Any Chance to Dispute Fine for Stopping Front to Kerb Instead of Rear to Kerb

JKF on 18/03/2016 - 11:18

What happened to me was that we went to Eastwood last Sunday. Saw a spot right at the train station. Pull up next to another car parked front to kerb. As I don't normally park there I weren't sure if they are staff parking or anything like that. Left the car running with wife and kid in the car. Went down to check restriction. And noticed the spot was meant for rear to kerb. I couldn't have been 1 minute out of the car and less than 20m away.

In the meantime the parking inspector was already there taking photos. I jumped back to the car to reverse out and she was standing behind the car blocking my way and continue to take photos.

Go the ticket in the mail. Saw the photos online showing the car was slightly out of the parking spot with reverse lights on. Wrote in for review with the above explanation that I have only stopped and did not park.

Heard back today that the review was rejected and the inspector stating that the car was unattached and I attempted to run her over!!!

Is there anything I can do? It is just utterly unfair to get a fine of $109 for stopping for a minute, noticed the mistake and can't even correct it (that's over $6000 per hour for an hourly rate!!!). Anyone know what is the definition for "parking"? I had the car running, wife and kid in the car and I was less than a stone throw away. Can I still go to court with the review been rejected? Do I have a leg to stand on?

Automotive

Comments

  • oscargamer on 18/03/2016 - 11:24
    +6

    Only option after a failed review is to take it to court.

    • gimli on 18/03/2016 - 18:57
      +5

      go to court if you have the time. I am not a lawyer and I am telling you that you will win by 12 points.

      If you have no time than wait till scientists invent time travel then go back in time and …

      • QuickToThePointless on 18/03/2016 - 20:44
        +2

        I think traffic court is scored like golf - so you want to finish like 7-12 under

      • Thenarrator on 28/03/2016 - 21:18
        -1

        then*

  • nocure on 18/03/2016 - 11:33
    +5

    I would just pay the $109

    ….and I attempted to run her over!!!

    As the fine for this one may be alot higher.

    • JKF on 18/03/2016 - 11:41
      +2

      I should have said falsely accused. Different point of view. I was trying to get out and she was trying to take photo. What do you do when you try to reverse out and she is standing behind the car? Shall I add there was no contact at all time.

      • toniyellow on 18/03/2016 - 12:26
        +5

        I was trying to get out and she was trying to take photo. What do you do when you try to reverse out and she is standing behind the car?

        If you say that in court you will walk out with much more than your current fine. Vehicles give way when reversing, and vehicles give way to pedestrians in shared areas like car parks.

        I do agree that the fine you incurred for being stopped whilst you checked the signed sounds ridiculous, but if she was standing behind you and you reversed towards her that is much more serious. If she is already on record as saying you reversed towards her, I would pay this fine and leave it well alone, you should have stopped until she was clear.

        • callum9999 on 20/03/2016 - 00:01
          +4

          You could just say you started reversing, then she stepped out behind the car so you stopped.

      • Davo1111 on 18/03/2016 - 13:32
        +9

        What do you do when you try to reverse out and she is standing behind the car?

        FYI You can't just reverse over someone if you have "right of way".

        • Euphemistic on 22/03/2016 - 11:25
          -2

          FYI there is no such thing as 'right of way' legally. There is a responsibility to give way, but not the other way around.

      • captobvious on 19/03/2016 - 13:13
        -2

        should have reversed into her and said didn't see you, serves her right for deliberately standing behind a reversing car?

        I suppose your justification could have been these things happen, children get run over this way too unfortunately.

        • ThithLord on 21/03/2016 - 09:12
          +5

          This is so dumb. Yeah, run her over, I'm sure they'll side with the driver for not checking his surroundings while reversing.

          You're a bright spark.

        • macrocephalic on 21/03/2016 - 11:58
          +1

          @ThithLord: Sounds like a he said she said. You say she jumped out in front of the reversing car. If the situation is exactly as OP says then she seems like someone who could use a light running over.

