How Much It Costs to Go on Court for Appealing a Parking Ticket?

mily on 06/07/2015 - 15:15
Last edited 07/07/2015 - 12:14

Hi OZB fellows,

I recently received a fine for parking within 10 metres from an intersection, which asks for $242. I tried to appeal online and got rejected today.

The reason I park there is I didn't think it is an intersection, and only thought it's a curved elbow shaped road.

On the map, two roads with different names joint there, however on the spot there is no road sign, no no-stop sign and it's a curly round turn.

I parked at the inner part of the elbow, and the on the other side of the road there is a big driveway rather than actual road.

How much will it cost to go court, and do I have good chance to get it waived as I have no way to identify this is a intersection on the spot?

For your information, here is the street view of the site, and I've parked on the left side of the screen. I knew this place is a bit dodgy but I was in a hurry that morning, and I saw people park there at all time.

cheers,
Mily

———-Edit 07-07——————
I have been there again and double checked the signs, the little white sign in street view is actually behind the gate of international house, and the words on the sign are some "restricted parking area". Therefore that sign is not on Hindmarsh ave, and should belong to the university.

Except a little sign on the power pole after the gate(wall) of the international house, which is so far and kind of merged into the white board behind it, there are no other signs or lines on either Hindmarsh ave and Porter st at that corner. People parks right next to the big drive way kerb (within 1 metre) on both sides of the driveway, and no yellow envelop on their windscreen so far. Finger crossing for them, as they are actually parking in the intersection rather than close to.

Thanks for all your supports and suggestions fellows, I will check if there is any legal aids for free, and will bring it to court if there are any chances to win.

Regards,
Mily

Automotive

Comments

      • mily on 06/07/2015 - 21:00
        +2

        I bet it was not a parking issue.

  • [Deactivated] on 06/07/2015 - 18:27
    +5

    At a quick glance of that Google Maps street view shot… damn.. I would've thought that was a private driveway too, rather than a street creating an intersection. :S

    • [Deactivated] on 07/07/2015 - 07:12
      +4

      It is a private driverway. It leads into UoW housing/campus, does it not? Definitely not a public road which means this is technically not a T intersection. Instead, it is a street that curves. I don't know the legalities of parking on the curve but if your fine mentions a T intersections I think it's worth disputing as in this case it is clearly not one.

  • Unbranded on 06/07/2015 - 20:33
    +1

    If Google street view hasn't mapped the supposed road, then surely it isn't a public road!

    • pjetson on 07/07/2015 - 08:08
      +2

      I'm not sure that Google Maps and/or their drivers and planners are the ultimate arbiters of what is and is not a street.

      All it means is that the driver (or whoever planned the driver's route) probably thought that it was not a public street. Which, I guess, further suggests that it isn't clearly an intersection. Such doubt may aid the OP in court, but it's not something that I'd bet on.

  • grasstown on 06/07/2015 - 20:38
    +2

    I don't see how that is an intersection, or a t junction?

    If it was a t junction, wouldn't a car on hindmarsh need to give way to a car exiting from that driveway? And wouldn't a car on porter be entitled to fly through that driveway without stopping for a car coming from hind marsh? And wouldn't there be painted road lines on an intersection, that is a line cutting off hind marsh from the t junction?

    • mily on 06/07/2015 - 20:59

      Good points.

    • whooah1979 on 06/07/2015 - 21:14

      its easy to see how this is a t-junction. when in doubt, google.
      https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-34.4107159,150.8912046,19z

      • mily on 06/07/2015 - 21:21

        Won't the roads and their forms change according to developments over years? The roads may exist for 100 years when the railway was built, but when uni took over half of the road 40 years ago and turned it into a enclosed private property, is road still the same road? And T-junction the same T?

        • grasstown on 06/07/2015 - 21:48
          +2

          That would work to your favour, if it was a proper t junction before. As that would explain why the fine was issued, and why today it shouldn't have been issued, as it made no sense otherwise.

        • Dharmin85 on 07/07/2015 - 09:04

          If you believe you have right excuse to fight against it then go into court. I have seen good experience going into court. My friend was caught in drink driving and he chose to go in court. His fine initially was $3000.
          But court listened to his not sure what kind of appeal but eventually he had to pay $100 and for 3 months license was cancelled which was not too bad.

        • whats up skip on 07/07/2015 - 11:20
          +2

          @Dharmin85:

          Clearly not in Victoria, there are no special cases. You are either guilty or aren't.

      • grasstown on 06/07/2015 - 21:23

        Thought you were being sarcastic dude, but can see you're a t junction advocate. I prefer op's Google street view, your Google maps link gives nothing

        • whooah1979 on 06/07/2015 - 21:30

          the link works with firefox, opera and chrome.

