wife took them outside while I waited and paid the bill.” Lyndsey went on to tell Today that her kids were well behaved, although they were joined by other families, with 11 children in total at the table. “The kids were sitting at one end of the table and they were being so good,” Landmann said. “'I even commented halfway through the meal, ‘I can’t believe how well-behaved they are’.” After dinner, restaurant owner Tim Richter approached the table and told the party about the additional charge on the menu, which reads, “Adult surcharge: For adults unable to parent.” “Be Respectful to staff, property, and self. No Respect, No Service.” Landmann said she was expecting a compliment for the well behaved kids, but Richter said there would be $50 added to each bill at their table. When Landmann then asked for an explanation, she claimed Richter told her they were being “too loud”. He was angry that the kids were “running around outside” by the water after dinner, even though they were chaperoned by adults, she clarified. “I was like, ‘They were quiet the whole time’. He got in our faces and told us that we belonged at Burger King and not at his restaurant. We asked to speak to the owner and he said he was the owner,” Landmann explained. “I looked around the restaurant and everybody was frozen watching this show he was putting on. He was yelling.” The 61-year-old restaurant owner said that he implemented the rule during the pandemic, but never actually charged the couple, saying, “We want parents to be parents.” However, several other Google reviews blasted the quality of the service and the owner's attitude, including one that warns diners with children to steer clear. Image credits: Facebook

Money & Banking

An entry fee may not be enough to save Venice from 20 million tourists

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/sameer-hosany-292658">Sameer Hosany</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/royal-holloway-university-of-london-795">Royal Holloway University of London</a> Venice’s history, art and architecture attract an estimated <a href="https://www.responsibletravel.com/copy/overtourism-in-venice">20 million</a> visitors every year. The city, a <a href="https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=ac36ced945412121372dc892cc31498fb268247c">Unesco World Heritage site</a>, is often crammed with tourists in search of special <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/mar.21665">memories</a>. But for the people who actually live there, this level of tourism has become unsustainable. So from 2024, day-trippers will be charged a €5 (£4.31) fee as part of an <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/12/world/europe/venice-tourist-fee-italy.html#:%7E:text=The%20City%20Council%20passed%20an,popular%20but%20equally%20fragile%20place.&text=Starting%20next%20spring%2C%20day%2Dtrippers,5%20euros%20for%20the%20privilege.">attempt</a> to better manage the flow of visitors. The city’s mayor has <a href="https://travelweekly.co.uk/news/tourism/controversial-e5-venice-tourist-tax-finally-approved">described the charge</a> – which will be implemented on 30 particularly busy days in the spring and summer – as an attempt to “protect the city from mass tourism”. It comes after cruise ships were banned from entering the fragile Venice lagoon in 2021. Both policies are designed to respond to the particular problem facing Venice, which is that <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/02/venice-day-trippers-will-have-to-make-reservations-and-pay-fee">around 80%</a> of its tourists come just for the day. Research has shown that such a high proportion of day-trippers – who tend to spend little – <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0160738395000658">pushes</a> a tourist destination <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1541-0064.1980.tb00970.x">towards decline</a>. So from next year, all travellers to Venice will have to register their visit in advance and obtain a QR code online. Day trippers will then have to pay the fee; visitors staying overnight will not. Other exemptions include children under 14, as well as people who travel to the city for work and study, or to visit family members. To enforce the policy, the municipal police and authorised inspectors will carry out random checks. Anyone without the proper QR code will face a fine of up to €300 (£261). But some have expressed doubts about whether the €5 fee – the price of a coffee or an ice cream – will be enough to dissuade tourists from travelling to this iconic ancient city. One city politician <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/12/world/europe/venice-tourist-fee-italy.html">commented</a> that the charge means Venice has become “a theme park, a Disneyland,” where “you get in by paying an entrance fee.” Certainly the charge is a lot less than Bhutan’s (recently reduced) “sustainable development fee” of <a href="https://globetrender.com/2023/09/17/bhutan-woos-more-tourists-reduced-entry-tax/">US$100 (£82) per night</a>, which applies to all tourists, and was introduced to encourage “high value, low impact” tourism. Research also indicates that strategies aiming at persuading tourists to come at less crowded times <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780080436746/seasonality-in-tourism">do not reduce numbers</a> at peak periods, but actually end up increasing overall demand. <h2>‘Veniceland’</h2> But Venice has to try something. For <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/24/6937">researchers</a>, Venice is the embodiment of <a href="https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/book/10.1079/9781786399823.0000">overtourism</a>, and residents clearly suffer from the consequences – living with the congestion, environmental damage and affects on their lifestyle and culture that 20 million visitors can cause. This can then lead to a negative response, known as “<a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348605007_Overtourism_and_Tourismphobia_A_Journey_Through_Five_Decades_of_Tourism_Development_Planning_and_Local_Concerns">tourismphobia</a>”.Another term, “<a href="https://dokufest.com/en/festival/2013/cities-beyond-borders/das-venedig-prinzip-the-venice-syndrome#:%7E:text=The%20film%20shows%20what%20remains,municipal%20council%20with%20scorn%3B%20a">Venice Syndrome</a>” has been used to describe the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264275123001816#:%7E:text=It%20explains%20the%20data%2Dgathering,between%20urban%20form%20conditions%20and">decline of the city’s</a> permanent population, as citizens feel forced to leave. Venice’s population is around 50,000 and has been consistently falling, from a peak of <a href="https://www.blueguides.com/venice-in-peril/">175,000</a>. If the population falls below 40,000, there is concern that Venice will cease to be a <a href="https://www.responsibletravel.com/copy/overtourism-in-venice">viable living city</a>. Those who remain have often expressed their discontent. Well publicised protests have included the “<a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venice-funeral-idUKTRE5AD1DQ20091114">Funeral of Venice</a>” in 2009, a mock funeral to mourn the sharp drop in population, and “<a href="https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=anthro_theses">Welcome to Veniceland</a>” in 2010, which claimed that Venice was becoming more of a theme park. And while “tourist taxes” <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14616688.2019.1669070">remain popular strategies</a> to address overtourism, their effectiveness remains debatable. Instead, research suggests that a <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14616688.2019.1669070">combination</a> of specific economic measures (like fees and variable pricing) and non-economic policies (such as educating visitors) is the best option. That combination needs to be specially designed for each destination. There can be no one-size-fits-all solution. A <a href="https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284420070">report</a> by the World Tourism Organisation on overtourism identifies 11 different strategies and 68 measures to manage visitors’ growth in urban destinations. Barcelona, often seen as a city which has done well in handling mass tourism, has successfully used a <a href="https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/216242/1/CESifo-Forum-2019-03-p20-24.pdf">well targeted approach</a>. This has included harnessing new technology to develop a data driven management system to control visitor flows and overcrowding. It also deliberately engaged with the public when deciding on policies, and came up with specific strategies like limiting the number of new souvenir shops. But it did not resort to charging an entrance fee. Venice will be the first city in the world to do so – and other locations struggling with mass tourism will be keeping a close eye on whether such a bold move turns out to be a success.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/213703/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/sameer-hosany-292658">Sameer Hosany</a>, Professor of Marketing, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/royal-holloway-university-of-london-795">Royal Holloway University of London</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/an-entry-fee-may-not-be-enough-to-save-venice-from-20-million-tourists-213703">original article</a>.