        • captobvious on 21/03/2016 - 19:50
          -2

          @ThithLord: Not the one that is dead or impaired after getting run over for trying to prove a point.

        • ThithLord on 22/03/2016 - 08:50
          -1

          @captobvious: It's a lose - lose situation. Both parties are fudged either way, so, yeah. Your point has no standing.

    • Neilzy on 18/03/2016 - 11:44
      +5

      If I was clearly in the wrong i.e. parking in a no standing zone then I'd gladly pay the fine, but in this circumstance, it seems more like an opportunistic move by the ticket inspector. i'd fight it

      • swilso on 20/03/2016 - 16:23
        -2

        Going by your logic though why can't someone just parallel park across the same spot taking up 2-3 spaces so long as a passenger is left in the vehicle and the ignition is on it's not parking is it? It's still wrong whether you did it for several hours or just minutes.

  • bobbified on 18/03/2016 - 11:41
    +30

    I would take it to Court.. it might cost more for a day or two off work, but it's these kinds of tickets that really make me angry and I wouldn't want them to get away with such a blatant ripoff.

    Courtesy would say that the ranger could've simply knocked on the window and asked whoever was in the car to move it.

    It's things like this that make it difficult for me to feel sympathy for these revenue-raisers when I see them get abused on the streets.

    • diddy50 on 19/03/2016 - 09:00
      +13

      You were not parked, you were standing.

      If they actually said you attempted to run her over in writing I would go to court, that's disgusting of them to make such a false allegation.

      Good luck!

      Ps. They prevented you from leaving the car spot, blocked you in. Think about that. Imagine someone stopped you from leaving a house, a car, forced you to stay even for a few seconds, that's very wrong.

    • Roney on 19/03/2016 - 18:58
      +12

      Explain to the court that the signage isnt well placed such that you needed to get out to affirm. And if the infringement claimed you park front to kerb, simply show the court the photos which you attempted correction by reversing but were blocked. I would have taken a video of that axxhxxx standing behind you.

  • Neilzy on 18/03/2016 - 11:41
    +7

    Take it to court; state that it was an honest mistake and that you were out to check the signage.

    Very opportunistic parking inspector too seeing as you still had the family in the car and the car still running. And they wonder why people hate them.

    also recommend getting a dash cam.

    good luck

    • [Deactivated] on 18/03/2016 - 17:34
      +11

      Honest Mistake is a terrible idea. Judges hardly ever accept that, otherwise everyone would claim "Honest Mistake".

      He's better off pleading the actual merits of the case.

    • infinite on 19/03/2016 - 13:44
      +3

      Ignorance to the law is not a defense to the law. OP needs to argue the merits and facts of the case, have the story backed up by the wife with a written stat dec and then lodge formal complaints about the inspector at both the council and officially at the next council meeting, too.

    • Skinnerr on 20/03/2016 - 15:56
      +3

      state that it was an honest mistake

      NOPE! Basically an admission of guilt/negligence. Like others said, state that you werent parked and were checking the sign.

  • QuickToThePointless on 18/03/2016 - 11:46
    +60

    People telling you to go to court over $100 are tripping balls

    Not worth the effort

    Just pay it knowing that the wench who pinged you most likley hates her job and her life - seeing you with your nice family was enough for her to seek an opportunistic fine out of anger and resentment

    See now? Youve already won!

    • 0031nek on 18/03/2016 - 17:29
      +6

      spot on!

      • QuickToThePointless on 18/03/2016 - 18:26
        +5

        Well i assumed his family is nice, for arguments sake

        Pretty sure im right about the wench though

    • bobbified on 19/03/2016 - 09:05
      +9

      There's nothing wrong with taking it to court - I get that this is OzBargain, but money isn't always the issue - principles come into play too.

      I have no backing in what I'm about to say next, but sometimes I believe that the way we blatantly get ripped-off nowadays by these so-called "authorities" has come about by the fact that they know people like yourself won't contest it no matter how unfair the fine is because it's simply "not worth your time" as an individual.

