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

  • Janko on 19/03/2016 - 22:56

    I'd argue that there needs to be a brief period of immunity, otherwise everyone parking and walking straight to a parking meter is vulnerable as well.

  • Janko on 19/03/2016 - 23:07

    Is this the parking area?

  • lookalive on 20/03/2016 - 03:31

    From RMS:

    Always park your vehicle in the same direction as shown on the sign. When a sign does not give a direction you must park front to kerb.

    Unfortunately, it's very rare for the law to allow exceptions, they would want to make it to easier for police/local councils to make money off us, not harder, but it's always at the discretion of the authority to pursue you or not, in this case, you were unfortunate, in my case, I was given a verbal warning to move on from double parking, lucky for me because many others were fined, either right there and then, or in the mail.

    In your case, you were hoping they would understand that you wanted to check the signs first before moving, they law doesn't permit this, as you are in a parking bay, you are considered to have stopped, doesn't matter if the engine is running, people were inside, car was off angle, or car was in reverse gear etc. You can certainly try to argue your case, but it'll be an uphill battle. Councils/police rarely get it wrong. Judge could say to you, it's up to the driver to familiarise themselves with the parking conditions at the area in which they wish to park, ignorance of the law is no excuse. I wish you good luck if you do take this matter to court. A good judge could look at it in a different way, but he stands to set a legal precidence if he decides in your favour. Others could claim that they had an occupant sitting in the car, or that the driver was sitting in the car whilst an occupant went to check the sign, how you prove this is beyond me.

    • jenkemjunkie on 20/03/2016 - 12:07

      I'd argue under special circumstances coz I'm addicted to jenkem:

      What are special circumstances?

      The term 'special circumstances' is defined in the Infringements Act 2006. This may apply to you if at the time you got the fine:

      1. You had a mental or intellectual condition, or a serious addiction to drugs or alcohol, that meant you:
        didn't understand that the behaviour was against the law, or
        couldn't control the behaviour that was against the law (even if you knew it was against the law)

      Damn it feels good to be a junkie!

      • Serapis on 20/03/2016 - 15:03
        +1

        Goddammit, would've never googled jenkem if it wasn't for you name… that is just foul =/

  • FittyFitty on 20/03/2016 - 09:08
    +2

    What's this front to kerb back to kerb business; do we have this shit in Victoria?

    • [Deactivated] on 20/03/2016 - 09:48

      What a stupid rule we don't have that in Vic and are free to park in either direction, the only rule we have is for parallel parking on the LH side of the road

      • FittyFitty on 21/03/2016 - 13:04

        Thought it sounded bizarre.

        I occasionally do the 'right to kerb', if you knownamean, but never got fried for it, thankfully.

  • No on 20/03/2016 - 11:24
    +3

    How can you be parked & attempting to run someone over at the same time? Sounds like this parking inspector took a serious disliking to you.

    • [Deactivated] on 21/03/2016 - 15:32

      This. I had one of these before. I got a parking ticket. Stopped to take a phone call in an empty staff car park after hours (where I worked I don't have parking privilege). Wasn't looking out my windows but I was getting written up whilst I was stopped so I drove off before the inspector could take photos.

      Got a ticket in the mail claiming I was parked without permit and a late payment penalty (never got the ticket to begin with). Appealed to say I wasn't parked and I never got the first ticket… because I wasn't parked and I drove off. I asked for proof that I parked, was denied my request and told to escalate to court. Paid because not worth my time.

  • Handsoff on 20/03/2016 - 11:42
    +2

    Eastwood rangers are the worst. Mother was stopped on the side of the street, indicator on, waiting for the car in front of her to exit their parking spot so she could park there. She got snapped for "double parking" while waiting for the spot….

    • Janko on 20/03/2016 - 12:59
      +1

      Not suggesting it was your mother's case, but I've always thought it should be an offence to wait for a car to leave a spot if you're holding up traffic behind.

  • congo on 20/03/2016 - 13:47

    You: Why did you give me a ticket?
    Police officer: Because, I AM THE LAW!
    You: ok.

    Later: You take the officer to court.
    Judge: Why did you give him a ticket?
    Police officer: Because, I AM THE LAW!
    Judge: Looks at officer blankly and says, "No, I AM the LAW, you are just a citizen with UAC of 75 and who never attended law school."
    Judge: Send the officer back to training school and waives your fines as you have a good record.

    • JepunK on 21/03/2016 - 15:57
      +1

      good story bro…

  • Pumpkin_rrr on 20/03/2016 - 14:06

    IMHO, based on the facts written by the OP, he should not pay the fine. He should take them to court as a matter of principle, and for social justice. Hopefully this will minimise what some of my friends call Small-P-Syndrome. Some people can have so much righteousness and derive so much joy in the "Gotcha" moment. There is one thing about being strict, but another thing about being human and practical.

