Fine from PTV Contested in Court; False Statement from Authorized Officer, How to Deal with That?

Lstampella on 17/08/2018 - 23:31
Last edited 20/08/2018 - 18:31 by 1 other user

Respected OzB council of sages,

I'll give you just the TL;DR version first. Further details added below.

Wife (not Australian native, far from perfect English) was fined for placing her feet on the seat.
She was barely touching, with the tip of a foot, the metal support in between the seats while reading. Request for review rejected, so asked for it to be heard in court.
Received the sworn statement from the AO who declares that she was placing both feet on top of the clothed and padded area of the seat.
We don't know how to deal with that, were not honestly expecting this and are curious to know if it will be just her word against this false statement.

Edit: Added, for completeness, a poorly drawn schematic (OzB forum style) that shows where the tip of the foot was touching the metal support.

Added info:
She was alone on the train. I received a call from the AO to confirm her identity. During the call the AO told me that she placed her feet on the seat and that he was reporting her.
He also said that, in case she should have received a fine, she should have been able to contest it saying that she's not a resident and was just visiting. What kind of excuse would be that and how would it justify an eventual person placing the feet on the seat?

The AO told her that she has been spotted on the CCTV, so that's why they reported her. In our request for review we clearly asked for them to review said CCTV footage to confirm that, indeed, she was not placing her feet on the seat.
Can I ask for the CCTV footage? This happened in early March, so I am afraid it might be too late.

Other than that I see no other proofs we can gather, other than her fully clean record sheet, perfect ticketing history etc. etc. She already provided a stat dec too, confirming that at most she was barely touching the metal support between the seats.

I don't know if we have any recourse against a false declaration from an Authorized Officer, but I'm deeply pissed off. Would love to have the guy found out and prosecuted for the false declaration, but I think it would be already a win if we can manage to avoid her the unjust fine.
Please let me know what's our best chance.

Also note that the specific wording on the fine is: "without reasonable excuse, placed feet on any part of the public transport vehicle other than the floor". So going exactly with this wording, yes, she's guilty. I know it might sound straightforward, but it's fairly different from the expectation of "not placing feet on seat" and the relevant signage and such a wording could possibly opens to LOADS of fines to unaware passengers.

Should somebody ask how can I trust her word if I wasn't there…well, we both deeply despise this behavior and we both are 100% respectful and happy to live in a civilized place, with laws and such to run the show mostly merrily for pretty much everybody. Should I be wrong, then I'm sleeping with Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

Thanks for your help on this.

Travel

Comments

  • [Deactivated] on 18/08/2018 - 00:21
    +51

    Do the crime, pay the fine

    • holdenmg on 18/08/2018 - 05:02
      +49

      Shoes with grime, do some time.

      • kahn on 18/08/2018 - 07:16
        +37

        Drinking wine makes you feel fine.

      • anonymous01 on 19/08/2018 - 11:35
        +6

        if the shoes shine, you still pay fine

      • Cartman2530 on 19/08/2018 - 14:00
        +26

        if the shoe doesn't fit, you must acquit.

        • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 19/08/2018 - 14:46
          +6

          If the shoes smelt like shit then take the hit.

        • anonymous01 on 21/08/2018 - 16:25

          Hire me if you wish to be acquit..
          Cuz I am Louis Litt and I'm Litt

      • [Deactivated] on 19/08/2018 - 15:04
        +4

        If you say the shoes are lit, stop talking like a teenage git

      • noelc on 20/08/2018 - 08:12
        +5

        Cos Bedtime

        Is the right time

        To Fight Crime

        I Can't think of a rhyme

        PJ Masks

      • h4zey on 20/08/2018 - 13:31

        Another time.. another one..

    • Earl of Lemongrab on 20/08/2018 - 22:23

      Talk sh*t, get hit…

      With a fine.

      • TheCutter on 22/08/2018 - 12:45
        +1

        We live in a police state with made up fines to tax us more

        And all these dumbed down rum-corp chow Aussies just take it. They love it - PAY the MAN they cry.

        Screw more police on the beat. Fight the power.

        • payton on 22/08/2018 - 18:09

          do you put your feet on the seat? How often?

  • dcep on 18/08/2018 - 02:03
    +34

    "we both deeply despise this behavior and we both are 100% respectful and happy to live in a civilized place, with laws and such to run the show mostly merrily for pretty much everybody. "

    "She was barely touching, with the tip of a foot, the metal support in between the seats while reading."

    Come on … touching ???
    Stop the BS, Just pay the fine.

    • stampella on 18/08/2018 - 02:44

      To cut the BS I would proceed to acquire, if possible the CCTV recording. This would help us proving what is BS and what is not.
      Let me know if you think that is feasible, from past experiences or whatever. Otherwise I thank you for your opinion.

      • [Deactivated] on 18/08/2018 - 09:23
        +11

        She already admitted guilt, end of story.

