Parking ticket dispute

jellykingdom on 15/07/2016 - 12:36

Hi all, quick query re escalating a parking ticket dispute

I received a ticket for not parking rear to curb at Coogee Beach the other weekend. I have disputed the ticket since the signage in the area is unclear (the sign on the left of where I parked is facing in the opposite direction, and the sign to the right is covered by a tree). I attached clear photos, and make my point succintly but they nonetheless ignored that and said "you have to pay". They also referred to photographs taken by the inspector, which literally prove my point. You cannot see the signs, a fact which is backed up by the 4 OTHER CARS parked next to me all doing the same thing.

The fine was $110 which is frankly absurd for something with literally no capacity to have caused any damage, harm, etc and I am wondering if it is worth taking to court (purely on principle obviously)

Does anyone have any experience with how much this kind of thing costs? Naturally the NSW government website does give any clear idea on costs because they won't want you fighting back. I'm guessing there would be an application fee, then the court cost itself? Frankly, even if it ends up costing me the $110 i don't care, because i'm purely arguing on principle now

Automotive

Comments

  • airzone on 15/07/2016 - 12:55

    The usual downside to going to court and losing your case is the risk of being ordered to pay court costs of around $100.00, as well as taking a day off work, and if you engage your own lawyer then incurring your own legal fees.

    http://www.trafficlaw.com.au/fines.html

  • [Deactivated] on 15/07/2016 - 13:12

    Airzone is spot on, in PRINCIPLE it's nice to do the right thing and win, but in this case is it worth it, time, stress, $$$ etc.

    Councils suck, it's as simple as that, but we need them to carry out basic services.

    Maybe considering shaming them on social media ??? Name names and make them look like the fools they are.

    • jellykingdom on 15/07/2016 - 13:14
      +1

      Tell you what, I like that idea

  • altomic on 15/07/2016 - 14:20

    i sympathise with your situation and agree that the fine amount is excessive

    unfortunately there is a degree of driver responsibility in checking what the rules are, especially for parking, when driving

    -e.g. all the other cars were doing 100km/h and the sign was covered up/not visible. didn't realise it was an 80 zone.

    • jellykingdom on 15/07/2016 - 14:26
      +1

      See now while i realise the cops wouldn't buy it, I would seriously argue that is an acceptable breach. You cannot possibly be expected to know (this is where the good ole legal term of "reasonable person") that you're in an 80 zone if the sign is covered up, and everyone else is going 100

      Similar to my situation really

      • altomic on 15/07/2016 - 16:45

        Reasonable Person is not a term. It's a set of conditions (or measures) used to test points of law. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

        I'm not saying you can't argue your point. I don't see any benefit in doing it.

        • jellykingdom on 15/07/2016 - 19:13

          "Reasonable person" is DEFINITELY a legal term, i would suggest you look it up since it is used all the time

          And as i said, a REASONABLE PERSON would (you would probably have to goto court with evidence to back it up obviously) not be expected to drive 80 in an 80 zone if they had absolutely no knowledge that it was in fact an 80 zone

        • altomic on 15/07/2016 - 19:36
          +1

          @jellykingdom:yeah, ok.

          magistrate- " so jellykingdom, you're disputing the $110 parking fine, did you look at the signage?"
          jellykingdom, - "well, one sign was covered by a tree and the other one was facing the other direction"
          magistrate - "ok, so you didn't bother to look at the signs properly when you were parking?"
          jellykingdom, - "would a reasonable person look at the signs properly?"
          magistrate- "pay the bailiff $110"

          I'll state here that I work for the largest legal organisation in Queensland, though I'm not a lawyer, I field these types of enquires everyday. Seriously, if you think that not taking 3 seconds to check what the parking requirements were as according to the signage is bypassed by the difficulty of having to walk to the other side of the sign, or move to a position where the tree was not totally blocking the other sign, then ……

          think about it for a minute - you had to get of your car when you parked. you had to move away from your car because you weren't there to sit in your car, you were leaving your car, but you didn't look at the signs. - well you did, but it was too hard.

          maybe the magistrate will take pity on you , but I seriously doubt it.

          yes, true, reasonable person is a term, but it's used in testing questions of law.

          not as an excuse for not checking properly.

  • aussieprepper on 15/07/2016 - 14:49

    It has always been rear to curb parking at Coggee at least since i was a kid so 30 years! Where all the other cars parked rear to curb? I am guessing you where parked on the hill?
    Send a letter to Randwick council saying the sign was obstructed and maybe they should do there job and trim the tree!

    • jellykingdom on 15/07/2016 - 19:13

      Yes i was on the hill. First time to Coogee (i'm from SA originally) so that was a wonderful way to experience the place for the first time…….

  • djmatt24 on 15/07/2016 - 14:50
    +1

    I was in a similar situation to yours, parked in a no parking zone and the sign was obscured by excessive dirt. I took it to court and won.

    It sucks that NSW only has one level of dispute before going to court (in QLD there's a second, independent review stage).

    To win at court, I pleaded guilty with an explanation which basically said that yes, the offence occurred but due to reasons x,y,z the penalty should be waived.
    My fine was for $242, perhaps consider if your time is worth more than the $110.

  • inherentchoice on 15/07/2016 - 20:39

    If the signage isn't clear you could perhaps make an argument under rule 322 of the NSW Road Rules…

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/legis/nsw/cons….

    (8) In this rule:
    "clearly visible" means: … clearly visible during the day in normal weather conditions.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join