      • [Deactivated] on 06/07/2015 - 21:36

        its easy to see how this is a t-junction. when in doubt, google.
        https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-34.4107159,150.8912046,19z

        Out of curiosity.. can anyone get into that "Hindmarsh Ave" (with the double line) via Street View? I can't. If I drag the little yellow Street View person over to that part of the street on the map, it ain't happening. It's actually confusing the crap out of me right now - Street View and whooah1979's link don't seem to match up? Am I getting mixed up here? Anyone else see what I'm talking about? At some point, Google Maps labels Porter St as Hindmarsh…

        This isn't really relevant to the OP, I'm just doing this out of my own stubborn curiosity :P

        • DarkOz on 06/07/2015 - 21:45
          +2

          You can't go in because the Google car hadn't gone in. That's another argument for the OP as the Google car got tricked too thinking it was a driveway.

  • DarkOz on 06/07/2015 - 21:43
    +1

    At first, I failed to see that as a T Junction. I thought it was a driveway leading into International House.

    That tall RESTRICTED PARKING AREA sign could be your savior if you do take it to court. You could argue it misled you to think that was the driveway to the Internation House car park.

    • whooah1979 on 06/07/2015 - 22:02
      +1

      a "road" doesn't magically end at a kerb.

      op, here are a few links that may help if you decide to take this to court.
      http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fragview/inforce/subordleg…
      http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fragview/inforce/subordleg…
      good luck.

      • mily on 06/07/2015 - 22:13
        +1

        Thanks for the detailed legal definitions, I had no idea how to find these myself.

        • quebeck on 07/07/2015 - 10:01
          +3

          IINAL, but I reckon you could argue that you parked on the continuous side:

          From the 2nd link (3b):

          (3) A driver must not stop on a road within 10 metres from the nearest point of an intersecting road at an intersection without traffic lights, unless the driver stops:

          (a)  at a place on a length of road, or in an area, to which a parking control sign applies and the driver is permitted to stop at that place under these Rules, or
          (b) if the intersection is a T-intersection—along the continuous side of the continuing road at the intersection.

          To me from the street view it looks like the curved street is the continuous one, and the curved street looks like it has right of way anyway. I would think the ruling 3b is meant so that if you park at a T junction you aren't blocking the view of any cars coming out of the non-continuing road, so it looks to me in the spirit of that rule that you parked legally.

          Possibly in the past the roads pulled up and changed as some others have written, but the maps weren't updated.

          I'd get some legal advice and than maybe bring it to court. Would be interesting to see if the judge will see your point of view.

      • whats up skip on 07/07/2015 - 11:19
        +2

        I think their definition of a road wouldn't fly in the High Court, but that is for another day and not relevant for the case the OP is talking about.

        Also the restricted parking sign suggested that road/driveay is not intended for use by the public, therefore meaning it is not a road.

  • grog on 06/07/2015 - 21:56
    +8

    True story:

    I actually found a similar parking ticket on my windscreen years ago for the same type of alleged infringement.

    I went to the parking office of the local council and told the officer in charge that i will contest the ticket in court and i will ask in court for the officer that issued me the ticket to produce the "certified tape measure " he used to measure the distance. I wanted to see the actual certification.

    The officer in charge took the ticket, screwed it up into a little ball and threw it in the bin. He never said another word so i walked out.

    I never heard another thing from council.

    This was in rural W.A and a "certified tape measure" was a real thing and was used in measuring distances that may actually have to be proven in court cases.

    I actually had a certified tape measure issued to me by my employer.. WA government …. at that time and i used it for measuring "certified distances"

    True story but a long time ago

    • fatal on 07/07/2015 - 00:55
      +2

      That won't fly in NSW these days.
      They will take a photo of your car close up and one with a wider angle to show the context of your parking.

      City Rangers are also considered "experts" in their field and in a Magistrates Court, are allowed to give their experience (x amount of years as a ranger) as a measure.

  • irajohn90 on 06/07/2015 - 22:00

    Looks like you've got a drug problem on that street. (Shoes on powerline)

    • mily on 06/07/2015 - 22:06
      +2

      I believe that also indicates teenagers wandering around.

      • maximum on 07/07/2015 - 17:49
        +7

        In some cases it indicates someone without shoes on walking around.

  • kendo101 on 06/07/2015 - 22:31

    I also have been caught out with this stupid infringement which i never knew existed before. In my case i was parked in between a small laneway and driveway which only accommodated space for one car. and so any car coming out of the laneway would have plenty of space behind my car (which was where the driveway is) to see any oncoming traffic.
    There were no signs anyway indicating it was no parking.
    To top it off, it was a no through road. so there was hardly any busy traffic. Sometimes, common sense dont factor into these thing and it appears council is just $$$ grabbing.

    Wrote to SDRO who didnt accept my explaination. Was going to fight it in court, but for the effort taking time off work, it didn't seem feasible and was more of a hassle. So i just paid the fine and moved on. Needless to say, i dont park in the same spot again.

    • mily on 06/07/2015 - 22:36
      -1

      Sorry to hear about this. However I reckon even a small laneway makes a T-junction with the main road, unless it's too narrow for a car to pass? Anyway, I will spay a big NO-PARKING on the ground when I get over this, no matter waived or not, so other student could be warned on the same spot.

      • OzJD on 06/07/2015 - 23:13
        +2

        You evidently want another fine… Spray painting would be vandalism.