International Travel

"Ignore it": The one parking ticket Aussies can chuck in the bin

Western Australian driver, Connor Wright, has gone viral after sharing his advice on how to handle penalty notices issued by private parking companies. The TikTok, which now has over 1.5 million views, started off with Wright recalling the moment he walked back to his car to find a ticket issued by Parking Enforcement Services (PES), a division of Wilson Parking. Wright then proceeds to rip up the ticket and told others to "make sure to read the fine print on these bad boys". "If you read at the back, it says important information: 'This is not a parking fine'," he said. "Useless, throw it in the bin, don't pay that sh*t." Many have commented how they "wish they knew this earlier". The ticket itself is a 'breach notice' which starts at a $65 penalty from Wilson and is only issued when a person drives into private car park, for example in a shopping centre, and break the terms and conditions issued by the private entity. "What they try and do is recover the debt for the loss incurred, effectively like a breach of contract, but they're not fines — only a statutory body has the power to issue a fine." Sydney Criminal Lawyers James Clements told Yahoo News Australia. Clements also called the penalty a "bullying tactic" to "effectively try scaring people into paying them," but it is difficult to enforce it due to government "crackdowns." However parking fines from bodies like councils, some universities and hospitals should be paid. Clements advises that when you receive the breach notice you should "ignore it" or "write back and say, 'I dispute this and do not intend to pay'." "What you don't want to do is write to them and say that you disclose you were the driver." Drivers are also encouraged to read signs and the terms and conditions when entering a private car park. Images: TikTok

