Parking Fine but No Photographic Evidence

devpress on 10/05/2018 - 09:14
Last edited 10/05/2018 - 09:32

Hi All

I wrongly received a fine for exceeding the time limit in a 20min parking spot. I say wrongly because after the first 20mins was up, I exited then returned to the carpark — which isn't prohibited based on the signage within the carpark.

I requested the SDRO for photographic evidence - which they are unable to locate / provide.

I then requested the SDRO to drop the fine, explaining that I had left then returned to the carpark, which means I had stayed within the 20mins with each park.

Their response was simply that the fine still stood. They did acknowledge again that they do not have access to the photographs, but that the issuing officer confirms I had exceeded the 20min timed limit.

To dispute this further I'd need it be decided in court.

What would be the best way to proceed? My first reaction was just to pay the fine to make it all go away - as I can't be certain of the outcome if it does go to court (if it goes against me, how much more I'd have to pay), and don't know how much hassle that'll be in terms of time etc. - but it does infuriate me because I know I stayed within the parking rules, and that they are unable to provide photographic evidence to backup their claim.

EDIT: I suppose another question I have is whether there is a general rule around returning to a timed parking zone in a public parking zone - is there an across-the-board rule that says this isn't permitted, or does this depend on the conditions of each individual car park ?

Automotive Fine Parking

Comments

  • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2018 - 09:17
    +36

    Court.

    • hotmumbo on 11/05/2018 - 09:25
      +13

      If it is a council fine, I agree that court is the best avenue. My wife has taken these clowns to court twice and had the fines dismissed. Usually the presiding judges are generally sympathetic due to the fact that they know the councils are revenue hungry and go to great lengths to fine people.

    • ItsMeAgro on 12/05/2018 - 21:26

      Yep. You only pay the fine if you absolutely can't get to court because you boss is useless or whatever.

      You always win, and usually the council guy doesn't even show up.

      • [Deactivated] on 12/05/2018 - 22:35

        I had one from a different state. Same scenario, no proof. They pushed it to court probably because of my registered address.

        Slimy bastards.

  • retiredfeline on 10/05/2018 - 09:19

    Sometimes rules on return visits are not prominent in signage but in the "small print". Was it an open car park or a covered one?

    • devpress on 10/05/2018 - 09:19
      +1

      Open. I did check all the signage again in the carpark and can confirm there is no mention on return visits

      • retiredfeline on 10/05/2018 - 09:23
        +2

        As a counter example rangers will ticket a car that has returned soon (i.e. moved) to another street parking space in the general area in the same council.

        • devpress on 10/05/2018 - 09:28
          +2

          That's probably because the car was previously marked (e.g. white chalk on tyre) — so as far as the ranger is concerned it has overstayed.

          The ranger obviously isn't keeping track of the position of each car (at the time that they mark it) and comparing that against the time they issue the ticket

        • retiredfeline on 10/05/2018 - 09:30
          +4

          @devpress: In this case the ranger explicitly said they were enforcing the 2P and a move wasn't sufficient to bypass that.

        • devpress on 10/05/2018 - 09:37

          @greenpossum:

          I understand that, as far as the ranger was concerned, the park had exceeded the time limit.

          It is beyond their consideration whether the car has exited previously, thus technically resetting the timer on allowed parking duration for that vehicle

        • dazweeja on 10/05/2018 - 10:41
          +12

          @devpress:

          Leaving a park and re-entering usually does not reset the time limit. It depends on the State but the time limit usually applies to a parking area or sector.

          https://www.smh.com.au/news/national/move-the-car-still-get-…

          Melbourne City Council says something similar down here, "Moving your vehicle forwards or backwards within the same parking area does not satisfy this requirement under the Road Rules."

        • Quantumcat on 10/05/2018 - 19:52
          +7

          @dazweeja: but that doesn't cover exiting and re-entering, just movement inside the carpark

        • retiredfeline on 10/05/2018 - 21:27

          @Quantumcat: I think the problem is that there's no proof OP exited and re-entered so it's the ranger's word against OP's.

