[VIC] Contesting a Parking Fine as "Contrary to Law", Got an Official Warning Instead, What Next?

LZedster on 21/04/2024 - 14:25
Last edited 22/04/2024 - 01:56 by 1 other user

Howdy People! As I have long enjoyed the entertainment of OzBargain posters contesting fines, I thought I'd give back to the community. Short summary of events below, and I'm of course including an entirely useless paint diagram as well.

  • April 2023 - I get a parking fine from council for allegedly parking more than 2 hours in a 2P. However, I didn't - I parked 1h55 in one spot, then moved the car 50 meters down that same street to a separate 2P zone for another hour and a half. Accessing the supporting evidence provided by the council, all they have is a picture of my tyre with a chalk mark on the bottom half early through my time in the second parking spot.
  • April 2023 - I stop by my local police station to discuss the circumstances and confirm that my parking behaviour is indeed in accordance with the law. I send a request for review as "contrary to law", including the schedule/details of my parking on that day
  • June 2023 - Review holds the fine, claiming that the chalk mark would be gone if I had indeed moved the car (provably false in this case, when driving a light car 50 meters under 20km/h on a dry, cold road)
  • June 2023 - I send in a request for the case to be heard in court
  • April 2024 (fineversary!) - I get a letter informing me that the fine is withdrawn, and I'm being issued an official warning in its place.

Now, I could have paid the fine initially, and I'd have begrudgingly done so if I had indeed broken the parking rules. The only reason I didn't and instead spent time contesting the infrigement is because I didn't commit the alleged offense, and for the whole thing to end up with a warning, aka "nah mate you did it, but we'll let it go this time", is … disappointing.

I have penciled in a response to request that either the warning be withdrawn, or that the case be heard in court - but I'm also thinking it may be time to let the whole thing go as it's probably not worth the time I'd have to invest should the case indeed go to court.

So - should I let this go? If not, is it even possible to appeal a warning, and if so do I need to do so with the council or Fines Victoria?

EDIT - Thanks all for your insight, I'll take the warning.
As has been mentioned in the thread, there are a few points in the parking rules that may well make my parking pattern on that day subject to a fine, if one considers that the two parking spots are part of the same "area" / "length of road". I'd like to get a better understanding of what constitutes an area in that context, but there may be better options than going to court :)

A driver must not park continuously on a length of road, or in an area, to which a permissive parking sign applies for longer than the period indicated by information on or with the sign

and

When moving your car to another parking spot, you must move it out of the area or length of road controlled by the parking sign.

Poll Options expired

  • 175
    Let it go! It's sunny outside, have a beer or something
  • 75
    Hold the line! Contest with Fines VIC
  • 11
    You die on that hill! Contest with the council
  • 8
    Bikies
Automotive

Comments

    • Zedster on 21/04/2024 - 14:41
      +11

      Yeah, that's the part that gave me pause when I initially got the fine, and why I stopped by my local police station. This is the exact wording:

      https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/road-r…

      When moving your car to another parking spot, you must move it out of the area or length of road controlled by the parking sign.

      I did move the car to another "length of road", controlled by another 2P sign, separated by other 2P signs and "do not park" signs, which I understand would qualify as another area/length of road. Of course, I could be wrong.

      EDIT - the other thing is, outcome of the review doesn't mention that I'm liable for the fine even though I moved, it states that the chalk mark would no longer be there if I did move the car.

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 21/04/2024 - 15:10
        +1

        I did move the car to another "length of road"

        Google maps locations pls

        • Zedster on 21/04/2024 - 17:11
          -1

          Ellis Street, South Yarra. Basically parked on one end of the street, then parked on the other end - parked on the side of Wilson Street both time.

          • richadam on 22/04/2024 - 10:39
            +6

            @Zedster: Wouldn't that be considered the same parking area? Irrelevant if they were different signs etc. like you mention, it would probably be classed as "South Yarra Parking zone 2" or something similar along the line, could include multiple streets in that block or something.