Legal

Junk fees and drip pricing: the underhanded tactics we hate yet still fall for

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ralf-steinhauser-1459112">Ralf Steinhauser</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877">Australian National University</a> You see a fantastic offer, like a hotel room. You decide to book. Then it turns out there is a service fee. Then a cleaning fee. Then a few other extra costs. By the time you pay the final price, it is no longer the fantastic offer you thought. Welcome to the world of drip pricing – the practice of advertising something at an attractive headline price and then, once you’ve committed to the purchase process, hitting you with unavoidable extra fees that are incrementally disclosed, or “dripped”. Drip pricing – a type of “junk fee” – is notorious in event and travel ticketing, and is creeping into other areas, such as movie tickets. My daughter, for example, was surprised to find her ticket to the Barbie movie had a “booking fee”, increasing the cost of her ticket by 13%. It seems like such an annoying trick that you may wonder why sellers do it. The reason is because it works, due to two fundamental cognitive biases: the way we value the present over the future; and the way we hate losses more than we love gains. <h2>Present bias preference: why starting over feels too costly</h2> In the case of booking that hotel room, you could abandon the transaction and look for something cheaper once the extra charges become apparent. But there’s a good chance you won’t, due to the effort and time involved. This is where the trap lies. Resistance to the idea of starting the search all over again is not simply a matter of laziness or indecision. There’s a profound psychological mechanism at play here, called a present-bias preference – that we value things immediately in front of us more than things more distant in the future. In their seminal 1999 paper, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.89.1.103">Doing it now or later</a>, economists Mathew Rabin and Ted O'Donoghue define present-biased preference as “the human tendency to grab immediate rewards and to avoid immediate costs”. They give the example of choosing between doing seven hours of unpleasant activity on April 1 or eight hours two weeks later. If asked about this a few months beforehand, most people will choose the earlier option. “But come April 1, given the same choice, most of us are apt to put off work till April 15.” In simple terms, the inconvenience and effort of doing something “right now” often feels disproportionately large. Drip pricing exploits this cognitive bias by getting you to make a decision and commit to the transaction process. When you’re far into a complicated booking process and extra prices get added, starting all over again feels like a burden. Often enough, this means you’ll settle for the higher-priced hotel room. <h2>Loss aversion: buying more expensive tickets</h2> Beyond the challenge of starting over, there’s another subtle force at work when it comes to our spending decisions. Drip pricing doesn’t just capitalise on our desire for immediate rewards; it also plays on our innate fear of losing out. This second psychological phenomenon that drip pricing exploits is known as loss aversion – that we feel more pain from losing something than pleasure from gaining the same thing. The concept of loss aversion was first outlined by economists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky in <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1914185">a 1979 paper</a> that is the third most-cited article in economics. <hr /> <figure class="align-center "><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/543635/original/file-20230821-25-mca6ku.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/543635/original/file-20230821-25-mca6ku.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543635/original/file-20230821-25-mca6ku.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543635/original/file-20230821-25-mca6ku.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543635/original/file-20230821-25-mca6ku.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=624&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543635/original/file-20230821-25-mca6ku.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=624&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543635/original/file-20230821-25-mca6ku.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=624&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="A graphic representation of loss aversion. The pain from losing a good or service will be greater than the pleasure from gaining the same good or service." /><figcaption>How economists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky graphically represented loss aversion. The pain from losing a good or service is greater than the pleasure from gaining the same good or service. Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk, Econometrica, Vol. 47, No. 2</figcaption></figure> <hr /> Drip pricing exploits this tendency, by dragging us away from more “rational” choices. Imagine you’re booking tickets for a show. Initially attracted by the observed headline price, you are now presented with different seating categories. Seeing the “VIP” are within your budget, you decide to splurge. But then, during the checkout process, the drip of extra costs begins. You realise you could have opted for lower-category seats and stayed within your budget. But by this stage you’ve already changed your expectation and imagined yourself enjoying the show from those nice seats. Going back and booking cheaper seats will feel like a loss. <h2>Do consumers need protection?</h2> Empirical evidence supports the above theoretical predictions about the impact of drop pricing on consumers. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21426">A 2020 study</a> quantified how much consumers dislike the lack of transparency in drip pricing (based on tracking the reactions of 225 undergraduates using fictional airline and hotel-booking websites). The authors liken the practice to the “taximeter effect” – the discomfort consumers feel watching costs accumulate. But drip pricing’s effectiveness from a seller’s perspective is undeniable. A <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2020.04.007">experimental study</a> published in 2020 found drip pricing generates higher profits while lowering the “consumer surplus” (the benefit derived from buying a product or service). A <a href="https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2020.1261">2021 analysis</a> of data from StubHub, a US website for reselling tickets, calculated drip pricing increased revenue by 20%. Which is why the tactic remains attractive to businesses despite customers disliking it. Buyers would benefit from a ban of drip pricing. Many countries are taking steps to protect consumers from drip pricing. The UK government, for example, announced a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/aug/21/growth-of-airlines-add-on-fees-sparks-calls-for-price-reforms">review of drip pricing</a> in June, with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak flagging the possibility of measures to curb the practice. The US government is also considering <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/06/15/president-biden-recognizes-actions-by-private-sector-ticketing-and-travel-companies-to-eliminate-hidden-junk-fees-and-provide-millions-of-customers-with-transparent-pricing/">new regulations</a>, with President Joe Biden denouncing “junk fees” in his <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/02/07/remarks-of-president-joe-biden-state-of-the-union-address-as-prepared-for-delivery/">2023 State of the Union address</a>. Proposed changes include requiring airlines and online booking services to disclose the full ticket price upfront, inclusive of baggage and other fees. The effectiveness of measures, however, is <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4430453">still being debated</a>. In the meantime, your principal protection is making a more informed decision, by understanding why the tactic works. Bargains may attract you, but you can learn to not fall for hidden costs and align your choices with your budget and values.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/211117/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ralf-steinhauser-1459112">Ralf Steinhauser</a>, Senior Research Fellow, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877">Australian National University</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/junk-fees-and-drip-pricing-the-underhanded-tactics-we-hate-yet-still-fall-for-211117">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Newspaper