        • MrBear on 11/05/2018 - 09:06
          +5

          @devpress: I'd send them a cleaning bill for having to clean the chalk off your tyre and re-black it. Amazingly, this is the same cost as the fine.

        • R-Man on 11/05/2018 - 10:34

          @greenpossum:
          Word against word situation assumes one or both parties were eye witnesses for the entire time and there is no photographic evidence.

          Ranger's word does not have any weight unless the ranger was an eye witness for the entire 21 minutes or so.

          If driver is lying about moving their car and returning, the ranger must prove this.

        • Kangal on 11/05/2018 - 12:16

          @R-Man:
          What if you exit, say a 2P zone, and drive to the next suburb and park there.

          However, because you didn't see/wipe the chalk, the ranger fines you for overstaying after leaving the car for 10 mins.

          Its still his word against yours, right?

        • [Deactivated] on 11/05/2018 - 12:27

          @Kangal: I'm pretty sure they mark your tire and the road so that if the two line up they know it's 99% likely to be the same car.

        • [Deactivated] on 11/05/2018 - 14:55
          -2

          @Quantumcat:
          it is the same thing
          You are consuming something
          You drink 1 litre coke from the two litre bottle put it in the fridge
          take it back out an hour later and consume the rest

          How much Coke did you drink today?

          two litres

          If you exit and reenter the car park you are still consuming the space someone else could otherwise have used.

        • D C on 11/05/2018 - 19:30
          +2

          @Quantumcat:

          just movement inside the carpark

          Comes down to the definition of "parking area", that's not just your spot. it's the entire car park (or surrounding streets if outside).

          the ranger's word against OP's.

          Yep, he said she said. OP needs to convince 'the man' that he left the car park for a substantial amount of time between the times the ranger checked.

        • retiredfeline on 11/05/2018 - 19:43

          @R-Man: Which is why usually they cover themselves with a one parking period per day stipulation, or boom gates. This council may have left a loophole, or it's in the fine print. Can OP use this arguement and is it worth it?

        • secondstory on 12/05/2018 - 12:09
          +2

          @carlb:

          Not my neg - but that's like saying, since I parked in a 1 hr parking lot/zone to get breakfast I cant come back to this area for lunch or dinner because I've already used up my time for the day.

          To put your example in a similar context, say there was a rule on the fridge saying "Free Coke! But don't drink more than one litre at a time". Essentially, it's still okay to drink 2L as long as it wasn't all of it at once. What it does is it gives someone else at least a chance to have some coke instead of you standing there unrelentingly sipping from the bottle while people wait behind you. If you left it, came back, it was still there, and there were no other rules.. then it's fair game.

          If the rule here was "per day" you'd be right. But from what the other comments say this does not appear to be the case.

        • dufflover on 12/05/2018 - 12:19

          @dazweeja: I remember reading a rule somewhere on some council or state's website that actually defined what the same "parking area" was so clearly show just changing did not reset the time. It was like each signed area, or block, or something like that. This was a while ago now so the websites and stuff have no doubt been revamped heaps over time.

          But (for Melb anyway) that same website link you gave has this.

          "If your parking time has run out or is about to run out, you need to move your car to a new bay."

          Which implies that moving your car to a new bay is ok.

        • poohduck on 12/05/2018 - 15:31

          @devpress: I would have thought, being relatively logical, that they would have a system of chalk marking. I know I would, otherwise it could be the next day and all these cars are there with chalk marks.

        • Musing Outloud on 12/05/2018 - 18:37

          @secondstory: Haha a bush lawyer on Coke!

        • arcticmonkey on 12/05/2018 - 20:16

          @devpress:

          If you move your car and return it to the same street (or section), you may still be charged.

          Moving your car to the next car bay, for example, may not always give you a new time limit. I believe this is to keep the spaces available for more people.

        • hotdog679 on 12/05/2018 - 22:27

          @voolish: Lol I've never seen that. I can't imagine rangers going to all that effort to bend down far enough to mark the road, for several hundred cars.

