Go homepage(回首页)
Upload pictures (上传图片)
Write articles (发文字帖)

The author:(作者)aaa
published in(发表于) 2013/12/22 18:56:34
Truck width of road being sky-high parking fees， counsel says that enterprises make

Authorities wide nets to Beijing December 22, according to voice of the news aspect of the report, in recent times, the media reported that many places charging sky-high parking fees, towing, after media reported that it was reversed, was resolved in a moment. However, a transport company in xuyi County, Jiangsu Province in Beijing has seen its sky-high parking fees, continued for two years has not yet come to an end.

Day night 11 o'clock more, Jiangsu Province xuyi County shortcut transport limited of two name driver, driving with company of transport car driving in Beijing North six ring Beijing hidden high-speed sections Shang Shi, was Beijing first group belongs Ann Chang road management limited of "road produced visits" personnel stopped has down, and to this car car belongs to super wide Super limit vehicles for by to car and driver of license detained has. This childcare fee is 4,500 yuan per day.

$ 4,500 standards come from? Later, because of fee disputes, xuyi County express transport company limited group and branch Sue Ann Chang first went to court. Plaintiff's agent Zhao Liyong in Cui Tianqi news vertical and horizontal shift edit interview, is explained.

Zhao Liyong: for this one, they are entirely independent pricing, of course, what is your reference for pricing, procurement standard of light construction machinery, I have a copy of their submission includes labor, fuel consumption is probably a taipan is probably more than 600 bucks.

Construction engineering machine-shift in costs ", according to the different models, labor costs, fuel costs, and more standards are different, calculated according to the plaintiffs ' lawyers, this should be more than 600 Yuan every day. Far away from 4,500 Yuan? Lawyers also said, this is the enterprise itself.

So, the pricing is reasonable? Not through price control review yet? We edit the defendant's initial group of agents weixiaoke proof, but did not receive a clear-cut argument.

Reporter: this pricing issue of 4,500 yuan per day ...

Weixiaoke: this thing I really ... In the field, I'm on a business trip, I don't know.

Reporter: this pricing questions you don't understand? Pricing standards issues.

Weixiaoke: I don't know, go into the company, I'm in the field, in this situation, I really don't know for sure.

Charging standards do not, after that we would have back to the impound lot. At that time, the transport company did not agree to this according to 4,500 Yuan a day's fees, but both agree that, by December 3, the smooth Highway management company requires childcare costs have reached 68838.34 Yuan. Transport company said, watching like a snowball growing amounts, in order to avoid greater losses, was forced to sign a paper, "the car" agreement, agreed to pay 5,000 yuan to each other childcare fee, first to take the car, the rest of the money and then "settled".

However, the transport company front parking lot, heels lawyers ahead of the proceedings. Agent Zhao Liyong said that this is to avoid other drivers is then exposed to this sort of thing in the future.

Zhao Liyong: Cross has this 5,000 block money yihou only put car mention go, he cross finished money certainly to signed a things, signed about so-called of agreement, signature finished agreement I feels this things cannot on such just, while this things for of just is he this a car car, but may follow-up including yihou similar of situation will many, so on for this so he on found I.

However, Beijing Fengtai on the judgement of the Court, the plaintiff demands more complex than this. They think first round group and Chang is our line of business, such as highway construction, maintenance, rather than the highway law enforcement agency; and that their car was pulled over, so, it is obligated to provide the service. Of course, huge childcare costs, the SFPT is unreasonable, so asked the Court to revoke your forced to sign paid 5,000 dollars to "train" agreement, the return of 5,000 yuan and sought compensation from the defendant that impound goods breach, formed during the outage costs total more than 45,000 yuan.

In this regard, the defendant first group believes that, first of all, that all of this is because you left your offence exceeding limits on operations, the right to stop such acts. In addition, from the perspective of contractual relationships, our only legitimate vehicle service, you're overrun, have to bear the liability for breach. For $ 5,000, are also part of you volunteered to pay liquidated damages should not return. Said more than 40,000 yuan loss, was the plaintiff because of their illegal breach of, should not be compensated.

Amid all the talk about both, how can Court sentenced to it? Beijing Fengtai Court identified in the first instance, in Beijing for medical treatment vehicles overloaded work leading Group Office issued the overload on governance vehicles specified in the description of work-related issues, working in governance overloaded transport, first group should stop overloaded vehicles. Combined with other evidence, that branch of the first group and Chang there is nothing wrong, therefore dismissed the plaintiff's prosecution.

After the first instance verdict, plaintiff refuses to transport companies, to appeal to the Beijing second intermediate people's Court. On December 14 last year, two intermediate people's Court in the first instance court decision finds that facts are not clear, ruling that revoked a verdict and sent back for retrial. On December 16 this year, Beijing Fengtai District people's Court for retrial verdict, once again rejected the prosecution of the shipping company.

However, from the plaintiff the plaintiff's agent Zhao Liyong judgement provides two sentences, originally tell please, Court, court decisions, and more critical passages, two nearly identical to the judgement. Zhao Liyong says, again based on the same facts, reason and law, which made exactly the same decision, that make it difficult for the parties to accept, next step sure to appeal.

Zhao Liyong: trial we lost, same situation, same result. After losing, we appeal to the Court of second instance, Court of second instance on this evidence the trial is almost the same, no new, party was very surprised with the result, the results also indicate that unacceptable, then we will definitely appeal.