      All I'm saying is, if you screw up, then pay up and take it on the chin - but if you might have a case (in which the OP thinks he does, otherwise he wouldn't have done a write up here), then consider fighting it.

      • QuickToThePointless on 19/03/2016 - 14:16
        +7

        I agree, but it would take several hours to prepare for the case and then attend.

        Its a question of time, and what its worth to you.

        If you are retired and feel like poking a bees nest, it could be a fun exercise

        Personally, i would not set aside the best oart of a week to deal with $100

      • MiaSanMia on 21/03/2016 - 22:21

        Why don't collectively share something like this with A Current Affair or TV News - I'm sure they'll love it when they're hungry for news. Agree there are more and more low-rated "authorities" that under KPI pressure and covering themselves for doing the jobs. I found this pathetic as it deceives the purpose of correcting one's mistake.

      • soyea on 21/03/2016 - 23:06
        +1

        Treat this as Karma or pay it forward or donating to the Police Charity ball. Karma is a bitch it will get the one who deserves it the most. Loved an old car bumper sticker that said "Whatever you wish for me, let God give you twice"

        Ain't worth the hassle of going to Court.

    • Mumbles on 19/03/2016 - 17:05
      +3

      Correct! Most people have never seen the inside workings of a court and assume both parties have equal standing. This is soooo not the truth.

      When a judge has incomplete information they tend to have a bias in favour of the authorities. When it comes down to he says she says, the judge will always take the word of the public servant authority.

      In the OP's case this means the driver was attempting to run over the ranger.

      • QuickToThePointless on 19/03/2016 - 17:21

        Yes, theres also that - willingly putting yourself in front of a judge on charges that may escalate into attempted murder could turn out to be the dumbest decision you'll ever make.

        Don't let a pleasant outing with your family lead to you sharing the bottom bunk in a cell with a 120kg member of the aryan brotherhood for the next 20 years.

        Best to cop the $100 fine.

    • mousie on 20/03/2016 - 13:52
      -1

      Why pay a fine that was incorrectly issued?

      • BestofOZB on 20/03/2016 - 15:28

        It was not legally incorrect.

    • dookun on 21/03/2016 - 13:34
      +1

      People telling you to go to court over $100 are tripping balls
      Not worth the effort
      Just pay it knowing that the wench who pinged you most likley hates her job and her life - seeing you with your nice family was enough for her to seek an opportunistic fine out of anger and resentment
      See now? Youve already won!

      Love this comment, I wish I can think like you.
      Because as I'm reading OP comment I was already thinking "going to keep carton of eggs in the car and if i see that inspector again im gonne pelt the sh1t out of her"

      To OP how much is your time worth? and the headache of going to court? and what if you come out worse off?

      • QuickToThePointless on 21/03/2016 - 13:38
        +1

        Id advise against that - can lead to assault charges and willful damage to property.

        If thats what you want to do, best to rope a mischievous kid under the age of 16 into doing it for you - courts cant do much to youth, especially for a "youthful prank" like "egging the ticket inspector"

        • dookun on 21/03/2016 - 13:50
          +1

          Id advise against that - can lead to assault charges and willful damage to property.
          If thats what you want to do, best to rope a mischievous kid under the age of 16 into doing it for you - courts cant do much to youth, especially for a "youthful prank" like "egging the ticket inspector"

          haha thanks mate I think i'll be too chicken to do that myself. It's just a scenario playing in my head but i'll remember that next time im going to egg someone :)

        • QuickToThePointless on 21/03/2016 - 15:24

          @dookun: so ummm youre too "chicken" to "egg", did i get that right…..we have a conundrum :)

          (And just to be clear, im only kidding - please dont get kids to vandalize things on your behalf)

    • dealman on 21/03/2016 - 16:01

      People telling you to go to court over $100 are tripping balls

      If every time we just gave away because it's too much hassle there'd be no one challenging such stupid fines.