      • kendo101 on 07/07/2015 - 20:33
        +1

        yes, the laneway is a one-way lane that accommodates the width of 2 cars since sometimes cars are parked there.
        Technically it is a T-junction, but I guess my disappointment is more the fact that it makes no sense whatsoever if the purpose of the fine was that my car was blocking the view of oncoming vehicles, since it does not.

        Also cars parked in front of me further up, whilst obviously still within 10 metres of the T-junction are not fined!!! (i know this since i've seen many different cars parked there, including me). It appears the fine only applies if your parked anywhere within 1 metre of either side of the lane.

        It's tempted to spray paint a NO PARKING sign there but obviously against the law.

        Funny thing is, the council has since spray painted corner marks on each side of the laneways and all driveways within that street, to mark where cars should not overpark and block the exits. EVEN the space where i was fined!!! go figure.

  • [Deactivated] on 07/07/2015 - 00:51
    +4

    As a Victorian I didn't even know that it was illegal to park in the continuous section of a T-intersection that has no traffic lights, road markings or parking signs stating otherwise. I would still fight it anyway, as it's on a curve there are no signs to indicate where the 10m starts and stops. What is the actual offense word for word if you look up the code?

  • Scorpiogirl on 07/07/2015 - 07:29
    +2

    I thought it was illegal to park on corners or cornered bends of a road? I am a Wollongong girl originally and i went to Wollongong Uni. Parking is a nightmare and Wollongong council aren't too considerate when it comes to parking around the Uni. Looking at your first pic only, you would assume where it enters International house where Uni students recide that is a seperate access road for them not a regular street you continue down. Fact is they don't want people to really go down there. It is not until you see it on the last map given that it appears as at intersection.

    Is there somewhere you can write to, formally demonstrating this? You could also go to the local media. Eg) radio or newspaper etc if you are really passionate about what is right, fair and just. In the end, you probably don't need the hassle. Someimes people give in because it's too much hassle, why do you think they look around the Uni. Opportunity. Good luck.

  • SlickMick on 07/07/2015 - 08:35
    +1

    Does that "driveway" have a street name? If so, then I guess it's a legit infringement.
    If not, painting white lines on your driveway doesn't make it a road, and I wouldn't be paying.

    • DarkOz on 07/07/2015 - 09:35
      +1

      That "driveway" is actually the continuation of Porter Street. I tried to read the street sign but I couldn't but it showed on Google Maps. Hindmarsh Avenue is the T intersection to Porter Street. Originally I thought that "driveway" was the T intersection to Porter Street and Hindmarsh Avenue. The kerb across Porter Street and the road being narrower on the other side of the kerb gives the impression that it's a driveway.

    • Scorpiogirl on 07/07/2015 - 10:40
      +1

      When you look at the links it shows the road continues where the sign for International House is. Looking at the original link you would not assume or think this. To someone out of the area i could see how they would not realise. I wouldn't be surprised if they get people on this technicality every day. Most wouldn't bother questioning it.

  • Dharmin85 on 07/07/2015 - 09:01

    If you believe you have right excuse to fight against it then go into court. I have seen good experience going into court. My friend was caught in drink driving and he chose to go in court. His fine initially was $3000.
    But court listened to his not sure what kind of appeal but eventually he had to pay $100 and for 3 months license was cancelled which was not too bad..

    • pitiek on 07/07/2015 - 13:02
      +3

      Drink drivers should get their license taken for several months to learn the hard way not to do it again…

      • Dharmin85 on 07/07/2015 - 18:42
        +1

        I fully agree with you and was not happy with his way of driving. However, I was trying to say that in court you can at lest present your situation if you feel having grounds…

      • Scorpiogirl on 07/07/2015 - 22:25

        You can take it off them numerous times, they don't all learn from it nor care. Hence why people still do it.

  • bryflies on 07/07/2015 - 09:20
    +1

    This link was helpful when I successfully submitted a letter for a review of a parking fine ($298).
    http://www.sdro.nsw.gov.au/lib/docs/misc/br_001.pdf

  • netsurfer on 07/07/2015 - 09:46
    +1

    Talk to someone from community legal aid / community legal centre so you can get some advice from someone who knows the law a bit.
    It is fine to take the matter to court, but check with the legal centre people about the following: in the unfortunate case you ended up losing, will it appear in your police check report (which might be an annoyance when you apply for jobs in the future). In the job application form, if there is a question about whether you have been charged a criminal offence (or if they asked you whether you have appeared in court before), will you need to tick yes?

  • zzap on 07/07/2015 - 10:24
    +1

    Take it to court. The Magistrate will absolutely accept your appeal. Good luck!