      • bobbified on 21/04/2024 - 15:12
        +3

        For Melbourne CBD, they don't use chalk anymore. They use sensors built into the ground of the parking spots. It doesn't identify/recognise the car itself so just need to move the car out and move back in to reset the sensors.

        • mrvaluepack on 21/04/2024 - 19:33

          Those are for allocated car parking bays. They still use chalk where there are no individual demarcation bay lines.

        • jjjaar on 22/04/2024 - 07:47

          It doesn't identify/recognise the car itself so just need to move the car out and move back in to reset the sensors

          And in a lot of places, the sensors need to be free of the vehicle for a good 30-60 seconds before the timer resets. I live on a busy street with sensors and 2P and the number of people who get fined after 10 minutes because they went right in straight after someone left is appalling.

          • bobbified on 22/04/2024 - 08:35
            +1

            @jjjaar: That's pretty bad. Someone could eventually get the shits and just glue a metal plate over each sensor!

            They don't seem to have it in the CBD area. It's always one out, one in.

          • skittlebrau on 22/04/2024 - 21:12

            @jjjaar: That’d be why I’ve seen a lot of parking sensors removed around several councils in Perth.

          • lainey13 on 01/05/2024 - 12:17

            @jjjaar: It's not a timer as such, the sensor is not a simple on off, it calculates a value based on the electro magnetic signal it detects that is different for each car (amount/weight of metal in the car). At least, it was when I worked on the system in the 2000s. Therefore it records the moment the sensor is stable, eg when the car stops on it, or moves off it.
            Hrm, perhaps there is a competitor out there with worse tech :)

        • cheapwood on 23/04/2024 - 08:59

          They've been trialling a new system in my council, the ranger's cars have cameras and fancy tech that records all car positions. The ranger's simply do laps of the area and fine people automatically if they have been there too long.

          • DarwinBoy on 23/04/2024 - 11:49

            @cheapwood: not sure if that will work in court. For example. you pull in. run inside to the shops for 5 minutes and you get scanned. you pull in again 2 hours later. Get scanned again and they say you have been there for longer then indicated. they havent proved you have remained their parked the entire time.
            Unless they use ground sensors as well. which is probably what they would need to be using i guess.
            Now if its a pay and display area and you can pay for that by using an app then they will know you havent paid so thats easy enough to drive around and enforce. .

      • HeWhoKnows on 22/04/2024 - 07:34
        -8

        Just give it up OP!
        You got done fair and square.

        Now stop wasting everyones time here please and pay the fine

  • Dollar General on 21/04/2024 - 14:37

    Is it a warning or a caution?

    • Zedster on 21/04/2024 - 14:44

      Sadly - Official Warning, Infringements Act 2006

  • SBOB on 21/04/2024 - 14:40
    +67

    So - should I let this go

    Having escaped the lion's den, Zedster made the mistake of going back for his hat…

    • Zedster on 21/04/2024 - 14:43
      +8

      I did not know the reference - and can't say I welcome the implied comparison :)

      • SBOB on 21/04/2024 - 14:46
        +6

        No direct comparison or offence meant, but it is a quote that I think can be applied to many situations :)

        • dtxau on 21/04/2024 - 15:00
          +3

          Hahaha, this line has been doing the rounds of late, including "balance of probabilities" lol.

    • Murkymerv on 21/04/2024 - 16:07
      +2

      That sounds like a far side comic strip !

  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 21/04/2024 - 15:08

    local police station

    Local police told you that you parked in accordance with laws they don't enforce? I find that hard to believe.

    • Zedster on 21/04/2024 - 16:49

      That was my takeaway yes - I went there, explained the situation, specifically the "length of road" aspect, and his feedback was that it was okay to move the car in this fashion. Now this doesn't constitute legal advice, and the guy might have just tried to be helpful/give his opinion, so not implying the advice is bullet proof.