    For my benefit and for future reference, just wonder what difference it will make if the wife got out and check the rules, whilst the OP remain in car?

  • Aust on 20/03/2016 - 15:21
    +2

    Next time get the wife out to check while you turn the car around the right way

  • timetoquit on 20/03/2016 - 15:29

    $109 is dirt cheap, come to SA - get caught in a bike lane and get ready to fork out $300+!

  • Geryatric on 20/03/2016 - 16:13

    Not really you have to park according to the rules. They are there for safety and traffic flow reasons. Just pay the fine, lesson learnt and move on.

  • swilso on 20/03/2016 - 16:14
    -4

    Mate at the end of the day you were in the wrong there is no justification. I'd just man up and pay it. Technically it is your responsibility to take note of road signs. My wife convinced me of the same thing (to man up and just pay it) when I got done by a flash for cash doing 50 in a school zone at 7:10am in the morning. I had no idea some school zones start at 7am, but then the real fault was my ignorance not taking note of the sign. other than that I have always slowed for them. Definitely learnt my lesson and will be more vigilant next time.

    • enzioFirenze on 21/03/2016 - 22:45

      school zones do not start at 7am, if it does, all the notices I've seen on the road are WRONG :P

      • swilso on 22/03/2016 - 17:30

        In Ipswich they do.

  • brilliantthings on 20/03/2016 - 16:31

    Where do they specify front to kerb? I'm in Victoria. Never heard of it.

  • Resonance on 20/03/2016 - 17:02

    I got fined 109 for doing the same thing in Eastwood two months ago. I saw the parking ticket only when I got home, got a bit angry and drove back to Eastwood …. then I saw the sign 'rear to kerb'. I knew I had no case to appeal so I paid the fine straight away. So now Eastwood = rear to kerb in my dictionary.

  • Mahalo on 20/03/2016 - 17:31
    -1

    I stopped reading at "Eastwood". Good luck with Ryde council. Don't waste your time just pay the fine.

  • warwick108 on 20/03/2016 - 18:00
    -1

    As per most things in life I would've taken a photo of your family in the car while she was taking photos. I don't understand why your wife didn't get out of the car and talk to the inspector?

  • Seraphin7 on 21/03/2016 - 08:55

    Given this is a site primarily about saving $$$$ my advice would be to just cop the fine and move on. It will be cheaper than taking time to prepare the matter, time off work to attend court, solicitors' fees, etc. Not saying that makes it right though. These grubby little councils can't wait to ping people for exactly this sort of thing. I've noticed that the value of these fines is pitched at a point that far outweighs the seriousness of the offense (especially in comparison with many other slap on the wrist penalties), but yet is uneconomic to challenge seriously. Never stand between a council and their revenue raising activities!

  • ahly92 on 21/03/2016 - 09:11
    +2

    Just read your post…thanks alot for making my Monday morning misrabel. This ranger is such a fn low life…what a wast of space and oxygen the breathes.. Hope karma gets her real hard.. Go to court. Don't think the council will get rid of her even if u file a compliant…shes their main income source!

  • Kempe on 21/03/2016 - 10:24
    -2

    The vehicle is stationary and the operator is not in the car, I would call that PARKED
    You should have got the wife to check the signage

  • phocus on 21/03/2016 - 12:37

    So does the law not allow for people to park in a spot, then check the signage for appropriate parking conditions? Or does on need to drive slowly/stop on the road, blocking people in order to read the sign, then park?

  • Bnjam3 on 21/03/2016 - 13:43
    +1

    Genuine question: Does parking inspectors have daily target to achieve in giving fines to meet the acceptable required performance? Do they get any kind of reward for achieving a given number of fines based on limited time period(Eg; 1000fines a month)? Not sure if they are just doing there job based on their basic understanding of law or they are just being mean.

    • Ughhh on 21/03/2016 - 18:17

      I think statistically, there's an average number of offenders everyday (more or less depending on area). If there is a target for inspectors, it would be based on that. Similar to workplaces having a target number of reported hazards.

  • MorriJ on 21/03/2016 - 13:58
    +1

    You can fight it in court, but its an effort that comes with extraneous risks.

    I fought a parking fine with my Local Council - they fronted to court with representation - their lawyer fees and court time amounted to over $10k. If I lost the ticket fight, I was up for the greater proportion of their representation.

    After 5 days of hearing (yes a single parking fine); came out the better.