(Original title: truck wide sky-high parking fees lawyers were detained on the road: the company's own pricing)

　　央广网北京12月22日消息 据中国之声《新闻纵横》报道，最近一段时间，媒体报道了不少地方收取的天价停车费、拖车费，后经媒体报道事情出现了逆转，瞬间得到了解决。不过，江苏盱眙县一家运输公司在北京遭遇了天价停车费，却持续了两年还没有走到终点。

　　那天夜里11点多，江苏省盱眙县快捷运输有限公司的两名司机，驾驶着公司的运输车行驶在北京北六环京藏高速路段上时，被北京首发集团所属安畅公路管理有限公司的"路产巡视"人员拦了下来，并且以这辆车属于超宽超限车辆为由把车和司机的驾驶证扣留了。这看护费用是每天4500元。

　　那么这4500块钱的标准是怎么来的呢？后来，因为收费标准的纠纷，盱眙县快捷运输有限公司还把首发集团和安畅分公司告上了法庭。原告委托代理人赵力永在接受新闻纵横值班编辑崔天奇采访时，是这样解释的。

　　赵力永：对于这一块他们是这样，完全由企业自主定价，当然你定价的参考是什么，参照工程机械的采购标准，我这儿有一份他们当时提交的一个包括了一些人工、油耗大概就是一个台班大概是600多块钱。

　　建设工程机械台班费用"，根据具体车型的不同，人工费、燃料费等等标准也不同，根据原告律师的计算，这应该是每天600多元。那离4500元还远着呢？律师也说了，这是企业自己定的价。

　　那么，这个定价是不是合理呢？有没有经过物价部门的审核呢？我们的编辑向被告首发集团的委托代理人尉晓珂求证，但是并没有得到明确的说法。

　　记者：4500元每天的这个定价问题…

　　尉晓珂：这事我还真…我在外地出差，我不太清楚。

　　记者：这个定价的问题您不了解吗？定价标准的问题。

　　尉晓珂：我不太了解，你往公司那边打吧，我在外地，这情况我还真不太清楚。

　　既然收费标准的问题暂时没有说法，那咱们就回到扣车之后。当时，运输公司并没有同意这个按照每天4500元的收费标准，但是不管同不同意，到了12月3号，这个安畅公路管理公司要求的看护费用就已经达到了68838.34元。运输公司说，眼看着数额跟滚雪球似的越来越大，为了避免更大的损失，被迫签下了一纸 "放车"协议书，约定先向对方交纳5000元看护费，先把车开走，其余的钱再"协商解决"。

　　不过，运输公司前脚出了停车场，后脚就委托律师提前了诉讼。代理人赵力永说，这是为了避免今后别的司机再遇上这类事情。

　　赵力永：交了这5000块钱以后才把车提走，他交完钱肯定要签一个东西，签一下所谓的协议书，签字完协议书我感觉这个事情不能就这样算了，虽然这个事情针对的仅仅是他这一辆车，但是可能后续包括以后类似的情况会很多，所以就针对这个所以他就找到我。

　　不过，在北京市丰台法院的判决书上，原告的诉求比这个复杂很多。他们认为首发集团和安畅公司的经营范围是高速公路的建设、养护等，而不是公路执法单位；而且他们的车是被拦下来的，所以这等于是被强制提供了服务。当然，原告认为巨额看护费也是不合理的，所以要求法院撤销自己被迫签下的交5000块钱先"放车"的协议书，返还5000元，并且要求被告赔偿扣车期间形成的货物违约金、停运损失费等等共四万五千多元。

　　对此，被告首发集团认为，首先，这一切的一切都是因为你这车违法超限运营造成的，有权对这种行为进行制止。另外，从合同关系看，我们只为合法车辆服务，你这超限行驶，得承担违约责任。那5000块钱，也是你自愿支付的违约金的一部分，不应该返还。至于说四万多元的各种损失，也是原告因为自身违法违约造成的，不应该赔偿。

　　婆说婆公说公有理，法院到底怎么判的呢？北京市丰台法院在一审中查明，在北京市治理车辆超限超载工作领导小组办公室出具的《关于治理车辆超限超载工作有关问题的说明》里明文规定，在治理超限超载运输工作中，首发集团应阻截超限超载车辆。结合其他证据，认为首发集团及安畅分公司的行为并无不妥，因此驳回了原告的起诉。

　　一审宣判后，原告运输公司不服，向北京市二中院上诉。去年12月14号，二中院以一审法院判决认定事实不清，裁定撤销一审判决，发回重审。今年12月16号，北京市丰台区人民法院重审判决，再次驳回了运输公司的起诉。

　　不过，从原告原告委托代理人赵力永提供的两次判决的判决书来看，在原被告诉求、法庭调查、法院判决等等关键段落，两份判决书几乎完全一致。赵力永说，再次以相同的事实、理由和法律规定，作出与原审判决完全相同的判决，这让当事人难以接受，下一步肯定要上诉。

　　赵力永：原审我们也是败诉，同样情况，同样的结果。败诉以后我们上诉到二审法院，二审法院对这个事情当时交的证据跟原审几乎是一样的，也没有新的，当事人对这个结果感到非常的诧异，也对这个结果表示不能接受，下一步我们肯定要上诉。

（原标题：货车超宽上路被扣天价停车费 律师：企业自己定价）

赞