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 23/04/2024 - 08:14

        I regularly go a fire department for council planning permit advice also. Same logic.

    • JIMB0 on 21/04/2024 - 16:58

      Removable number plates, so that they don't get stolen while parked for lengthy periods?

  • Hvrd on 21/04/2024 - 15:48

    I was issued a fine for rear ending a broke down car on the road, elected to take it to court 3 years ago and haven't heard anything since

  • AustriaBargain on 21/04/2024 - 15:50
    +2

    What does an official warning from the council even mean?

    • pegaxs on 21/04/2024 - 22:40
      +1

      It means that council thought, “Well, this guy has little to no history of violations with us and it’s only a single ticket, so the date in court would cost us more to fight than what it is worth, as the magistrate will most likely toss it out or at the very minimum slap the offender with court costs only…”

  • Tee Rex Arms on 21/04/2024 - 16:08
    -5

    Let it go ffs

    • Zedster on 21/04/2024 - 16:50
      +1

      That's what I'm leaning towards ;)

    • SydStrand on 21/04/2024 - 18:19

      It's over when we say it is. Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Habour? Hell no!

  • Baysew on 21/04/2024 - 16:21
    +3

    Free advice from Justice Lee on another matter entirely - Having escaped the lion’s den, don't make the mistake of coming back for your hat.

  • hasher22 on 21/04/2024 - 16:48

    Let it go.

    Thing is, they can still fine you if someone moves their cake 50m down the same road. Or even another road where the officers jurisdiction is.

    I spoke to some officers in a few suburbs and they all say pretty much the same thing with the fine, moving it 1 car space, 10 or even to another street, they can still fine you.

    I don't know what the limit or distance is.

    It's like when you enter a car park with a 2 hour free parking in a 24 hour period. If you exit and re enter to refresh the 2 hours, it doesn't refresh cause your car is timed in a 24h period.

    • Baysew on 21/04/2024 - 17:02
      +7

      Thing is, they can still fine you if someone moves their cake 50m down the same road.

      Best not to get into a bun fight in that case.

      • kiitos on 22/04/2024 - 08:17
        +1

        Yeah, but you gotta risk it to get the biscuit!

    • Zedster on 21/04/2024 - 17:14

      Yeah, "length of road" or "area" is quite wide. I certainly hope that if you park on a different street altogether, even in the same area, you wouldn't get a fine… I'll leave it to others to validate though :P

    • Poor Ass on 22/04/2024 - 11:57

      It's like when you enter a car park with a 2 hour free parking in a 24 hour period. If you exit and re enter to refresh the 2 hours, it doesn't refresh cause your car is timed in a 24h period.

      That depends on the conditions when you enter some say 24hr and some say each time

  • mskeggs on 21/04/2024 - 17:00
    +5

    If you end up in front of a magistrate with these facts it is quite possible they will decide the warning was issued in error and the original fine and costs stands because you were a bit of a smart arse.

    You have interpreted the law to mean a second sign means a different stretch of road, a different interpretation might be a sign has to puffer different terms, or is only momentarily interrupted by a no stopping or similar.

    I think the council certainly means for you to move more than 50m to turn over parking, and I would not be at all surprised to see a magistrate apply that interpretation to your case.

    • Zedster on 21/04/2024 - 17:10
      +1

      To be fair, I'm not trying to be a smart arse. I've provided my interpretation to the council, which they haven't disputed as being against the law. Instead, they have posited that I was basically lying about my version of events, without having sufficient evidence to prove this was the case (and good luck with that, because I'm not lying). If their feedback to the review was that it's not acceptable to move the car 50 meters, I would have paid on the spot and just noted that down for future reference.

      That said, you're certainly making a valid point - I have more to lose than I have to win here.

    • AustriaBargain on 21/04/2024 - 22:42

      If you end up in front of a magistrate with these facts it is quite possible they will decide the warning was issued in error and the original fine and costs stands

      The Bruce Lerhman outcome. What a disgusting grub he is.