      Not worth the effort

      I've fought tons of times for the principle won few lost a few.

      In fact I've also fought a withdrawn fine chasing for an Apology(They didn't give me an apology) but made me feel better.

      I'd fight this one, in bloody court just for the principle of it.

      • QuickToThePointless on 21/03/2016 - 16:10

        Love your work mate, nice

        Are you retired, or do you just make time, take days off work etc?

        • dealman on 21/03/2016 - 16:17
          +1

          Nah mate, I'm just your normal 8 to 5 guy that want to fight against stupid fines.

  • inherentchoice on 18/03/2016 - 12:04
    +5

    It looks like an infringement of section 210(4) of the NSW Road Rules 2014:

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2014104/…

    And here is the definition of what it means to 'park' and to 'stop':

    "park" in Part 12 and for a driver, includes stop and allow the driver’s vehicle to stay (whether or not the driver leaves the vehicle).
    "stop" in Part 12 and for a driver, includes park, but does not include stop to reverse the driver’s vehicle into a parking bay or other parking space.

    If you really want to take the fine to court maybe you could argue that you stopped "to reverse the driver’s vehicle into a parking bay or other parking space". After all, you did a three-point turn right? From a common sense point of view maybe the judge will agree? Especially since you have a photo of the car with the reverse lights on…

    Anyway just hope they don't also send you a separate infringement for trying to run the inspector over.

    FYI have a look at this thread where the owner got out of their fine… https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/201715

    • JKF on 18/03/2016 - 12:53
      +7

      Thank you, this is what I am looking for. Legally it is clear that I have parked given I have exited the vehicle. Whether that is to check the sign or to the shop. It is clear that I don't have a leg to stand on going to court.

      Is it opportunistic? Yes
      Is it fair? No
      Was I at fault legally? Yes

      I suppose will just have to pay up.

      • inherentchoice on 18/03/2016 - 12:58
        +3

        Well, it says "park" includes stop. And it says that 'stop' does NOT include to reverse the vehicle into a parking bay. So yes, you did park/stop, but it was to reverse the vehicle and they have the photograph which shows you were reversing the vehicle…

        The definitions I quoted above are the legal definitions from the road rules…

        http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2014104/…

        • JKF on 18/03/2016 - 16:35
          +3

          Well, the way I read it is that since I have managed to get out of the car to check the sign. By the stupid definition is that I would have parked… sigh

        • inherentchoice on 18/03/2016 - 16:46

          @JKF:

          Was the signage clearly visible? If you had to walk 20 metres to check the sign then perhaps it wasn't? Was it obscured by tree branches? You may want to see my comments below.

          Here's an example of someone who got out of their ticket because the signage wasn't always clear… http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1776612

      • [Deactivated] on 18/03/2016 - 17:50
        +13

        Mate, I'm not a lawyer or anything but I think that you do have a leg to stand on, to be quite honest with you.

        The evidence is in your favour that the parking maneuver was not completed until you had an opportunity to comply with the parking signs. You can't comply with the parking signs until you see it and that is all part of doing a park.

        The definition of "park" actually works in your favour because it says that it doesn't matter if you leave the vehicle as part of doing the park. You left the Vehicle to check the signs before completing your park, and leaving the vehicle doesn't matter.

        You then had to abort your park because the Parking Inspector himself was interfering with your maneuvers and his photo taking was making you feel uncomfortable to park there anymore.

        If you really did "attempt to run over the parking inspector", where is their evidence of this? If it is true, why didn't the Parking Inspector file a Police Report or file charges? Where is their medical report for their injuries? Maybe there isn't any because that accusation is completely made up in order to intimidate you and is an abuse of process.

  • ESEMCE on 18/03/2016 - 12:04
    +6

    "Saw the photos online showing the car was slightly out of the parking spot with reverse lights on. "

    So they have no evidence of you actually being parked?

