Contesting Parking in Disabled Spot Fine

Thenarrator on 02/12/2022 - 00:38
Last edited 02/12/2022 - 10:52 by 1 other user

Parked in a disabled spot and the fine was $600, about 50% more than what would be a speeding fine. I sent a review telling them I had severe food poisoning, stomach pain that I could not drive nor find time to safely park my vehicle and the least risky position was to park in disabled spot (rather than in a no stopping zone). I have doctor certificate and medication receipt with correct time stamps. My review was rejected.

I feel like I've done everything I could under my circumstances to choose to least risky decision and have all the evidence I need. There is nothing else I could've done post event.

Looking for advice from people who have gone through the court process. How much is it on average? What was the process like? What did you need to prepare? What is considered convincing evidence?

Automotive Parking Fine

closed Comments

    • pharkurnell on 02/12/2022 - 10:58
      +9

      …. and you turn it all about… you do the hokey…

      sorry… got carried away.

  • Wasabi Ninja on 02/12/2022 - 10:35
    +3

    Pay it then go do some volunteer work for the disabled. The world doesn’t need more narcissists or self entitled twats. Time you had a good look at yourself.

  • ribze1 on 02/12/2022 - 10:42
    +1

    Take it to court!

    • CrowReally on 02/12/2022 - 11:12
      +3

      This comment would carry more weight if you knew what you were talking about.

    • Ughhh on 02/12/2022 - 11:41

      Are you going to display your medical certificate on your windscreen for all to see in lieu of an actual permit sign?

      • Mcuser on 02/12/2022 - 12:04
        -1

        no but could be used to contest the fine and let off with the proof, not hard.

        • VictoriousBboy on 03/12/2022 - 20:26

          Being sick and living with a disability are not the same thing. If you are sick, you really shouldn't be travelling all around needing a spot to park, beyond at a health centre or location to access other essential items. If you are disabled, you're still needing to go out and live life - buy christmas presents, go to work, pick kids up etc. You honestly just sound like you're jealous you can't get a permit and that's just weird. But, given how easy you claim they are to get, why not go to your GP and give it a crack - report back to us.

    • foxmulder on 02/12/2022 - 12:16

      Kramer: Handiccaped do not drive, even if they do, they do not want to park there, they want to be treated like anybody else. That's why that spot is always empty. :)

  • KangaDrew on 02/12/2022 - 10:51

    Did you have a disabled parking permit?
    No?
    End of discussion.

  • Baysew on 02/12/2022 - 11:04
    +1

    Parked in a disabled spot and the fine was $600, about 50% more than what would be a speeding fine.

    Post discount on speeding fine as a deal.

  • BewareOfThe Dog on 02/12/2022 - 11:10
    +2

    Bikies.

  • trapper on 02/12/2022 - 11:21

    You could probably get away with it for a genuine emergency.

    But I don't think your story is going to cut it.

  • Nkl on 02/12/2022 - 12:04
    +2

    A cool tip I found is not to never park in disabled spots, hope it helps!

  • tomleonhart on 02/12/2022 - 12:14
    +1

    Mate, you're out of luck.

    My wife pulled into a disabled car spot (painted on the ground), got out of the car and realised her mistake. Got back in the car and left and we were fined $550 bucks. The duration stated on the parking ticket was 8:48 am to 8:48am.

    We sent a review stating it's a mistake and we rectified it within 20 seconds and the fine stood.

    • Mcuser on 02/12/2022 - 12:47
      +1

      court date for that

      • tomleonhart on 02/12/2022 - 13:10

        eh?

        • factor on 02/12/2022 - 19:39
          +1

          "Mistake of fact" defence would have won that in court. That's not something the review process is able to take into account, however a magistrate must.

          • tomleonhart on 03/12/2022 - 05:21
            +1

            @factor: Oh lame. We just paid the fine and move on after the fine stood. 😅

    • jinkerjinx on 03/12/2022 - 11:53

      Yeah I would have taken that to court.

      I had a fine stand after review.
      I took that initial review to be something automatically generated.
      I asked for a human/senior to look at the dashcam.. they did.. and revoked the fine.

      My situation wasn't a mistake of fact either.. I knowingly pulled into a bus zone.
      more info/video: https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/457799

      Dashcam paid for itself twice over that day.. now I have three.

  • That Guy on 02/12/2022 - 12:34
    +1

    Its wild to me how proudly selfish some people are.

    • Muzeeb on 02/12/2022 - 12:43
      +2

      Yeah, don't be that guy.