  • JimmyF on 21/04/2024 - 17:46

    So - should I let this go?

    The fine was withdrawn, an official warning is the best you'll get out of them to say they are wrong. Take it as a win and move on.

    • Papa Huggies on 22/04/2024 - 09:47

      The "official warning" is them trying to scare you into not doing it again if they mess up again.

      They withdrew the fine because they were wrong.

      • JimmyF on 22/04/2024 - 09:54
        -1

        They withdrew the fine because they were wrong.

        Correct

        The "official warning" is them trying to scare you into not doing it again if they mess up again.

        Also correct, as I said, this is the best the OP will get out of them to say they are 'wrong'.

        OP isn't going to get a sorry we made a mistake letter, etc. So if that is what they are looking for, not going to happen.

        Plus this talk of the OP wanting to go to court to have the 'official warning' withdrawn, then LOL.

      • gromit on 22/04/2024 - 12:09
        +1

        They withdrew the fine because they were wrong.

        More likely they withdrew as didnt have the staff or time to make it stand in court. Dont make the mistake of them backing down means they think they are wrong.

  • freefall101 on 21/04/2024 - 19:06
    +6

    I say take it to the supreme court. Not because it's the right thing to do, but for making me read that whole thing.

  • Spootage on 21/04/2024 - 20:39
    -1

    What I would do - let it go because I’ve gotten the best outcome.

    What you should do - take it to court because you seem like a smart arse and I want to see you get the result overturned and have to pay.

    • Zedster on 21/04/2024 - 21:37
      +2

      Hmmm it's interesting that the smart arse thing comes up, that's really not what I'm trying to convey. I'm not pretending I know everything or that my interpretation of the rules is the correct one, I'm not trying to game the system to my advantage, I'm not even gunning for an outcome that's favourable to me: If I had been told by the council that moving 50 meters down was not acceptable and I should have parked on another street, the fine would have been paid a long time ago. Instead, the response read as if my defence would have been acceptable if true, however they were debating the veracity of my account - I suppose that's the main thing I'm hung up on.

      • mskeggs on 22/04/2024 - 07:53
        +3

        Accepting your position, consider theirs, they are a local council with limited budget. They need to keep parking moving to meet business & resident’s needs.
        They don’t especially want to fine people or run court cases.
        They have a system set up to send fines for people overstaying. It relies on checking whether a car has moved based on a chalk mark.
        Your vehicle failed the test, and was issued a fine.

        Because you have an interpretation of the rules different from their one, you think you shouldn’t be fined, and appealed.
        The modestly paid public servant reviewing this decided “fine, send Zedster a warning. We can’t be bothered going to court over a fine this time, but if they keep doing it we will have evidence that they have been warned their interpretation is incorrect.”

        But instead of thinking this was a lucky break, you have chosen to think maybe your interpretation is correct.
        Now, we can differ on whether the law supports you or the council (who via their friends in parliament actually wrote it) but you should reflect for a moment that the events so far might be more in line with what I am suggesting above, than a new loophole you have discovered to park all day.

  • paddyo on 21/04/2024 - 20:59

    What implications does an Official Warning have? Is it on record, does it accrue driving points, if you have another Offence is it doubled? I don't understand what it can actually do. If nothing then just smile, wave and walk away.

    • BuddhaBoy on 21/04/2024 - 21:15

      It does nothing.

      • tonsta on 23/04/2024 - 16:09

        You have been marked, any future challenges will be looked at with more scrutiny.

  • WoodYouLikeSomeCash on 21/04/2024 - 21:12

    Look for any precedents within the court system regarding this. If you find one that closely correlates to your situation and the outcome you believe is correct it’ll be worth taking the matter to court.