        • tunzafun001 on 13/05/2018 - 09:12
          +1

          I figured chalk was from the 90s. Surely They take photos of licence plates that uploads with time/ GPS data?

        • ely on 13/05/2018 - 23:43

          @dazweeja: Can confirm, have been done for this by the Melbourne City Council. Bastards.

        • [Deactivated] on 17/05/2018 - 07:34
          +1

          @secondstory: well in a 3 hour limit zone you sure as hell cannot have lunch and breakfast.
          8am to 11am
          Then return at 12 for 3 hours forget it that deserves a overstaying fine.

          A 1 hour zone you would need to leave the area for minimum 2 hours
          3 hour zone 6 hours.

          As for my parking fines, the photos came from a dash cam on a car driving along the road and the second photo exactly 45 minutes going the opposite direction on the road.
          Some sort of clever optical licence recognition and time matching

          Note was in two different 30 minute spaces during the time

      • [Deactivated] on 12/05/2018 - 11:33
        -1

        Send them a Stat Dec. They can't refuse a Stat Dec.

        • coin saver on 12/05/2018 - 16:18
          +1

          Care to share a link from a government department to back this.

  • Baysew on 10/05/2018 - 09:41
    +3

    Bayside Council to pay $1500 in legal costs over parking fine furore

    Magistrate Ms Rosemary Carlin questioned how long motorists must leave an area before they could be fined for "continuous" parking.

    Note, the person was represented in court, in Victoria, by a barrister and they had a witness to say he had moved his car.

    • devpress on 10/05/2018 - 09:43
      +2

      From the article:

      Magistrate Ms Rosemary Carlin questioned how long motorists must leave an area before they could be fined for "continuous" parking

      I wonder if there was an answer to that…

      • Baysew on 10/05/2018 - 09:49
        +3

        Long enough it seems , in that case.

        Are you willing to spend a couple of thousand in the hope of saving a couple of hundred?

        • devpress on 10/05/2018 - 09:51
          +1

          Obviously no - as per my comment in the OP

        • EightImmortals on 10/05/2018 - 10:30
          +6

          If he wins then he could go after the council for legal expenses as well?
          Have a chat to a solicitor, councils hate it when the plebs stand up for themselves.

        • idonotknowwhy on 11/05/2018 - 00:18
          +7

          @devpress: Start a patron fund for it. I'll chip in a few bucks.

        • Blitzfx on 11/05/2018 - 09:06
          +4

          If I had the money, I'd take them to court to:
          1: Deny them the fine revenue
          2: Take up council time and money defending in court
          3: Hopefully deter them from future shitty practices

        • MrBear on 11/05/2018 - 09:08
          +9

          @Blitzfx: And they just put up your rates. You win!

        • Blitzfx on 11/05/2018 - 10:50
          +3

          @MrBear:
          Dam!

        • [Deactivated] on 11/05/2018 - 11:00
          +2

          @idonotknowwhy:

          Me too. The law needs to be clarified in enough detail not to be ambiguous.

        • Kangal on 11/05/2018 - 12:18

          @Michegianni:

          Maybe the solution is to live outside in a shitty council, so the council expenses they incur only affect the innocent people that live there?

          Or move to Socialist Cuba?

        • pegaxs on 11/05/2018 - 13:00

          @Kangal:

          Where I live, there are parking signs up everywhere, but the council has no compliance officer, so no tickets ever get issued. It's like, why bother having the signs there? :D

        • DarwinBoy on 11/05/2018 - 17:53
          +2

          @pegaxs:
          Because they hope people will follow the recommended guides and that will ensure turnover of parking spaces. There will come a tipping point where if there is enough noncompliance action will be taken.

        • D C on 11/05/2018 - 19:32

          @Blitzfx:

          Dam!

          No money left for that, enjoy your droughts & flooding!

        • arcticmonkey on 12/05/2018 - 20:19

          @Blitzfx:

          Taking up their time just means you will drain their resources and they will need to cut community events, health services, services for the elderly, information sessions (I am going to six free sessions for new parents that would have cost $200 if it was private), maternal help, youth services and so on.