  • HollyT92 on 02/12/2022 - 12:56
    +2

    OP is an arse.

  • Nebargains on 02/12/2022 - 12:59

    $600 for such a fine seems a bit ridiculous IMO.

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 02/12/2022 - 16:47
      +3

      That's the entire point. If it was $20 peeps would just park there anyways and gladly cop the occasional fine.

      • jinkerjinx on 03/12/2022 - 12:07

        would prob work better as a deterrent if ppl knew it was $600.

        i woulda guessed maybe $200 here in brisbane.
        but I just had a look and it's the largest fine… more than parking on a clearway..
        (yet didn't a protester just get sent to jail for 8months for doing this on a bridge? ok that's a false equivalency.. :P:) )

        https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/traffic-and-transport/parkin…

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 03/12/2022 - 12:42
          +1

          Just because you didn't know doesn't mean others do not. Ignorance is no excuse.

          Pretty sure OP won't park in a disabled spot again, explosive shit movements or not.

  • P3njahat on 02/12/2022 - 13:05

    You're better off stopping your car at the edge of the road and poop on the verge. It will save you $600 in exchabge for your human dignity.

  • sidesw1pe on 02/12/2022 - 13:19

    It sucks that you have to pay $600 and potentially gain some demerit points.
    Disabled parkings are there for a specific purpose though.
    You might have been lucky and nobody noticed.
    Ultimately, once you made the decision to park there, you accepted the responsibility of being caught and fined.
    Even if you might have felt that there was no other option, and it may have seemed reasonable to park in a disabled spot given your circumstances.

  • bohn on 02/12/2022 - 13:35

    as a wise man once said, rekt shitter.

  • CrowReally on 02/12/2022 - 13:36
    +1

    Maybe OP can print out the comments they made in this thread and hand it to the judge "Look your Honour, there's clearly something very wrong with me. I haven't got the special pass but really, just look at the way I've doubled down on this stuff"

    The tricky bit is getting them to agree but not so much that they won't let you leave the building without some adult supervision, etc.

  • jv on 02/12/2022 - 13:39
    +3

    Contesting Parking in Disabled Spot Fine

    Did you have a Disabled Parking Permit ?

    No ???

    Then stop taking up disabled parking spots….

    • Arigato on 03/12/2022 - 15:31

      Wow life is so simple

      • [Deactivated] on 04/12/2022 - 11:27

        But muh freedums

  • Ciderfizz44 on 02/12/2022 - 13:41
    +3

    Have you thought of the person with a disability who might not have been able to park there?

    If not hopefully the fine will make you think twice next time.

    • CocaKoala on 02/12/2022 - 13:43
      +5

      Have you thought of the person with a disability who might not have been able to park there?

      … and what if a person with disability also had eaten in the same ramen takeaway joint and had a severe food poisoning as well? At the same time, no less?!

      • Ciderfizz44 on 02/12/2022 - 22:06
        +5

        Then I sincerely hope OP wasn't locked in the nearest disabled bathroom

  • CocaKoala on 02/12/2022 - 13:42
    +1

    Basically your post is that you parked in a disabled spot because you had shit to do? Yeah, nah. It doesn't work like that.

    • AustriaBargain on 02/12/2022 - 14:17

      "But officer, I could have got pooh in my car seat!"

  • pharkurnell on 02/12/2022 - 14:09

    Nek Minnit…..

  • LuckyMe8 on 02/12/2022 - 14:10
    +11

    As a person who has a Mobility Parking Permit, its hard to find disabled parking at the best of times and when you do, usually the car next to you in the other Disability section DOESN'T have the sticker! You deserved to get fined, you earned it! No excuses for parking where you did.

    • JafferMoney on 02/12/2022 - 14:41

      How about if someone has a medical episode whilst driving? Would it be ok to use the spot then? Genuinely interested in your response.

      • zonra on 02/12/2022 - 15:00

        The person issuing the fine would most likely notice someone having an episode in the car and call for help instead of fining them.
        In this scenario, OP was well enough to walk away leaving the car unattended.

      • apey2000 on 02/12/2022 - 15:42
        -1

        Are you genuinely interested in their specific response, or would council rules satisfy your curiosity?

      • factor on 02/12/2022 - 19:42

        If the car needed to be stopped to deal with an emergency it is highly unlikely the car was adjacent to a disabled park at the time. The medical emergency line is far more convincing if in a no stopping zone on the freeway, or outside emergency at a hospital.