  • BuddhaBoy on 21/04/2024 - 21:15

    I would say let it go but seeing that you are so up for it… take it to court but do remember firstly you paid the fine, which in turns means you accepted that the offence was committed. Anyways, good on Council to ignore that and do an official warning. Other thing to note is that the Magistrate Court, may decide to uphold the infringement and may add additional admin costs plus costs to cover Councils legal rep. This could be just a admin prosecutions officer or in some cases and lawyer if a council uses em. So be ready, you can get either way - maybe your official warning will be withdrawn, or if the Judge is not in the best mood, you will be given a nice slap on the wrist $$ - fine+lodgement cost+legal fees etc. all the best.

    • WoodYouLikeSomeCash on 21/04/2024 - 21:20

      you paid the fine, which in turns means you accepted that the offence was committed

      That’s not always true. There are defences to that.

      • BuddhaBoy on 21/04/2024 - 21:23

        Yes, no doubt, always defences to that.

    • Zedster on 21/04/2024 - 21:27

      I did not pay the fine, specifically because I did not agree the offence was committed.

      Thanks for the feedback, it's getting close to the "not worth it" point!

  • Camelface on 21/04/2024 - 21:50
    +1

    Why do you think there's a 2 hour limit? That's to give everybody who wants to park the opportunity in the busy areas.

    Either it's legal or illegal, that's the ethic. It's about thinking about others as well.

    Things get unnecessarily complicate when you try to solve every little thing in the courts .

    Have some common sense and don't be too much self centred.

  • happydude on 21/04/2024 - 22:05
    +3

    As someone who has successfully taken a parking fine to court…

    Do not take it to court.

    • bobbified on 21/04/2024 - 23:04
      +2

      Story, please….

  • billy72 on 21/04/2024 - 22:20

    My local area has parking sensors instead of chalk, so it's fine to just move to another bay next to the previous one. However, the sensor will notify the council parking team when you exceed the time, so they will appear promptly

  • pegaxs on 21/04/2024 - 22:43
    -1

    I stop by my local police station to discuss the circumstances and confirm that my parking behaviour is indeed in accordance with the law.

    Then the coppers you spoke too were idiots. Coppers are not lawyers, and you most likely spoke to a general duties officer and not a traffic/highway patrol copper…

    The council is indeed right, the law states that you must remove your vehicle from that length of road. You can’t just roll it 50m away and be all good. The parking restrictions are for the road, not that singular parking spot.

    205 Parking for longer than indicated
    (1) A driver must not park continuously on a length of road, or in an area, to which a permissive parking sign applies for longer than the period indicated by information on or with the sign

    And WTF are you on about, you got the outcome you wanted, a warning. A warning means nothing. No points, no fine, just a tsk tsk and a finger waggled at you… Now you want to poke the bear? Take your warning, laugh at it, print it, frame it, hang it on the wall in the toilet and enjoy it.

    • Zedster on 22/04/2024 - 01:37
      +1

      Well, the outcome I wanted was to understand the underlying rules, and either:
      - My understanding of the rules is incorrect - I'm ok to pay the fine
      - My understanding of the rules is correct - I shouldn't get a warning

      But yeah, I think I'll just leave it and take the warning

  • coffeeinmyveins on 22/04/2024 - 01:27
    +1

    Imagine having this much time on your hands

    You got a warning and your inclination is to spend the courts time to deal with this crap?

    Sorry dude but you need to get a hobby or something

    • Zedster on 22/04/2024 - 01:38

      I do have these hobbies you speak of - and I'll now be getting back to them :)

    • GnarlyKnuckles on 22/04/2024 - 05:11
      +4

      Imagine not understanding the importance of clarifying 'social justice' standards and helping out your fellow man/woman/human in circumstances such as this …

  • GnarlyKnuckles on 22/04/2024 - 05:07
    -2

    This situation is absolute BS, and I am glad that you brought it to our attention. Every single Victorian 'knows' that if you move your car to a different spot (even just ONE spot ahead), the 'time' resets. This utter BS implying that this is not the case is, well, utter BS. Any judge would agree with that/you.