          Given how much you get from council (if you take advantage of what they offer), a fine here or there doesn't offend me.

  • waterbottled on 10/05/2018 - 09:54
    +29

    Go to Court. The Magistrate will give judgement in your favour within 2 minutes as soon as they hear the Council has no photographic proof of the offence.

    • devpress on 10/05/2018 - 09:58
      +3

      I hope you dont mind me asking, but how can you be so sure of this outcome?

      • waterbottled on 10/05/2018 - 10:03
        +21

        I work in a law firm. Also, I've been in a similar situation myself with a parking ticket, and after some legal research, this is what I found. Also, thanks for neg.

        • garetz on 10/05/2018 - 10:15
          +6

          Neg fixed, no proof = no fine.

        • devpress on 10/05/2018 - 10:18
          +2

          Ok I see, thanks.

          Do I need to retain legal representation or do I just represent myself? Do I even need to show up at court?

          Neg wasn't from me..

        • EightImmortals on 10/05/2018 - 10:32
          +5

          @devpress: Courts will have duty solicitors on hand who you can access for free. Might just cost you a bit extra time waiting for them to clear all their other jobs for the day.

        • chumlee on 10/05/2018 - 19:01
          -6

          Lol.

          If everyonewho worked in a law firm was correct there's no need for a court to decide.

          Are you a lawyer or just work there in some other capacity?

        • Harold Halfprice on 12/05/2018 - 17:07
          +1

          @chumlee:

          So if I self diagnose myself with a cold - does that mean there is no need for doctors?

    • MrBear on 11/05/2018 - 09:09

      In the days before "photographic" evidence, you had no recall like this. Is there now a requirement in law for the council to provide this evidence as proof?

      • [Deactivated] on 11/05/2018 - 11:02
        +2

        If anyone accuses you of anything - they must provide proof.

        You do not need to provide proof of innocence, but if you do find proof of innocence it works in your favour.

        • [Deactivated] on 11/05/2018 - 12:30
          +3

          I thought that was just criminal and in civil they just had to show you were most likely guilty.

        • pegaxs on 11/05/2018 - 13:06

          @voolish:

          Yes, I too thought that.

          With something like this, a magistrate only has to have something like "reasonable belief" that an offence was committed. While a photo would certainly help seal the deal, it would not be the only form of evidence that would be accepted.

        • Blunglefortness on 12/05/2018 - 23:56
          +1

          @voolish: But they still need proof to do that.

          I suspect you're confusing two things. Burden of Proof, and Standard of Proof.

          Burden of Proof: Who must show evidence to support the claim. This is almost always the accuser.

          Standard of Proof: Generally for a Criminal trial it is "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" (is it unreasonable, with the evidence provided, to continue to believe the claims are untrue?), and for Civil trials it is "Balance of Probabilities" (is it more than likely that this happened?)

        • gromit on 13/05/2018 - 10:34

          you are confusing civil and criminal law. e.g. just like the tax department doesn't have to provide concrete proof for a tax bill, it is on you to provide proof of innocence. Criminal law is the reverse.

        • [Deactivated] on 13/05/2018 - 12:58

          @gromit: I studied law for 6 months so I think I know what I'm talking about when I say I have no clue, lol.

          If it was simple, it wouldn't be a 4 year degree.

      • chumlee on 13/05/2018 - 13:04

        Not sure about NSW but in most states parking infringements are a strict liability offense so you need to prove your innocent

  • GG57 on 10/05/2018 - 10:33
    +1

    Inform the SDRO that you will not pay and are prepared to go to court (you could re-state the reasons behind this).
    I'm not legally proficient, but I think the onus of proof is on them to prove you did not exit within the time limit, which appears to be missing?

    • devpress on 10/05/2018 - 10:36

      Inform the SDRO that you will not pay and are prepared to go to court (you could re-state the reasons behind this).

      Not sure if that'll accomplish anything? I can contact them all I want, but as far as SDRO are concerned it's now either 1) pay the fine, or 2) go to court.