  • hellno on 07/07/2015 - 11:10
    +2

    I had one 10 years ago in Melbourne where I had been given a ticket for parking in an area for longer than the maximum time. I sent them a letter saying that I had moved my car once during the time so shouldn't have been given a ticket (I just drove it forward a few parks - this was out the front of the place I was living at the time and there were heaps of parks). They sent me information saying that it was 'continuous parking in the area' and not just the particular park - so even though I moved my car a few parks it was still parked in that area for too long. I sent them another letter highlighting the 'continuous' word and said that if I moved my car it was not 'parked continuously' and they cancelled the ticket.
    So maybe you can just send some letters until they get sick of you and cancel it :)

  • whats up skip on 07/07/2015 - 11:13
    +1

    That "road" is appears to be an entrance to land owned by the university, in which case it is a driveway, not an intersection.

    I would contact the council (who I assume issued the fine) by phone and ask to talk to someone about it. Failing that send another application online pointing out that it is university property and therefore a driveway, that is unless the "road" is gazetted, in which case there should be a sign stating that it is a gazetted road.

    Going to out can be a risk that you end up with costs awarded against you, however the signs and driveway would appear to make it look like a driveway even if it is a gazetted road. In this case the court should view the situation that there was sufficient doubt about the nature of the driveway or intersection.

  • [Deactivated] on 07/07/2015 - 11:35
    +2

    This is B.S. This is no intersection. You may want to check if that is A ROAD or driveway on right side. Looks to me like driveway to a block of units.

    Then check WHERE is the 10m measured from since it is a curve. Maybe do your own measurements. Take photos where your car was in relation where the intersection starts.

    Good luck :)

    EDIT: Keep records of all correspondence, verbal and written… i'm no lawyer, but if you want to record conversations (eg on your phone) to use in court later, i believe you have to get the other party's consent…

  • t_c on 07/07/2015 - 12:42
    +3

    Clearly the parking officer is targeting this area to find easy targets to up his quota, best thing you can do is wait there till he does his round, and walk past his work issued vehicle and key the f%$^ out of it, making sure to mark every panel on the one side. Then sleep comfortably at night knowing that the insurance excess will be more than the $242 fine that you had to pay.

    • mily on 07/07/2015 - 12:48

      Thanks, but doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

    • sobes on 07/07/2015 - 18:35
      +2

      You sound like an intelligent fellow.

  • This Guy on 07/07/2015 - 14:50
    +2

    This is what I heard, years ago:

    UOW used to own that driveway, as well as all of the other roads on their grounds.

    UOW used to hand out toothless parking fines. Many people ignored UOW's paid parking system, parked for free and threw out UOW's fines. Everyone constantly complained about parking (still do). UOW wanted full compliance to maximise revenue to expand parking.

    UOW gave their roads to the state government to make fines enforceable.

    Rant:

    UOW's old I-House driveway has a gutter across it. The lines don't match up with Porter St. Your 'lane' is even half blocked by a brick wall.

    By Wollongong City Council calling I-House's driveway an extension of Porter St they are saying you can do 50kmph in and out of that driveway and if you hit anyone turning on from Hindmarsh Ave they are at fault…

    • sb944 on 07/07/2015 - 15:23
      +3

      Great point. At the very least, this road is exceptionally misleading, and 98 of 100 people would suggest going from the other street to Porter would have right of way compared to someone coming out of the driveway.

      If I were you, I'd say you've been doing 50km/h across this T junction for a few months, and nearly been hit several times by people just driving around the corner without stopping. Tell them you want action, because you feel your daily drive is threatened by this difficult intersection.

      If all goes well, they'll have to clearly paint that it's an intersection, and that will hopefully warn other people not to park too close.

  • Donaldhump on 07/07/2015 - 15:50

    my mum got a parking fine for not paying a fair, which she did … sje never paid, and they threatened her with court / jail… she wrote them a letter claiming she had paid and for them to prove she hadnt, fast forward 10 years, she still hasnt paid…

    • No ONE on 08/07/2015 - 09:29
      +1

      Not paying won't work, maybe it did 10 years ago but now is a different time. If you claim you have paid, it is you who have to proof that you have paid e.g. Payment Receipts etc.

      • Donaldhump on 08/07/2015 - 09:44

        cant remember the full story, but back then the meters had a digital display only i beleive…

  • Sydneyswans on 07/07/2015 - 17:17
    -4

    I have been through the rigmoral of parking fines and traffic fines in general and accumulated at least $500 in fines in the last 2 years since I got a new car, I think my Toyota is cursed. In the first instance I was parked at 10:30pm at night at a parking lot which unfortunately happened to be within walking distance to Parramatta police station. The “loading zone sign” was obstructed by trees but nevertheless I got the fine awaiting on my windshield. In the second instance barely weeks later I was at the train station in a hurry to get to work and low and behold ALL the spots were taken so like all the others I took it upon myself to park in the only area left the “keep clear” area. Despite my vehicle not obstructing the view or impeding traffic the yellow envelope from council was awaiting on my windshield upon my return. In both instances I tried to argue valid points but in the end the law was the law. I sent letters, made phone calls to the SDRO but all got rejected. Ultimately I was in control of the vehicle and I was the one responsible for parking there in the end so as costly as it is I had to foot the bill.. Yes getting a parking ticket at midnight sounds like a joke. Secondly with the train station example what could I have done? driven to work, paid outrageous prices at a Wilson parking garage and get late because I was stuck in traffic?… Moral of the story is… A park LEGALLY and B this government, the local council are all money hungry so do the right thing…

    • johnno07 on 07/07/2015 - 17:32
      +1

      the local council are all money hungry so do the right thing

      Or maybe you could just do the right thing, you know, because it's the right thing?