    The sign on the street is the 'contract', and accordingly the time resets whenever you pull out of the spot you were in, and park in a new spot (or indeed, back in the same spot). Any pretence otherwise would be laughed at by any Australian judge.

    • smartazz104 on 22/04/2024 - 08:47
      -1

      Victorians 'think' that if you move your car to a different spot (even just ONE spot ahead), the 'time' resets.

      FTFY.

  • jattsta on 22/04/2024 - 08:20

    this is why i have wet wipes to take off the chalk if im moving the car. These greedy councils will lie tooth and nail to make money.

  • SlickMick on 22/04/2024 - 08:29

    Sounds like OP dodged a bullet. As I heard recently, "when you escape from a bear's cave, don't go back for your hat".

    As for a council admitting fault, I don' think that's going to happen. I once got a parking ticket along with everyone else parked on the correct side of the road. Those that refuted (all I hope) recieved a letter saying something along the lines of we'll get back to you, which they never did.

  • smartazz104 on 22/04/2024 - 08:42
    +1

    then moved the car 50 meters down that same street to a separate 2P zone for another hour and a half

    Should've just wiped the mark off yourself…

  • ozboygsl on 22/04/2024 - 09:14
    +1

    You won! As the councils are essentially gutless thugs. They don't have the guts to admit they were wrong and/ or lied. They are choosing to double down. I was in a similar situation and followed up by demanding { and subsequently getting} an apology for the sending of a "warning". I included the threat of legal action and lots of adverse publicity.
    Congrats on muzzling them.

  • Brian McGee on 22/04/2024 - 09:36
    +2

    Length of road = the whole length of Smith Street containing the 2P parking zone/area.

    If Smith Street has different time zones every KM (2P > 1P > 4P, etc) then that is a new area of the street and you can continue parking.

    You went from 2P to the same 2P on Smith Street a bit further along, you broke both versions of the law.

    • bobbified on 22/04/2024 - 11:19
      +1

      Length of road = the whole length of Smith Street containing the 2P parking zone/area.

      There's an EasyPark app for Melbourne CBD (and probably some other councils), plus another app called PayStay. You have to put the "area" code into the app. I would argue that even it it's the same street and same parking time limit, if the area code changes (it seems to be different code for each block of that street/road), then it's a 'different area'.

      • Brian McGee on 22/04/2024 - 11:22

        Fair enough, Melbourne always needs to prove they're smarter than the rest.

        • bobbified on 22/04/2024 - 11:22
          +1

          The councils are run by clowns though! lol

          First they went with one app, then changed to another app. What's used is not consistent across different councils, which is a pain in the arse.

          • JIMB0 on 22/04/2024 - 12:06
            +1

            @bobbified: Each time they're looking at changing apps they get to go on a junket to another city and see it in action.

            • Brian McGee on 22/04/2024 - 14:39

              @JIMB0: Another $50000 junket that could've been a zoom call.

    • pizzip on 22/04/2024 - 16:27

      Yeah, I'm surprised he got off, as moving 50m down the road on the same street isn't really moving to a different parking zone. I'm betting that council couldn't be bothered to send someone to court on their behalf, so due to that, it was waived.

  • OBEY YOUR MASTERS on 22/04/2024 - 09:37

    Parking is a scam. Prove me wrong.

    • DarwinBoy on 23/04/2024 - 11:54

      people are lazy. some people will park where they want without consideration to others. sadly rules are made to enforce common decency. hence we need people to enforce such rules.

      • OBEY YOUR MASTERS on 24/04/2024 - 07:33
        -2

        I seriously doubt that councils care as much about "common decency" as much as they do high profits. Parking fines are big business. That's why they invest in all this tech to mine more dollars and try to obfuscate when you challenge the fines.