    The photographic evidence would also give a fair indication of the inspector's position and therefore test the veracity of her "attempt to run her over" claim.
    If it's clear that she's tens of metres away, and if it were actually true that you reversed more than required to exit the parking space, then surely they'd be pursuing you for something more serious than a parking infringement! Eg. Using footage from the security cameras undoubtedly located at the train station?

    Assuming you didn't "attempt to run her over", and you can be bothered over $109, taking it to court seems a logical step.. They might even do the investigation through the security footage for you and set of a chain of investigations into dodgy Parking Inspector practices.

  • Settero on 18/03/2016 - 12:11
    -3

    hate to break it to you , you where parked.
    i forget the rules for being parked while inside the car, if you have to be in neutral/hand break on , but you EXITED the vehicle, that counts as being parked in a legal sense.
    and something tells me you did try to run her over, well intimidate her out of the way by backing slowly, this is the same as attempting to run someone over, regardless of how slow you are going, but that is besides the point really.

    now , do i agree with the rules, possibly not.
    are you guilty ? yes. you where parked incorrectly.
    pay the ticket and move on.

    normally you might get away with a warning if you disputed it , but ah since that whole trying to run her over thing, whether its true or not , you got denied.

    • JKF on 18/03/2016 - 13:08

      TBH, I don't agree with your asesement. I didn't have to try very hard if I really wanted to run her over. She was 3m back, I reverse maybe 2 and can go no further and stop. That is why I said earlier I feel being falsely accused.

      Reversing sensor are reasonable good at telling me how far I am from her.

      • jebdra on 22/03/2016 - 07:50

        If you kept reversing after you saw she was standing behind you - then I suspect you're squarely in the wrong.

  • Olokun on 18/03/2016 - 12:50
    +3

    Did you not try and have a conversation with the inspector before jumping back into your car?

    • JKF on 18/03/2016 - 12:57

      She is notorious in the area for fine first and talk later. Given the fact that she was out issuing tickets on a Sunday afternoon within a minute of me stopping there does tell you a bit about what is required of her job.

      That was the reason I jump in the car have the car in reverse so she don't get a photo of the car being parked.

      • ESEMCE on 18/03/2016 - 13:20
        +10

        Thought you didn't know the area very well?

        As I don't normally park there I weren't sure if they are staff parking or anything like that.

        Now you say you're so familiar with the area that you not only recognised the Parking Inspector, but you know her modus operandi!

        • rambao9 on 18/03/2016 - 13:35
          +1

          that's taken out of context.

          "Saw a spot right at the train station."

        • ESEMCE on 18/03/2016 - 13:54
          +1

          @bao28:
          How does that change the context?

        • rambao9 on 18/03/2016 - 15:20
          +2

          @scubacoles:

          Well, Eastwood has a car park, the train station is far away from the car park. Generally you'd park at the car park rather than at the train station.

          OP only mentioned he doesn't park at the train station normally, not that he doesn't know the area well. Eastwood basically revolves around this 'car park'.

        • JKF on 18/03/2016 - 16:25
          +1

          @bao28:

          Thank you bao28, you are spot on. I normally park at the big car park which is no where near the station. And this is the first time I saw a spot inside the train station. That is why I weren't sure if those few spots are reserved.

          I have seen a number of articles in the local paper complaining about the parking inspector. Based on my experience on that day, I can only assume that's the same person as those that have been described and I have not seen another parking inspector.

        • bobbified on 20/03/2016 - 11:07
          +1

          You say that now… when you're the one on the receiving end of the ticket, you'll probably be back here creating a new post.

  • [Deactivated] on 18/03/2016 - 13:27
    +1

    How could the car be unattended (I assume that's what the OP meant by unattached) but also attempting to run her over?

  • Davo1111 on 18/03/2016 - 13:33
    -7

    Despite what the "evidence" suggests, you're guilty. Pay the fine.