      • Sydneyswans on 07/07/2015 - 17:36

        I would have if there were any legal spaces within walking distance… :(

    • hayne on 08/07/2015 - 16:53

      They both sound like instances where you deserve the fines. The old "hidden by trees" argument doesn't really make a lot of sense. Did the tree obstruct the pole all the way to the ground - or was the tree planted right near the kerb so that its trunk was in front of the pole? Or more likely - could you see the pole but figured because you couldn't see the top of it, that it must just be a random pole in the middle of nowhere with no signage on the top of it? In the second instance, you parked in a "keep clear" area that you knew you weren't supposed to park in - it's not up to you to decide that it's a good place to park and you're not inconveniencing anyone.

    • pitiek on 08/07/2015 - 19:26

      Park your bus in front of the goal just how Mourinho likes it…

  • highdealer on 07/07/2015 - 19:23
    +1

    I got parking ticket for this exact same reason but my case is a bit different. It is a clear t intersection here Street view.

    I parked at where the dark green car is and i got a fine for parking within 10 meter of an intersection. At the time of my alleged offense there wasn't a "no stopping" sign there. It must have been my lucky day because i took it to court and won. The judge rule it in my favor because it was not clear if i was less than 10 meter away from the intersection and that my parking position did not obstruct vision from driver coming to the intersection.

    There was little to none "No Stopping" sign along this stretch of road and i saw people parking there all the time, there are even 2 cars park there at times. The Randwick council must be racking money with this sort of fines. Few week after my court case, there are no joke at least 10 more "No Stopping" sign around this area. The must have literally measure up 10m from the intersection and put a "No Stopping" sign at each corner.

    I would definitely take your case to court if i was you. Even if you lost, there are high chance they might make the council do something about the dodgy intersection.

    • mily on 07/07/2015 - 20:06

      Thanks for sharing your experience highdealer.
      Yes, I think the same. If everyone just happily pay off the fine without any argument, this corner will stay as the tricky for years and people will be caught everyday.

  • ItsMeAgro on 07/07/2015 - 20:49
    +2

    It's pretty easy to get a parking fine waived in court if there's any doubt about the reasonableness of the ticket.

    Costs nothing but your time. Most of the time the ticket officer can't be bothered showing up and you win be default.

    • Davo1111 on 08/07/2015 - 12:59
      +1

      Most of the time the ticket officer can't be bothered showing up and you win be default.

      When i went to court, 2 parking officers were there in the waiting room. YMMV depending on which council is enforcing the fines.

  • frostee on 07/07/2015 - 23:54
    +6

    Honestly I live on this exact street and I see people parking on the elbows of corners all the time and I hate it. It makes it very difficult to see around the corners on our block. There is a lot of traffic coming in and out of iHouse all day as well.

  • [Deactivated] on 08/07/2015 - 07:33
    +1

    Even if you take it to court you will need to pay court costs which could come close to the cost of the ticket, win or lose. As others have stated, you knew it was a bit "dodgy"… I'd suggest just asking for a payment plan and pay it off at $10 a week. Why risk more cost and possible conviction record over a $200 ticket…

    • Sindex on 08/07/2015 - 21:39

      don't think you pay court costs if you win… plus you can apply for hardship provisions for court filing fees, not sure if it would apply to OP.

  • CLoSeR on 08/07/2015 - 08:51

    You parked in a very dangerous position which leaves little room for passing vehicles; I'd pay the fine and learn your lesson. Going to court will cost you more in time and money.

  • Davo1111 on 08/07/2015 - 13:00
    +1

    tbh, legal or not, you should know better and not park there

  • stratbargain on 08/07/2015 - 14:41

    Take it to court and if you lose, drive down the street from within the Uni, wait for another car to come around the bend (as they will assume they have right of way) and drive into them.

    If they or the police try to pin it on you, tell them it's a t-intersection and you had right of way.

    • mily on 08/07/2015 - 15:55

      If I lose on court, I might get a criminal record as someone said earlier. Plus a following dangerous driving record like this, it doesn't matter any more whether its a T-junction or not to me.

    • hayne on 08/07/2015 - 17:03

      What a great idea - go through the hassle of smashing up your car and someone else's, taking the car to the shop for a couple of weeks for repairs and then losing on resale value when you sell your vehicle. That'll show that pesky council!!

  • [Deactivated] on 08/07/2015 - 20:49
    +1

    A little OT maybe, but my very good, and sadly late, friend Lord Bloody Wog Rolo would rake up tickets all over Sydney and not pay, as you'd expect. So once every six to 12 months he'd disappear for a week or two. He'd gone to prison, of course, to work off the thousands of dollars. He'd come back, feeling good with himself, and the cycle would start over.