        • DarwinBoy on 29/04/2024 - 10:55

          More tech means less labour and more certantity when it comes to court.
          But i dont doubt money comes into it as well.

  • FareEvader on 22/04/2024 - 13:43

    Fight it all the way. Stand up for what is right, not what is easy.

  • Jinster on 22/04/2024 - 16:29
    +2
    1. You are in the right.
    2. The chalk mark didn't disappear when you moved the car doesn't matter - the law isn't that you get a fine if you don't disappear the chalk mark. The chalk mark is a very unscientific and very indirect evidence that isn't likely to hold up in court. The parking officer mistakes their "easy trick" of using a chalk for real evidence of you overstaying a time. And no, don't expect them to know, have learnt, or care about this "chalk still present doesn't equate to overstaying" issue. They don't. They are mediocre people doing a very mundane job, with no real thought or care needed.
    3. Warning from the council probably doesn't have any real world consequences. And if it does, you can always contest it later when it manifests.
    4. Your desire to keep fighting says you don't think you've "completely won". But you actually have - as long as the warning have no real consequence.
    5. Taking the "not completely won" thought to the extreme, you could say the fact they made you contest all this to start with is an ordeal that you can never unexperience, and therefore from the moment you got that incorrect fine, you were doomed to never be able to "completely win".
    6. Talking to the police and have that one officer agreeing with you doesn't really mean much. The police isn't involved here. At best the officer that received you agreed with your position as an uninvolved third party. At worst, he/she disagreed with you but placated you by agreeing with you with no real desire to understand what you may or may not have done - because the police isn't involved.
    7. Practically speaking, if the parking area is signed with PayStay or EasyPark or something like that, I always interpret a change in the parking number to correspond to a "new" stretch as far as moving on to a new area to park is concerned - if you park like this, then the app would have evidence of your parking correctly.
    8. Sensors in the ground don't matter directly either. Just like the chalk issue, the law isn't that you get fined if the sensor doesn't trip for 2hrs. Sensors can error out or be otherwise incorrectly triggered. The sensor merely alerts the parking officer to a possible infringement. They still need more robust direct evidence, such as timestamped photos, to be able to stand up if contested in court.
    9. For those that say "if chalk marks and sensors don't stand up, then why should a speed camera stand up as robust evidence" - the answer is that speed cameras are regularly serviced to maintain a certain standard so that their measured results do stand up in court. I doubt the chalk or the inground parking sensors undergo such expensive service. For evidence of parking sensor error, just see how often you go to a packed shopping centre car park and see how often a spot is falsely illuminated as "green" when there is a car parked in it.
    • DarwinBoy on 23/04/2024 - 12:04

      So point 2. chalk has been used in court and worked fine. It has to be supported with photographs and statements but its worked. Point 8. you are right there. A leaf could fall on a sensor and give a false start to a motorist who parks up, maybe thats enough doubt to convince a magistrate. i dont know.

      • WoodYouLikeSomeCash on 29/04/2024 - 23:45

        Chalk won’t work if you provide enough expert testimony disproving its reliability.

        • DarwinBoy on 29/04/2024 - 23:56

          Chalk mark. Time date stamped photographs of said chalk. Statement along with it as well.
          It all goes together.
          Not sure where you find an expert in chalk but interested.

  • diddy50 on 23/04/2024 - 13:29

    I'd even contest the Official Warning.

    Why have they issued you with a Notice under the Act? That is what they are doing by issuing you with an OW.

    If you did not breach, it should be a withdrawal letter only.

  • furyou on 23/04/2024 - 16:28
    +1

    in NSW, When I asked years ago you only have to move it doesn't say how much. So you could move one metre out of the space and back into the same space and it would be valid for the new time.

    That was the answer I got when I asked what was the RTA back then

    That said nowadays they don't chalk anymore the ranger drives around in a vehicle with a camera installed and the camera automatically records your car there and some computer sends you an infringement.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join