    • inherentchoice on 18/03/2016 - 15:15

      But there's probably some principle at common law about being not guilty if you're merely stopped to check the signage, because the signage was not sufficiently clear/visible?

      • Davo1111 on 18/03/2016 - 15:28
        -2

        citation?

        anyway, OP has already said that he/she had walked off. I don't believe the 20m thing…. unless the nearest cafe was 20m away

        • inherentchoice on 18/03/2016 - 15:37

          Well I don't really know how to search the case law for parking offences. But at the very least a parking sign 20 metres away with small print that says "rear to kerb" may not be "clearly visible" under regulation 322(4) of the road rules.

          http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/repealed_reg/arr210/s…

          (And the definition of traffic control device includes a traffic sign, which includes a parking control sign.)

        • Davo1111 on 18/03/2016 - 15:39

          that sign placement isn't being disputed. it's whether you get 5 minute "grace period" for alledgedly reading a sign. In which case i dont think it's relevant anyway, as OP was walking off, not reading the sign.

        • inherentchoice on 18/03/2016 - 15:42

          @Davo1111:

          In this case OP is saying it was under 60 seconds.

          There may be some kind of common law principle that's relevant. But anyway, it's just a thought, I'm no lawyer.

        • JKF on 18/03/2016 - 16:33
          +2

          @Davo1111:

          If you know the area, there is nothing but bituman, a few trees, a pedestrian crossing and maybe the train station building itself within the 20m radius of where I parked.

          The 20m is the entrance to the carpark where I was checking if there is anything that say staff only! I saw the rear to kerb right away as I got out of the car. I tghought to myself there is no point turning the car around if there is another sign somewhere else that says staff only.

          In hindsight should have turn the car around first before looking for other signs.

        • jebdra on 22/03/2016 - 07:55
          +1

          @JKF: NOW you tell us. You saw the sign about rear to kerb as soon as you got out of the car, but walked away anyway. Sorry, but that changes everything. Whatever the logic or motivation for walking the 20m away, you haven't got a leg to stand on. Pay the fine.

  • Tech5 on 18/03/2016 - 18:43
    +4

    Ahh so I see you have met the vicious harpies that make up the council rangers in the Eastwood area.

  • factor on 18/03/2016 - 18:48
    +5

    Does the photo show the other car front to kerb?

    Does the photo show no visible sign?

    If so you might argue not guilty "mistake of fact". That while it was a rear to kerb park, you did not know that - thought it was general 90 degree parking, but rectified the situation as soon as you became aware.

    Depending on the council the council prosecutor will call you if you put a not guilty court election through (before the court date you need to attend in person). That discussion may lead to them dropping the case without you needing to attend.

    Also - if you delay everything as much as possible (last possible court election date) you have more chance the booking officer no longer works for the council. Another cause for them to drop if you can mount any argument not dismissed by the photos.

  • beatwixkid on 18/03/2016 - 20:44
    +4

    My husband has taken to court a parking violation where he stopped in a "No Parking" zone, got out of the car to open the passenger side door for our young children and was fined for being more than 2 metres from the car.

    The furthest from the vehicle he got was about 3 metres, which he acknowledged in court, but he argued the sign was misleading as there were no time/distance limits indicated. He got a Section 10 - the fine was erased and no conviction.

    I should add he brought all 3 kids to court with him and asked for leniency as he has a good driving record and was experiencing "financial constraint".

    I think you have a chance if you say you got out to check the sign and attempted to correct the vehicle but the inspector was obstructing your timely exit. Bring the kids.

  • Findo on 18/03/2016 - 21:35
    +3

    Was it the woman that looks like a man?

    • bobbified on 18/03/2016 - 22:36
      +3

      I don't live anywhere near eastwood, but that's the kind of mental picture I have in my head! :D

      • Findo on 18/03/2016 - 22:48
        +5

        There's this b!tch that has silver hair and looks like a man. She is the worst of the lot of the Ryde council rangers. She hides behind buildings and doesn't give anyone leniency.