    That's no longer on, of course. Now they send the bailiffs in, they can garnishee your income, cancel your drivers licence and rego.

    I think the world was a better place when Rolo was around…

  • anntip on 09/07/2015 - 08:28

    You would get a second warning within a week after the due date is over to pay up fine or else incur an extra $25. that is if you are in victoria.

  • IdBuyThat4aDollar on 09/07/2015 - 09:16
    +1

    $242? Bit steep! I got fined for the exact same offence (parking within 10m of intersection) maybe 5 years ago and it was something like $110 (in Melbourne).

    I wrote a letter as well to appeal it, because the side street I parked near didn't have a sign, whereas the next side street some 50m down the same road I parked on did have a sign (no standing). I was trying to make a point that the inconsistency of the signage made it confusing - why have a no standing sign on one intersection, but not at another, if the 10m rule is going to apply in both cases anyway?

    Letter got knocked back. I still wonder if I bothered to take it further if I would have been successful. In the end I just paid the fine.

    I say take it further…because if you cave in and pay for it, you'll still be left thinking about it in 5 years time.

  • roopdesu on 09/07/2015 - 11:26
    +4

    first time poster long time tightarse.

    Mily, you should really seek legal advice if you haven't already. going to court is not as simple as "fighting it". it comes down to a lot of individual circumstances surrounding your claim, your DL history, etc.

    if you have a clean record, you can ask SDRO for a "caution" rather than a fine. a clean record = 10 years of no driving infringement. so if the last time you had a speeding fine was >10 years ago then you will get off on the fine - although the record remains on file. that is, the parking fine remains on record as having been committed by you. i think if you have a driving history of <10 years you may not be eligible for this caution process. SDRO saying they won't waive the fine doesn't mean they're in the right and you're in the wrong. the SDRO, Police, or Council are not the final arbiters as to whether you have broken the law or not. That is for the courts to decide. in most cases, people decide to accept without question. hence the size of the heads of most SDRO staff.

    for the record, you've been fined under rule 170 of the Road Rules. that's a fine and it goes on your driving record. arguably it's a "criminal record" because you have broken the law. however, if you're thinking it's a criminal record in the sense of getting banned from travelling to the USA then - no. "police records checks" check for indictable offences but not summary offences. in plain English, that means they only check for offences that can land you in gaol. that's not to say when you apply for a job at ASIO or the Police that this record will not show. it's still a record - it will show given the right searches. however, if you're concerned about a "criminal record" for usual employment purposes then it shouldn't be a problem ordinarily.

    going to court, you have to convince the Magistrate that you acted in good faith. yes, you might have inadvertently broken the law but: (1) given the circumstances, you didn't think that particular law was applicable to this situation; and (2) you had at all times acted in good faith - that is, innocently breaking the law. the Magistrate has some discretion in accepting your argument. after all, it's up to the prosecutor to argue "beyond reasonable doubt" that you had broken the law.

    all those arguments raised above by fellow posters - with the exception of the suggestion that you key the Council's car - can be raised if you wish as part of your "defence". you can say "look at the curb", or "look at the curve" or "it's inclosed land past that curve". all valid submissions as part of your innocence plea. that's not to say they're necessarily correct (and in my opinion, looking at the Google Map and the Road Rules, i think the infringement is within the legal definitions required to issue the infringement and you have broken the law, despite your arguments above). it's for the Mag to decide whether - given the circumstances - that the infringement shouldn't stand.

    you also have to consider whether you had parked dangerously or not - because that's something that's going to be raised by the prosecutor. if you were so close to the curve that you were possibly endangering cars that use that road then that's something you need to weigh as part of your claim because that's what the Mag will consider as well at the back of his/her head.

    the Mag may decide to throw out the fine because there's sufficient doubt given the particular circumstances. the Mag may decide that you still broke the law but give you a section 10 order. the Mag may decide to reduce the fine. the Mag may decide to stick to the fine. the Mag may decide to up the fine given your conduct to the parties present (and how you conduct yourself in court is very important). the max fine is 20 penalty units = $110 x 20. the Mag may throw you in prison for contempt if you start mouthing off badly. the Mag cannot throw you in prison because of this particular fine - unless you don't pay it. all the above outcomes - with the exception of the first where you get off - you are liable to pay court costs on top of the "penalty".

    ultimately, it comes down to you whether you have the time/energy to go to court or not. a lot of people weigh up the cost of going to court vs the cost of paying the fine - and taking a day off work is just not worth the value of the fine. you're possibly a student so have more flexibility with your time? GET PROPER LEGAL ADVICE. what i have stated above is just a brief summary and opinion based on generic facts. a proper professional opinion will take into consideration your particular personal circumstances.

    hope this helps.
    -r.

    edit: and thank you. reading your post made me read up on the Road Rules. in days gone past, it was 6m not 10m from the intersection.

    • mily on 09/07/2015 - 12:12
      +1

      Thank you roopdesu for this long and very helpful post. I am considering the risk of going to court after so many advices from OZB fellows, especially yours and cacbm's, who is a criminal lawyer.