      I'm not legally proficient, but I think the onus of proof is on them to prove you did not exit within the time limit, which appears to be missing?

      Yes you'd think reasonable person would think that

      • D C on 11/05/2018 - 19:37
        +1

        Yes you'd think reasonable person would think that

        Not really.

        2 hour parking.
        Ranger pings OP at 9am.
        Ranger pings OP at 11:30am
        Ranger issues ticket.

        OP: "Yeh but I forgot my wallet so I drove back to my house at 10am and came back at 11am. I was gone for an hour! It's just a coincidence I was in the same spot (it's my lucky parking spot too!"

        Reasonable person: "Uh huh sure"

        Unfortunately for you parking is guilty until proven innocent.

  • djkelly69 on 10/05/2018 - 10:40

    If you can offer any hard evidence that you actually did exit and come back, I would fight it.

    • devpress on 10/05/2018 - 10:55

      Sadly no - just me in the car

      • ShannonN on 10/05/2018 - 11:05
        +2

        When you say you exited car park then returned. Do you mean you left drove around the block and then parked again or perhaps went and had a coffee etc.

        I ask as IF you went and had lunch coffee etc and paid by card there would be a time stamp on the transaction proving you were absent from the car park for at least 15 mins before returning.

      • dcep on 10/05/2018 - 12:53

        cctv if the management even bother to release footage on your request

        • devpress on 10/05/2018 - 13:49

          No CCTV unfortunately as there weren't any cameras in the facility

        • Kangal on 11/05/2018 - 12:22
          +3

          @devpress:
          If you had a dashcam, at this instance, it would've paid itself off already.

          I recommend you get one as soon as possible, and also tell your friends and family to get it as well.

          Let's stop cops and councils from "highway robbery" and be responsible on the road… wether that's driving or parking.

      • [Deactivated] on 11/05/2018 - 11:08

        If anyone accuses you of anything - they must provide evidence.

        You do not need to provide evidence of innocence, however if you have any it will work in your favour.

        Any evidence they provide must be interpreted as proof by a judge (not all evidence is proof) before you are found guilty.

        In your case they do not have evidence, hence you would win your case.

        • D C on 11/05/2018 - 19:41
          +2

          they must provide evidence.

          They have evidence, ranger logged him parked at two different times.

        • Blunglefortness on 12/05/2018 - 23:59

          Sworn testimony or submitted logs from the infringement officer can count as evidence. But unless he was sitting there watching your car the whole time you were there, I'd say it's probably not 100% compelling.

        • gromit on 13/05/2018 - 10:49

          this is a civil matter not criminal. you are not innocent until proven guilty.

      • idonotknowwhy on 11/05/2018 - 11:11

        You need a dashcam.

      • Kegsta on 11/05/2018 - 13:07
        +6

        Google Timeline?

      • pandawelch on 11/05/2018 - 22:39
        +1

        Do you have google location history or whatever its called on Apple? Mine shows that i'm driving, walking etc.

      • misterpotatomato on 13/05/2018 - 08:03

        If you have Google location history turned on it will show you where you have gone and at what time on your phone. Google "Google location history"

    • apple2016 on 10/05/2018 - 13:18
      +1

      car park entry/exit usually have cameras. I think op can request it if he goes to court.

      • devpress on 10/05/2018 - 13:49

        Unfortunately not in this case - it's just a small, uncovered public car park

    • cktftw on 11/05/2018 - 09:35
      +2

      Another reason a dashcam would pay for itself

  • oscargamer on 10/05/2018 - 11:07
    +4

    The only option is to take it to court.

    As always in these threads, people think you have to prove you didn't do something.

    The onus is on the person/corp issuing the fine to prove you did.

    If you take it to court and give your version of events, it is up to the fine issuer to provide evidence that you did not move your car. Unless the issuer watched your car for the whole time, they would be hard pressed to say 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that you didn't leave and come back a minute later. If you left the bounds of the car park and re-entered, then you have finished the first parking event and started a new one. If they are relying on a chalk mark, then a short drive won't remove that mark.