      • LuckyMe8 on 04/12/2022 - 12:17
        +1

        Isn't it convenient just when he's got the shits he doesn't just pull over but manages to drive into a DP parking spot calling it an "emergency". No one in these posts has realised that in order for him to be fined, his car would have been parked in that spot for some time as inspectors don't come around that often to check unfortunately. If it was a genuine emergency he would have just pulled over in a loading zone but he didn't. Serve himself right.

  • JafferMoney on 02/12/2022 - 14:19
    -5

    Nasty fine…$600?! Seems way over the top…ofcourse it's going to a worthy cause right? The most useless form of government…COUNCILS.

    • gromit on 02/12/2022 - 15:20

      It's not way over the top, it is about right. It is intended as a huge deterrent for people to abuse these spots as it places people who actually need them at risk.

      • JafferMoney on 02/12/2022 - 15:44
        -2

        If that's the case the funds should go directly to those with disabilities, but we all know that's not the case. Have a look at what your local council CEO makes, you'd be surprised.

        • gromit on 02/12/2022 - 15:46
          +1

          Where the funds go is a different argument and I would agree that part is wrong, But the leveraging of a huge fine for illegal use of these spots is well and truly justifiable.

        • jv on 02/12/2022 - 16:16
          +1

          the funds should go directly to those with disabilities

          no they shouldn't

  • c64 on 02/12/2022 - 14:31

    lucky it didn't turn out like the handicapped spot seinfeld episode https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0AApJF_xZQ

  • EightImmortals on 02/12/2022 - 14:39

    Your paperz ver not in order!

    As much as I sympathise I don't think you have a leg to stand on. :)

    Ok I'll leave now…..

    • factor on 02/12/2022 - 19:43

      If they didn't have a leg to stand on … no problem!

  • screensaver on 02/12/2022 - 14:46
    -4

    i beat this in court, i did have a permit but it wasnt displayed and also my disabled friend died that day and i went to centrelink to cancel his pension. i took his death cert to court, pleaded guilty and asked for a dismissal under section 10

    • kanmen on 02/12/2022 - 16:12
      +1

      This really deserves a downvote but because it's Pam I'm upvoting it. I got a good laugh reading it.

      • screensaver on 03/12/2022 - 02:59
        -1

        yes someone dying is so funny

        • kanmen on 03/12/2022 - 15:04

          No hun, it's the manner in which you do the things you do and deliver your message

  • misfitt1911 on 02/12/2022 - 14:54

    Good.

  • echelon6 on 02/12/2022 - 15:12
    -2

    I feel for you. I agree you did the least harmful / lowest risk thing. Next time, park in private property and find a quiet corner and do a sneaky poo.

    Unfortunately you will lose this one in court. They just look at the offense, and whether you did it. There are some categories of mitigating factors, I don't think you meet any. The law is applied rigidly.

  • Maxxiz on 02/12/2022 - 15:14
    +4

    Well enough to drive = well enough to park correctly

  • apey2000 on 02/12/2022 - 15:14
    +1

    Parks in disabled spot.
    Cops a hefty fine.
    Doesn't believe that the fine is fair because (profanity) disabled people.
    Posts on OzBargain asking for legal advice.

    LOL!!!!!!

    • CocaKoala on 02/12/2022 - 18:43
      +1

      Op came looking for sympathy, but got collectively fisted in that same butthole that was already traumatised with the public diarrhoea episode.

      • Morphio25 on 04/12/2022 - 06:54
        +1

        This comment wins this entire thread!

        • CocaKoala on 04/12/2022 - 09:32

          Hahaha, glad you liked it. Stole part of the line from a fellow bargainer but I couldn't find that comment right now.

  • No ONE on 02/12/2022 - 15:14

    OzBargain moto: Pay the fine.
    No One would say take it to the court and hope for the best.

  • Solario31 on 02/12/2022 - 15:20
    +1

    Should have been $6000

  • cyrax83 on 02/12/2022 - 15:33
    +1

    lol

  • Morien on 02/12/2022 - 15:38
    +4

    You parked in an ACROD bay. You did not have any legal entitlement to do so. You possibly made it so that someone who needed it had to turn around and go home. You restricted their access to the community. You made their life harder. You should have shit your pants. I hope you shit your pants now.

  • happydude on 02/12/2022 - 15:47
    +2

    OP there is a defence in the rules.

    There is clause 165(c)

    It is a defence to the prosecution of a driver for an offence against a provision of this Part if—
    (c) the driver stops at a particular place, or in a particular way, to deal with a medical or other emergency, or to assist a disabled vehicle, and the driver stops for no longer than is necessary in the circumstances, or

    The persecution would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was not an medial emergency or that you were there longer than necessary in the circumstances.