      I was advised from other informal source that it is possible to make an appointment with local councillor and try to convince him this intersection need clear signs and better traffic control. And ask if he could ask the local council to cancel the ticket for me. I was told I shall have good chance to get it sorted in this way, and there is no risk of losing on the court with additional costs.

      Anyway, I am very lucky to seek advice from OZB forum before making any move, and I will try to solve it out of the court.

      Thank you very much all my friends.

      cheers,
      Mily

      • humdogg on 10/07/2015 - 09:21
        +2

        Roopdesu's post is pretty much correct.

        Believe me when I say do not worry about the maximum penalty. Lawyers and advisers really must tell you about them. But the reality of your parking fine is this:

        Plead Not-Guilty
        1. You are found not guilty - no record. You might be awarded 'costs' but unlikely, depends on Magistrate.
        2. You are found guilty - record but of no significance at all (has 0 bearing on all other matters except future parking cases).
        a) You have to pay your fine of $242 plus statutory costs, don't know in NSW, in Vic it's about $113 atm.
        b) You have you pay your fine of $242 but no costs order.
        c) The Magistrate finds you guilty but imposes no penalty. (This is certainly the case in Vic, there is probably equivalent provisions in NSW law).

        Pleading guilty
        1. You are found guilty - record on no significance. Penalty: 2(b) and (c) above but c is more likely.

        In short, you do not risk the max penalty if you contest. You only really risk your time and statutory costs. You also risk getting a 'record' but as noted above, literally nobody cares.

        You also need to sort out advice from people who think they know and people who know. And there is a shortage of one on these forums and not the other ^_-.

        • mily on 10/07/2015 - 09:50

          Thanks a lot. I am still confused which option is better if go on court, pleading guilty or not-guilty? Being innocent is not a good excuse for pleading not-guilty I reckon, as other member said previously, I did park at the intersection, no matter if I intended to.

  • eruption on 09/07/2015 - 19:56
    +1

    A little off-topic. Can you backcharge and invoice them from time wasted if you win the case in court?

    • mily on 09/07/2015 - 21:55
      +1

      I reckon you can easily do that if you are a lawyer.

  • mily on 22/09/2015 - 12:57

    Update. I have elected to go on court this Thursday (24/Sep), and talked to a Uni legal clinic, who thought my chance was half/half. In the mean time I raised complaint to RMS and asking them to establish clear road signs, in response RMS suggested to contact Wollongong council as this is not RMS managed road. Then I wrote to council and complaining people parking too close to the driveway, and leave dangers to drivers who want to drive out without giving way :-p.

    And I just received a written confirmation from council saying that this is NOT an intersection, even it is shown as on the commercial map. There is no restriction on parking close to the driveway, and it is not a public road after driveway. In the international house, both the land and road belong to UOW and that is a private road. Local council has no intention to put any sign near the driveway as it's UOW's property, unless UOW is willing to put a stop/giveway sign themselves.

    I reckon this confirmation makes everything clear, and clearly I should win on court this Thursday. Thanks for the advice from all OZBers, and I will report back and finish this post once I come back from the court.

    Regards,
    Mily

  • mily on 24/09/2015 - 13:10

    First time in a court, however this time seems only for those who plead guilty, for some reason.
    The council solicitor called my name before it started, ask what I want to do. And I told him I am pleading not guilty because that's not an intesection. He tried to talk me off by telling some other guy got the fined reduced to $65, and I might face one to two thousands dollars fine if I lose etc. I insisted I am not guilty and want to go for it.

    On the court, I was the first called in that group, but although I have prepared evidences, the hearing is rescheduled to one month after in another local court. They called today the listing(?) day, not sure about this, but if I plead guilty, there will be a result today, however if plead not guilty, then the hearing will be held on another day. I was not expecting this.

    Anyway, I'm now confident I am very likely to win based on the evidences I got, just need to wait for another month.

    To be honest, $65 is very affordable and does not worth that much hassle. If I was given a fine of that much I could have paid straight away. However I just want to get to an true end on this fight, since it has been started.

    • inherentchoice on 24/09/2015 - 14:49
      +1

      I told him I am pleading not guilty because that's not an intesection.

      I think it is considered a road and an intersection, but you should argue that you parked on the "continuous side" as permitted under rule 170(3)(b) of the Road Rules 2008.

      There's some relevant definitions in the Road Rules 2008:

      continuing road, for a T-intersection, means the road (except a road related area) that meets the terminating road at the T-intersection.

      Note.
      Road related area is defined in rule 13, and terminating road and T-intersection are defined in this Dictionary.
      …
      terminating road, for a T-intersection, means:

      (a) if a road (except a road related area) at the intersection is designated by traffic signs or road markings, or in another way, as a road that ends at the intersection—that road, or
      (b) in any other case—a road (except a road related area) that ends at the intersection.

      http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fragview/inforce/subordleg…

      So I think you should tell the magistrate that the 'driveway' is the terminating road that ends at this T-intersection, because it is designated by:

      • The double line on the 'driveway' which terminates at the kerb.
      • The signage on both sides of the 'driveway' which gives the appearance that it is a separate road, and an entry to the "International House, University of Wollongong"
      • The kerbing which creates a line across the entrance to the 'driveway' and has the effect of funneling traffic around the bend and would cause any reasonable driver exiting this 'driveway' to give way to all traffic rounding the bend.

