S'pore man, 65, had to pay S$1,400 in tailgating fines & S$200 to unclamp vehicle, only had S$1,700 in bank account

On Jun. 11, 2025, Uncle Low found his delivery vehicle's wheel clamped.

He had gone to retrieve some products at a private car park in Changi.

Low whose work involves collecting items and delivering them, had gone to retrieve some products at a private car park in Changi.

The enforcement officer told Low that he had to pay S$2,400 in total fines to get his vehicle unclamped.

The fines were for 11 tailgating incidents amounting to S$2,200, at S$200 per incident, as well as an additional "release fee" of S$200.

Eight of those fines were incurred during tailgating incidents at the private car park in Changi, while the other three incidents took place at another private car park in Loyang, both of which were operated by G-Tech, the car park operator.

Offers rejected

Low told the officer that he did not have that much money, and the officer allegedly informed him that his vehicle would not be unclamped unless that sum was paid.

While Low's first offer of S$300 was rejected, the officer allegedly asked him how much he had.

Low's offer of paying in instalments was also rejected by the officer.

The officer allegedly told him that he could pay S$1,600 to get the clamp off.

While Low had S$1,600, unbeknownst to the officer, that would leave him with just S$100 in his account.

This sum involved waiving the fines incurred in Loyang, which would take off S$600.

Low later told Mothership that the parking fees he evaded was around S$0.70 each time.

Low was now faced with the dilemma: Pay the fine and be left with S$100 in his bank account, or not being able to deliver his goods on time, which would also bring about financial repercussions.

He chose to pay the fine.

The clamps came off, and Low took off.

Later he would relay this story to Aldrin, a customer that he often collected deliveries from.

Unfair?

For over a month, Aldrin would help Low email the relevant personnel in G-Tech.

Aldrin told Mothership that he had found it unfair that the fine got compounded, and wanted to understand why it was allowed to snowball to such an "excessive amount".

To be clear, neither Aldrin nor Low are disputing the tailgating.

They might disagree with the exact number of times that tailgating occurred, but acknowledged that tailgating did occur.

In fact, the signages are also quite clearly displayed at the car park.

Aldrin's point of contention was how the fines were computed.

He said the situation concerning Low raised broader concerns on the accountability of private parking enforcement.

However, he did not find any middle ground with G-Tech during his conversations with them.

In email correspondences seen by Mothership, G-Tech insisted that they were within their rights to impose the fines, and even pointed to the goodwill waiver that they had provided Low.

Multiple requests for comment from the parking operator from Mothership went unanswered.

The main questions were if Low had been given a warning prior to the fine (Low insists he hadn't), what was the usual practice in having fines accumulate before clamping a vehicle?

Or was this a case of being unable to penalise a driver, who apparently had a fixed schedule in and out of the location?

And finally, were there no instalment plans that offenders could be offered?

In response to queries from Mothership, the owner of the car park's building, Mapletree said:

"Mapletree Industrial Trust (MIT) is the asset owner and engages G-Tech to manage the car parks at the Changi North Cluster.

One of the roles of the car park operator is to conduct checks to ensure there is no misuse including tailgating.

Motorists are informed through prominently displayed signs at each car park entrance of MIT’s properties that tailgating or evading of parking fees is an offence, alongside the penalty fees for each violation.

Higher penalty fees may be imposed for persistent evasion and non-compliance with parking regulations."

Another case

Coincidentally, Shin Min Daily News also recently ran an article on one of G Tech's car parks.

In it, they highlighted an incident at a car park that is adjacent to a building that houses the VEP Information Center in Woodlands.

The motorist had reportedly received a S$218 fine for parking in a red season lot for 10 minutes.

The motorist told the paper that she thought the fine was excessive.

She also told the paper that she had seen seven or eight drivers have their wheels clamped as well.

While their recent Google reviews mentioned the location "Woodlands" a number of times, the most recent review at the time of writing claimed it is the same situation at another car park.

The review said the operators "act like cowboys" and that are "running a clamping operation disguised as car park management".

Mothership has reached out to G-Tech over these claims and will update the story when they get back to us.

Image courtesy of Low; Taken by Mothership