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Compare

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

Woman fined after paid car park gets set up around her parked vehicle

"A little bit steep": Jetstar passenger hit with "wild" excess baggage fee

"Unfair" parking fines could soon be a thing of the past

Restaurant sparks outrage for "ridiculous" fee

Big W customer gobsmacked over $4000 shipping fee

"Other cities will follow": Big trouble ahead for SUV owners

Lisa Wilkinson's fears over losing her home

"It's just not fair": Driver slams council for misleading parking fine

Dad cops furious note from "egotistical Karen" for parking in parent's bay

Woman sparks debate after copping $116 fine for "absurd" rule

"No empathy": Grandmother kicked off flight over unpaid fee

“This doesn’t make sense": Mum fined for parking in own driveway

"Surely this is a prank": Council slammed for ridiculous parking restriction

"Hats off to whoever did this": Hilarious act of revenge on parking spot thief

"Suck it up": Tourist's parking mistake divides Aussies

"What am I missing?" Driver confused over hefty parking fine

Parents slapped with hefty fee over badly behaved children

An entry fee may not be enough to save Venice from 20 million tourists

"Ignore it": The one parking ticket Aussies can chuck in the bin

Junk fees and drip pricing: the underhanded tactics we hate yet still fall for

Our Partners

News

Shop

Catalogues

Newspaper

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Compare

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

Woman fined after paid car park gets set up around her parked vehicle

"A little bit steep": Jetstar passenger hit with "wild" excess baggage fee

"Unfair" parking fines could soon be a thing of the past

Restaurant sparks outrage for "ridiculous" fee

Big W customer gobsmacked over $4000 shipping fee

"Other cities will follow": Big trouble ahead for SUV owners

Lisa Wilkinson's fears over losing her home

"It's just not fair": Driver slams council for misleading parking fine

Dad cops furious note from "egotistical Karen" for parking in parent's bay

Woman sparks debate after copping $116 fine for "absurd" rule

"No empathy": Grandmother kicked off flight over unpaid fee

“This doesn’t make sense": Mum fined for parking in own driveway

"Surely this is a prank": Council slammed for ridiculous parking restriction

"Hats off to whoever did this": Hilarious act of revenge on parking spot thief

"Suck it up": Tourist's parking mistake divides Aussies

"What am I missing?" Driver confused over hefty parking fine

Parents slapped with hefty fee over badly behaved children

An entry fee may not be enough to save Venice from 20 million tourists

"Ignore it": The one parking ticket Aussies can chuck in the bin

Junk fees and drip pricing: the underhanded tactics we hate yet still fall for

Our Partners

Join Over60