        • jenkemjunkie on 20/03/2016 - 12:15
          +5

          Lets go buy large cokes from maccas, you drive, and I'll peg em at her.

  • ozeebee on 18/03/2016 - 22:41
    +5

    There are some low-life scum occupations in the world. Being a parking ranger is one of them.

    I would 100% contest this in court. Just giving up and paying means it's another win for these greedy a$$h0!3S. People need to stop taking it from behind and need to start standing up and contesting these, otherwise this will escalate again to another level of worst in the future.

    I received a fine in the mail once over 10 years ago. Apparently I was parked in a No Stopping Zone 18 months earlier. They expected me to just be another guy that can't be bothered and pay the fine. Instead the fine was cancelled and a letter of apology sent. I have no idea or don't remember if I was ever parked illegally, nor do I do it at all.

    • DarwinBoy on 19/03/2016 - 10:19
      +2

      You have an interesting viewpoint on parking Rangers. Without them I am sure the already hard effort of trying to find a parking spot would be impossible as what incentive would people have to move? I have been fined but because I wasn't as attentive as I should of been. But like all occupations I am sure there are also some that are over zealous and thankfully we have multiple levels of appeal available to us to overcome that.

  • onlyletters on 18/03/2016 - 22:54
    +1

    if you know a mechanic.. get them to write up that your car was having issues.. submit the letter for review.. done..

  • cloudy on 18/03/2016 - 23:06
    +1

    Either the car is parked, thus she can fine you, or you tried to drive her over, I'm which case it is not parked, thus can not fine you. They certainly don't have strong ground and trying to give an excuse for everything.

    If I were a judge, I'd see thru this and order the council to pay you costs and inconvience.

  • urlaw on 18/03/2016 - 23:33
    +3

    I actually know which female parking inspector you're talking about. She seem like someone who gives no sympathy and knows all the parking traps people fall for.

  • BestofOZB on 19/03/2016 - 00:54
    +6

    I once stopped at a yellow line at the entrance to the underground parking where I live as one of the entrances (the only one I am allowed to use to turn left in the car park to get to my spot) was blocked, less than a minute and I got a ticket for $120. I of course took it to court.

    Me ( showing a photo of the sign indicating the entrance was closed for repairs): I did not park, the car was running, I had my seatbelt on and the car was still on the D, I was trying to figure out what to do. It is common sense.

    Judge: the fine is for "stopping" at a yellow line, you have stopped which was not allowed, the law does not take into consideration common sense. Pay the ticket plus $1,700 in council legal fees!

    • IamEzza on 19/03/2016 - 19:02
      +4

      the law does not take into consideration common sense. Pay the ticket plus $1,700 in council legal fees!

      How did this piece of shit, poor excuse for a human ever become a judge?
      Absolutely disgusting.

    • Sweetnsour on 20/03/2016 - 00:49

      So if your car broke down on yellow line, then not only do you hav to pay for tow truck but for no stopping fine as well? Its beyond your control.

      • BestofOZB on 20/03/2016 - 01:19

        I tried to rationalise with him like if I am at the red lights I have to stop even if there is a yellow line, the entrance to where I live was blocked I had to stop at the yellow line etc etc….no luck!

        Paid the $1700 at $50 a month and moved on.

  • Maz1 on 19/03/2016 - 01:00
    +8

    Go back in time and actually run her over.

  • Aceboy884 on 19/03/2016 - 01:10

    Take it to court

    I once had a double parked ticket issued because I was waiting for a spot

    The dick head asked me why what I was doing and I told him I was waiting for someone to leave

    Anyway, he wrote me a ticket and I took it to court

    If your car is not stopped and the engine is still running

    Then by definition it is not parked

    I also think you have the option to argue since the dick woman claim you were in the car, since you "attempted to run her over"

    • wtfnodeal on 19/03/2016 - 22:48

      Yeah there is a conflict in running her over and parking fine. The car was in motion while she was taking photos and claimed you tried to run over her which means the car wasn't parked?