    • apey2000 on 03/12/2022 - 10:32

      If OP were giving birth to a baby or suffering from symptoms of a heart attack then sure they may be able to avail of the medical emergency clause. I somehow doubt that anyone in their right mind would classify haivng to use the shitter as a medical emergency.

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 03/12/2022 - 12:44

      Taking an explosive crap is a medical emergency? It's a daily bodily function.

      The persecution would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt

      Lmao, no they don't. It's the exact opposite.

      • happydude on 03/12/2022 - 14:40

        Lmao, no they don't. It's the exact opposite.

        Confidently incorrect. Unless it is specifically stated that the onus is on the defence, it remains with the prosecution.

        The concept is put pretty elegantly here. See paragraph 15

        A claim that a person was acting in circumstances of sudden or extraordinary emergency is usually described as a defence. Such a description may suggest that the defence bears some onus of proving that this exception to criminal liability applies in a particular case. In fact that is not the case. Section 25, like a number of other provisions in ch V of the Criminal Code, provides for circumstances in which an act that would otherwise be criminal is excused or justified by law. These provisions do not impose any onus on the defence. Where raised in a trial the onus is on the prosecution to disprove that the excuse applies.

        I also never said medical emergency. It could come under "other emergency". I'd present evidence for both though.

        LMAO!

        • parsimonious one on 03/12/2022 - 15:05
          +1

          @happydude that appeal document covers a lot more ground than you have alluded to above

          Anyways, personally I hope the OP takes your advice and takes it court

          As you pointed out it’s potentially complex legally, so he’d be wise to hire a lawyer to assist, preferably a highly skilled and reputable one (to argue against his $600 fine) 🤦‍♂️

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 04/12/2022 - 19:32
          +1

          @happydude Yes, you are confidently incorrect unfortunately. Besides the hilariousness of linking a different jurisdiction and a criminal matter rather than a RSA penalty matter, the case you linked actually completely agrees with trite law that a defendant needs to prove their defence. Read all the paragraphs before para 15. The key aspect being the 'emergency' proven in that matter has no similarity with OP's 30 minute "emergency" shit ;)

          • happydude on 04/12/2022 - 20:54

            @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Road Rules 2014 - Reg 10-1

            (1) Application of Commonwealth Criminal Code Subject to this rule, Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code set out in the Schedule to the Criminal Code Act 1995 of the Commonwealth (the "Commonwealth Criminal Code" ) applies to an offence against these Rules as if the Chapter were in force as a law of New South Wales

            Criminal Code
            13.2 Standard of proof—prosecution

            (1) A legal burden of proof on the prosecution must be discharged beyond reasonable doubt.

            13.3 Evidential burden of proof—defence

            (1) Subject to section 13.4, a burden of proof that a law imposes on a defendant is an evidential burden only.

            (3) A defendant who wishes to rely on any exception, exemption, excuse, qualification or justification provided by the law creating an offence bears an evidential burden in relation to that matter.

            "evidential burden" , in relation to a matter, means the burden of adducing or pointing to evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility that the matter exists or does not exist.

            Yes, the defence has an evidentiary burden, not the onus of proof. This is satisfied by just mentioning it outloud, but it would be prudent to go into detail. Prosecution still needs to disprove the defence to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt.

            An offence under the RSA is a criminal matter so no idea what you mean there.

            I was not comparing the emergencies in the cases, merely the process for the defence and prosecution. In the case the emergency wasn't proven at all, it was remitted because the magistrate stuffed up the assessment of the defence, which is why it was a good case to highlight the process.

            As I said, once the defence is raised the onus is on the prosecution.

            I'm shithouse at a lot of things but the law isn't one of them.

            • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 05/12/2022 - 00:12

              @happydude: I can't work out if you're having a laugh, having a real go at it or just being completely obtuse.

              An offence under the RSA is a criminal matter so no idea what you mean there.

              You completely ignored 10-1(b) - very curious!

              I was not comparing the emergencies in the cases As I said, once the defence is raised the onus is on the prosecution.

              Yeah that's pretty obvious. There's "emergency" and the defence relating to that "emergency". You're either completely missing the point or, I really don't know. One follows the after.

              OP, and not the prosecution, will need to prove the "emergency". Post that then the para 15 stuff you appear to reference loosely may apply - OP's ability to rely on that defence. It'll never get that far in OP's case as they have practically zero chance of evidencing a 30 minute shit is a medical or other emergency AND 10-1(b) applies (which as above, you have ignored).

