$12 parking fine turns into $265 headache

Patricia Emia, Napier, unknowingly had court costs of $265 deducted from her wages, after receiving a $12 parking fine. Photo / Duncan Brown

A $12 parking fine ended up leaving a Napier woman $265 out of pocket, after court costs were deducted from her wages without her knowledge.

The ordeal began for Patricia Emia, a student and part-time retail employee, when she received a fine for a parking violation in April.

In the following months she did not pay the fine and it increased to $42. The matter went to court and a direct debit was set up to pay the court costs out of her wages, although she did not receive any notification.

She said that as of this month, 12 payments had come out of her wages, totalling $265.

"They took the $42 but they should have stopped at [that amount]. Not only did I not know that they were taking it out of my wages, I didn't know it had left the council and gone to court," she said. "I've had no correspondence. There's been a breakdown in communication."

She said a visit to the court this week revealed while a notice regarding the costs had been sent to her employer, her own copy had accidentally been mailed to a Christchurch address.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said that after Ms Emia's overdue fine of $42 - the $12 fine plus $30 court costs - was transferred to the ministry's collection team, her employer was asked to deduct that amount from her wages.

The $42 was recovered in three instalments but Ms Emia's employer continued to make deductions, which the ministry "did not instruct them to do".

"Our system flagged the overpayment and Ms Emia will be refunded the money that has been overpaid," the spokesman said.

"It's important to note that the ministry does not need to notify a person when deducting overdue debt from their income but in this case we sent two notices - advising that an attachment order had been made - to a South Island address that we had in our system for Ms Emia."

Hawke's Bay's veteran social justice campaigner Pat Magill said the error "shouldn't have happened". He believed it might indicate the ministry was short-staffed and not providing adequate training.