    • lookalive on 20/03/2016 - 03:02

      One time I saw a guy getting fined by the police for double parking in John St. Cabramatta, he claimed he was waiting for a parking spot, he had his signal on.

      Happened to this guy as well: https://www.reddit.com/r/sydney/comments/3bqfni/double_parki…

      I recently double parked with signals on waiting for a spot in the city, a parking ranger lady (for lack of a better description) had just written a ticket for car, she peered over and stared at me, then asked "what are you doing", I replied "I'm waiting for a spot", she shook her head and said "she can't do that, move on", I remember the police fining the other guy so I didn't hesitate to move on, luckily, a couple had just entered their car the second I was about to move, and I told her with a grin, I'm taking this spot, she said "ok", wasn't very happy though.

      because I was waiting for a spot

      Waiting is stopping isn't it?

      If your car is not stopped and the engine is still running

      But you said you were waiting? Doesn't matter if your engine is running or not, you cannot stop and wait (double park) for a spot, unfortunately.

      From RMS: "You must not stop your vehicle (that is, bring it to a stop and either stay with the vehicle or leave it parked) in the following circumstances: Double parked (that is in the road alongside a car that is parked) ….", the law doesn't allow the exception that you are waiting for someone to move out of a spot, revenue raising much?. It's almost as if they're saying, you must keep moving no matter what. If you see someone reversing out, they must wait for you to pass them, and you must not wait, you have to keep on moving, what the??? you were fortunate enough to see a spot about to become vacant, but because you will be stopping/double parking to wait for them, it is therefore illegal, and not permitted. That's why I rarely ever park in the main streets, unless I stumble on to a free spot. I try to find off street car parks, they can't ping you there.

      So how did you win your case?

  • Gershom on 19/03/2016 - 08:54
    -7

    Don't try to run over parking attendants. You're lucky to have got off with a small fine. Next time back in when you pick your wife up from the station. And stop whining.

  • Ughhh on 19/03/2016 - 09:04
    +1

    Heard back today that the review was rejected and the inspector stating that the car was unattached and I attempted to run her over!!!

    Or maybe it was an attempted suicide!

  • ozbjunkie on 19/03/2016 - 09:10
    +1

    Take it to court op.

    As other said - if you really tried to run her over then she would have called cops and you would be charged. Reversion near someone is not trying to run them over, else everyone has been guilty before.

    If she makes a misleading statement on a legal document, complain to her boss,the council, your local member of parliament. Are you guilty of attemped murder? If not, she is guilty of bullshit/perjury depending on context.

    If you have seen the evidence, respond only to that. Do not volunteer that you were out of the car.

    The car was running, you were not in neutral, someone was in control of the car (wife) so the car was not parked.

    Finally, bitch.

  • Chik5555 on 19/03/2016 - 09:15
    +2

    If you pay the fine you can still submit a complaint to council about her conduct

  • DarwinBoy on 19/03/2016 - 10:04

    If everything is how you said then going to court is your best option. If that happened up here in Darwin then the magistrate would let you off followed with a rebuking to council. Your car wouldn't of been booked in the first place up here by the way as well.
    I would raise the point to council's OHS officer that their staff are standing in areas designed for cars not pedestrians and you had a close call and feel there is a good chance of future injury.

  • jenkemjunkie on 19/03/2016 - 11:30
    +5

    If that was me, I'd have emptied my bottle of jenkem on her head!

  • youbeokay on 19/03/2016 - 17:48

    I also received a fine last week for parking in Eastwood, hope that makes you happier.

  • cowiie on 19/03/2016 - 18:28

    You should go to court and say "I was not attempting to run her over because if I was, she wouldn't be standing here right now accusing me". See where that gets you

  • wonderkathy on 19/03/2016 - 21:55

    If the car is still running it is not parked. What does unattached mean? I would follow up further but be very polite and ask for clarification of 'unattached'.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join