              I'm shithouse at a lot of things but the law isn't one of them.

              I'll politely reserve my comments lmao

              • happydude on 05/12/2022 - 01:28

                @Typical16-bitEnjoyer:

                You completely ignored 10-1(b)

                Ah, 10-1. The section titled "determination of criminal responsibility", for the rules that you say aren't criminal matters. You're quite brilliant zeggie.

                Anyway, 10-1(b) doesn't exist mate. Nor does it apply if you mean 10-1(3)(b). That is a general defence for all the rules, while 165 are specific defences to the relevant part. They are two different things, you don't merge them.

                Your going to have to cite a source of you want to keep this shit up. You are making no sense.

                If you don't understand the difference between an evidential burden and the onus of proof, I can't take you any further.

                I love the case I posted was the wrong jurisdiction, but now it's correct. Amazing.

                Are you still saying, after everything I have posted pointing to the contrary, that the onus of proof is on the accused? Absolutely bizarre.

                https://australianemergencylaw.com/2017/03/17/parking-to-ass…

                Have a read in plain English. ( Yes it is Vic, no I couldn't find anything this simple for NSW but s 165 is the same in all states)

                If the police or council don’t withdraw the penalty the driver can elect to take the matter to court. As the defendant, they have an evidentiary burden which means they have to give some evidence that they were stopped to assist at an emergency, but that could be nothing more than their own statement. Once the matter is raised, the police or council must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that they were not assisting at the emergency or that they stopped for longer than was necessary in the circumstances.

                I'm done here.

  • cashless on 02/12/2022 - 15:49

    I think OP is going to need therapy after all the hate on this thread.
    Must admit that the comments are fully deserved though

  • hopper on 02/12/2022 - 15:55
    +5

    This is for u op
    https://youtu.be/retUHusHONE

  • dontboopthesnoot on 02/12/2022 - 16:38
    +2

    Judge: Who did this?

    OP: A mad man, your honor, a desperate fool at the end of his pitiful ropes.

    Judge: What did he look like?

    OP: Uhh… About 6'2", 180lbs. big teeth, kinda gangly.

    • Maxxiz on 04/12/2022 - 17:51
      +1

      I feel this has gone unappreciated

  • Thongus on 02/12/2022 - 16:43

    I actually got out of a fine once when my wife was in hospital giving birth.
    The hospital said they've tried it before and it never worked, i guess i got extremely lucky.

    • factor on 02/12/2022 - 19:47

      Penalty notice withdrawn on review? Plead guilty in court but no conviction? Or found not guilty in court?

  • pulpfiction on 02/12/2022 - 17:25
    +5

    I've picked up some pretty intense food poisoning on my travels. Exactly never times did parking in a disabled spot seem like a good solution.

    • Morien on 02/12/2022 - 18:45

      Some people just like to take their shit out on others…

  • FlyingMiffy on 02/12/2022 - 17:37

    Tell that to the folks that actually need a disabled parking spot. Same goes for the idiots that park in pram spots.

  • OhmyRyzen on 02/12/2022 - 18:46

    I bet you used the disabled toilet to shit too!

  • Andrewskates on 02/12/2022 - 19:08

    Sounds like a shitty situation…

  • DoctorCalculon on 02/12/2022 - 19:11
    +1

    OP, you should watch this to the end: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0AApJF_xZQ

  • Morien on 02/12/2022 - 19:22
    +7

    Got to say everyone, I'm so glad to see that the majority of members see that this was an inexcusable thing to do.

    18% of people in Australia have a disability, but you would be unlikely to see a proportion that high whenever you go out and about, largely because of the barriers to social and community involvement that arise from people parking in ACROD bays, or using accessible facilities inappropriately. Many Australians are effectively prisoners in their own homes, all because of the thoughtlessness of a proportion of the population. If this thread is any indication, I'm glad to see that that is a minor proportion.

  • Oz em on 02/12/2022 - 19:28

    But you aren’t disabled and don’t have the legally required permit.

    If a disabled person forgets to put up their permit, they still get fined.

  • DeeeeCeeeee on 02/12/2022 - 19:53
    +2

    Can you produce your Reg Grundies as evidence ?

  • redfox1200 on 02/12/2022 - 20:05

    pooing and vommiting is no joke, but so is not parking in a disabled parking space without a permit

  • ProlapsedHeinous on 02/12/2022 - 20:53

    Pay the fine and move on. consider it a lesson hopefully learned.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join