    Did you park back in the same bay or a different one? (not that it actually matters)

    Was it a ticketed car park? was any money paid at any time? was a ticket issued (be it free or paid for)?

    • devpress on 10/05/2018 - 11:14

      Unless the issuer watched your car for the whole time, they would be hard pressed to say 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that you didn't leave and come back a minute later.

      Even if the issuer stood there and watched the whole time, again there is no photographic evidence — so it's just a case of their word vs. mine

      Was it a ticketed car park? was any money paid at any time? was a ticket issued (be it free or paid for)?

      Not a ticketed spot; parking is free

      • oscargamer on 10/05/2018 - 11:18

        What's with the fascination with photos? I'm fairly sure parking tickets were given out WAY before photos were used.

        YES - you are starting to get it. From what you are saying, it IS their word against yours. BUT and it's a big BUT, the Magistrate needs to be satisfied BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, that their version is true and yours is false. When it's 1 vs 1, that's a very high bar.

        Can you answer the other question I asked about the bay.

        • devpress on 10/05/2018 - 11:52

          Of course tickets were issued before the advent of digital photos - so? I'm not understanding the relevance of your point.

          The simple point about photos is that, in this day and age, digital photos are being utilised by parking rangers as supporting evidence that an infringement occurred. When infringements are contested, presumably they may be relied upon by the issuer to substantiate their claim.

          Starting to get it? I already knew that without other evidence, it is a case of their testimony vs. mine in a legal contest. Not that hard to work out.

          Anyway. Have a good day :o)

        • oscargamer on 10/05/2018 - 12:21
          -1

          @devpress:

          You are missing my point totally. I'm trying to help you by explaining the difference between evidence and proof as well as the hurdles that are required to be jumped for the ticket issuer to be successful in court.

          PM me if you want to get relevant info. Don't if you don't.

        • devpress on 10/05/2018 - 12:33

          @oscargamer:

          Thanks, but I think I already appreciate difference (though I guess I do use evidence/proof interchangeably). One of the benefits of going to law school I suppose.

          Appreciate your offer to help. Do you practice law in this area, or otherwise have some experience in this area? Just wondering where your knowledge of the court system (in relation to this issue) comes from.

        • devpress on 10/05/2018 - 13:48

          @oscargamer:

          I know this is the internet, but is there any reason why you need to be so prickly about things?

          Anyway - thanks but no thanks. I'd rather deal with people with a more amiable manner.

        • devpress on 10/05/2018 - 18:09
          +1

          @oscargamer:

          Betting on the unfortunate circumstance of others? All because they didn't bow to your "take it or leave it" offer?

          Money is important, but I suppose sometimes that's the cost to avoid inconveniences (e.g. going to court) and unpleasant personalities (e.g someone like you)

          Anyway I hope - for the sake of those around you - that this is just the interweb and that you aren't really this unpleasant in real life.

        • Atazoth616 on 11/05/2018 - 14:29
          +4

          @devpress:

          "One of the benefits of going to law school I suppose."

          If you studied law, what prompted you to seek general law advice from a group of strangers?

          It seems like an odd thing to do.

        • BartholemewH on 12/05/2018 - 00:16

          @Atazoth616:
          You have misread the comment. Devpress is referring to the benefit of oscargamer's education.

        • devpress on 12/05/2018 - 10:10
          -1

          @Atazoth616:

          Because it is a very specific instance of law that I'm not well versed in. Law school (at least the one I went to) doesn't specifically cover the ins/outs & nuances of this situation - hence my question to the community

        • lysp on 22/05/2018 - 20:28

          In recent time, I have not seen a single council officer issuing a ticket without taking a photo.

          Some councils I believe have a camera built into their hand-held ticket printer.

          The reason they take photos is to provide evidence to back up their ticket when people try and play funny buggers. So there should be no reason why they didn't take a photo.

    • chumlee on 10/05/2018 - 19:06
      +2

      Some states have legislation that states you must move your vehicle a certain distance from where last parked eg a full block away

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join