      [Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer etc. What you choose to do is at your own risk…]

      • mily on 24/09/2015 - 16:24

        I believe I have obtained trustful, written evidence indicating that:
        1. The driveway, land and the northern part of Porter st (after de driveway) are all private property, and belong to University. Therefore, this is not a continuous public road, no matter if it has double solid line.
        2. Traffic going out of the driveway have to giveway to both directions, Porter St and Hindmarsh Ave equally.
        3. This is not a intersection as shown on the map.

        I reckon this should be sufficient to withdraw the initial penalty which is 10 metres to intersection, as there was no such intersection in the first place.

        Cross fingers and I will report back in a month time.

        Cheers.

        • inherentchoice on 24/09/2015 - 16:41
          +1

          What is relevant is what the law says. The relevant law is the Road Rules 2008, because the fine has been issued under rule 170(3) of that law (it probably states this on your infringement notice).

          This law also defines what is a road. Notice that the definition of a road does NOT take into account:

          • Whether the road is on private property or not. (So it seems that the law does NOT discriminate based on who owns the road or the land on which the road is built. It merely has to be an area used by the public for driving vehicles. In QLD I know the roads to the Brisbane Airport are private roads on private property, but the traffic laws/rules still apply to these roads. I'm sure it's the same thing with roads on university grounds, even in shopping centre carparks.)
          • Whether or not the road is shown on a particular map.
          • Whether a council worker sent a letter saying it's not a road/intersection.

          So these three points are completely irrelevant in determining whether or not the 'driveway' is a road under the law. However, if it is true that the 'driveway' is a private road on private property, then this is something you can add to my bullet points in my previous comment above in support of an argument that the 'driveway' is the road that terminates at the T-intersection.

          there was no such intersection in the first place.

          Once again, what is relevant is what the law says. As the northern part of Porter Street apparently does fall within the definition of what is a road under the law, it follows that it also fits the definition of a T-intersection. Therefore, my suggestion to you is to argue from the law and point out how the 'driveway' is the road that terminates and therefore you were legally parked in the "continuous side" of the intersection as permitted under rule 170(3)(b).

          If you can show the magistrate some photographs of the intersection and ask him/her to consider which road is the terminating road, then I think you've won your case.

        • mily on 24/09/2015 - 20:59

          @inherentchoice: Thanks a lot for the detailed analysis from the viewpoint of law, and this is really eye opening. I will consider how to include these into my arguments and make it more convincing. I really appreciate your comments and suggestion.
          Regards,
          Mily

        • mily on 29/10/2015 - 13:19
          +1

          @inherentchoice: I got the fine waived but the magistrate considers this is not a T-intersection however still an intersection (with only two branches). I didn't thought about this possibility however still happy new signs may be installed soon because of my case.

          Thanks for you suggestion.

  • mily on 29/10/2015 - 13:17

    The last update.

    I got away with section 10 eventually, fine waived at least. The magistrate thinks the place I parked is blocking view for the turning vehicles and I believe that's the main reason she did not want to support me.

    I possibly made a couple bad moves on the court, and the state solicitor raised a point that this corner may not be a T-intersection because of the driveway, however the fact is two roads join together here so it's still an intersection. I didn't quite thought about this possibility, even though in the email reply from the head of traffic unit in local council confirmed this is not an intersection.

    Anyway, since the magistrate apparently did not like the idea of parking at that position, I didn't argue further in case she feel me wasting her time. My perfectly clear driving record also helped me to get away with section 10.

    Anyway, the head of ranger who attended the hearing is a good guy, he also thinks this is a confusing condition and he will apply to install some road signs on the spot, since the magistrate also mentioned the confusion is understandable because of lack of road signs.

    So it's basically a win-win situation, I got the fine waived, and no matter whether it's a real intersection or not, no one will be caught anymore with clear no-stop signs installed.

    Thanks for all the warm supports from OZB community, really appreciate.

  • td7151 on 26/11/2015 - 13:09

    Hi Miley,

    I have just been fined for parking in the exact same spot. I'm hoping to go to the council and get them to drop the fine, given that you have already taken it to court and won.

    Could you PM me any info that I could take to the council as proof of the ruling? This could be a court case number, the name of the ranger who fined you or anything else you think can help.

    I hope I can get this straightened out without going to court.

    Cheers

    • mily on 26/11/2015 - 22:22

      Hi, actually I didn't win but get out of it without penalty. I got rid of all the documents in my household cleanup a couple days ago however I do remember the senior ranger's name who attended the hearing and told me he will apply to get the road sign established. I will pm you his name and you can find his contact info online.

      Do not apply for reviewing as that will pass this issue to SDRO and after that the local council could do nothing about the ticket. Good luck, and do not park there anymore.

      cheers,
      Mily

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join