    Council had to pay their lawyers fees of over $10k and court costs ($300 odd).

    But it came with risks. Had I lost, up for the fine, court costs and they can apply for costs for their representation.

    • congo on 21/03/2016 - 16:00

      What state was this in?
      We lose a case once, only had to pay the court fees which was less than $200.

      • MorriJ on 21/03/2016 - 18:24

        NSW - Balmain Local Court. Leichhardt Council the plaintiff.

        Court fees do vary, my court case ended up taking 5 days in short sittings - around 2hrs a sitting, equating to a full days court time (or 2 days - cant quite remember now).

        Council has the option of pursuing costs if they win and often will. Police if prosecuting have the same option, but police prosecutors dont tend to request costs in the course of their business.

  • Lunatic on 21/03/2016 - 15:05
    +1

    Special place in hell for traitors and parking inspectors

  • Hirolol on 21/03/2016 - 15:23
    +1

    councils are a joke.
    this country is becoming a joke. (already there?)
    i just read in the paper the other day that some council "CEO's" (how can a council have a CEO?!?!) are on 6 figure pay packets, 200/300/400k a year meanwhile they want to increase the rates above inflation otherwise they may need to cut services.

    how about we get rid of councils and the residents just vote for what they want? sounds good to me…

    /endrant

    • congo on 21/03/2016 - 16:01

      We need to merge the councils, I don't understand why we have so many councils which does the exact same thing.

  • MMM on 21/03/2016 - 15:53

    Happened to me years ago while waiting for my son outside primary school, didn't realize it was illegal to park the opposite way as when you exit its exiting into oncoming traffic I said to the ranger I will turn around he said you have already committed the offense so don't matter :( paid the fine

    • ykwon10 on 21/03/2016 - 16:03
      +2

      May I know how and where you got your license from?

  • tunzafun001 on 21/03/2016 - 18:51
    +2

    THIS…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gkiw7zpULo

  • ITveteran on 21/03/2016 - 21:44
    -1

    This is another example of this shitty government and parasites. I have had a couple experiences worse and damaging than this. I solute to you if you tackle them in court, but I predict the result is unlikely in your favour. At the end of the day, they just want to screw you and pick your pocket out.

  • Kamsi on 22/03/2016 - 00:16

    Can some one please take care of this type of parking bitches.

  • jebdra on 22/03/2016 - 08:09
    +5

    I've just read the whole thread and this is what I've gathered.

    You parked nose in, stopped and put on the handbrake
    You got out of the car and left the engine running with passengers in it
    You saw the sign about rear to kerb as soon as you got out but ignored it
    You walked 20m away to check another sign
    You came back to the car and found a parking inspector there
    You did not attempt to speak to the inspector
    You got into the car and started reversing
    You say she was 3m behind the car when you started reversing and you reversed 2m. You must have known she was there as you say she was 3m away.
    You knew she was at least 1m away when you stopped reversing because your reversing sensors told you.

    The prosecutors would have a field day.

    Pay the fine and be thankful they're not charging you with dangerous driving as well as parking nose in.

    • swilso on 22/03/2016 - 17:32

      Well said. It wouldn't have been hard to be apologetic for your wrong doing and use your voice to communicate rather than your keyboard.

  • DrDollar on 22/03/2016 - 18:54

    Eastwood train station is VERY notorious for this!

    I very much hope you take this further so the craziness can stop. If anyone has actually been to this train station it is extremely busy and there is a very wide portion of road where people double-park (because it actually makes sense here believe it or not).

    I got done a couple of years ago for stopping to pick someone up stopping momentarily before the pedestrian crossing as they jumped in the car. This is very 'accepted' at this train station simply because there is no other option. Have you seen how many people live in Eastwood? There is no chance for a parking spot nearby.

    I was there maybe 1 minute and the opportunistic patrol also mailed me a ticket. I paid because I did not have the mental energy to take it further but did initially try to dispute it because the patrol person had the completely wrong colored referenced in the letter, testament to the short amount of time I was there - They probable guessed the color of the car as I drove away. This failed although expected ;)

    Opportunistic is correct.

    I am happy to pay a parking fine where I have clearly disobeyed the rules and have done so before without blinking. But anyone who has been to Eastwood train station to pick someone up after work would understand.

    I hope you fight it and win, but I am doubtful. They will see you have a photo clearly breaking the rules and you are trying to 'run away' - My thoughts anyway.

    You are not alone - Many people have been done there.

  • maverickjohn on 22/03/2016 - 18:57

    I got that same fne. Tried to dispute it with the sdro but to no avail. Never took it to court but maybe it would have been worth a shot

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join