        I don't believe for one second that she didn't have her feet on the seat, and that's from your own post!

      • HighAndDry on 20/08/2018 - 17:03
        +1

        At this point, the only difference it'd make is the AO maybe gets a verbal reprimand. Literally it. The rules are pretty black and white, and unfortunately your wife either had her feet on the seat or didn't, kinda like being pregnant, there's really no half-way grey area. And by this:

        She was barely touching, with the tip of a foot, the metal support in between the seats while reading.

        Unfortunately she's going to be fined no matter what. Even the CCTV showing the tip of her foot barely touching the seat would just prove she's guilty. And no court is going to appreciate having to wade through the paper work necessary to get to that point, only for you to go "Yeah I knew her feet was touching the seat but…"

        • adante on 21/08/2018 - 20:11
          +1

          The specifics of this case are admittedly pretty meh, but as a matter of general principle I do find it upsetting that if an officer of the law was found to be lying in a sworn statement in court - any statement - that all they'd get is a verbal reprimand.

        • HighAndDry on 21/08/2018 - 20:17

          @adante: The reality of it is that it takes resources and manpower to prosecute anything, including perjury. And (like the Ford Territory with rust thread) there's a necessary element of subjective knowledge and intent to deceive.

          So not as easy as "AO said X", "X turns out to be incorrect". You also need "AO knew X was incorrect, and said X anyway". Perjury is a crime after all, and so the bar is set higher to convict. That's as it should be, but it does mean minor things like this are generally not prosecuted to the hilt.

        • adante on 21/08/2018 - 22:27
          +1

          Yeah righto - I think I understood the nature of a verbal reprimand. Apparently from googling it is considered to be formal and written, heh. I thought it was just an informal scolding that had no official record.

          I can appreciate the impracticalities of of the situation and wouldn't necessarily think prosecution is appropriate. But (IF indeed it was e.g. proven via CCTV that the wife never put both feet on two cushions) I would want it on the AO's record. Without this, it simply paves the way for abuse for the AO to repeatedly abuse this process.

        • Astro Horse on 17/09/2019 - 03:11

          Dunno how the AO saw cctv footage - you can only view cctv if you are driving the train and someone pushes the emergency button. The driver can only view cctv when the train is stationary otherwise. They only keep footage if there’s a reported incident ….there’s no cctv they don’t have cctv …

      • [Deactivated] on 21/08/2018 - 11:26
        +3

        Thanks for giving the TL;DR version first
        Based on the photo, looks like she has had her feet on the clothed padded area of the seat as the metal bar is slightly below and behind, your argument will get you to nowhere.
        As someone who finds it unpleasant to see people having their feet on the seats, I welcome the decision and hope more people get to this post.
        Thank you for posting this.

    • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 19/08/2018 - 14:31
      +3

      "Should I be wrong, then I'm sleeping with Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde."

      Women never lie, nothing to worry about…

  • dylo on 18/08/2018 - 06:25
    +9

    Were you there OP?

    Pay the fine..

  • franco cozzo on 18/08/2018 - 07:54
    +42

    She was barely touching, with the tip of a foot

    …NO TOUCHING!

    • FiDad on 18/08/2018 - 12:20
      +8

      love this arrested development reference

  • WreckTangle on 18/08/2018 - 08:07
    +12

    "without reasonable excuse, placed feet on any part of the public transport vehicle other than the floor”

    I’m not sure you have a case OP since that’s pretty much what happened.

      • [Deactivated] on 20/08/2018 - 12:19
        +2

        Assistance to compliance?
        Does she really need assistance in being a decent human being?

        There are countless signs on trains telling you not to put your feet on the seats.

      • HighAndDry on 20/08/2018 - 17:05
        +1

        None of that matters. The rule is: Feet on seats = pay fine. Her foot was touching the seat. She pays the fine. I mean, "no feet on seats" isn't exactly hard to understand.

        What makes me really sad/angry is that the AO later reported both feet fully on the clothed and padded area of the seat and I am 100% confident that this is a false statement.

        And again, this doesn't matter. Your version of:

        She was barely touching, with the tip of a foot, the metal support in between the seats while reading.

        STILL makes her guilty.

  • onetwothreefour on 18/08/2018 - 08:13
    +38

    Don't put your feet up on the chairs at all, other people have to sit on them, why should they have to sit somewhere someone has been putting thier dirty shoes on?

      • onetwothreefour on 18/08/2018 - 12:18
        +36

        Don't put your feet up on the chairs at all

      • Dan_ on 19/08/2018 - 13:03

        Since when has Melbourne trains ever had metal supports? Her feet were either on the seat or on the floor.

    • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 19/08/2018 - 14:32

      But she was only "touching" the chair!

      • franco cozzo on 19/08/2018 - 14:43

        …NO TOUCHING!

        • Save 50 Cent on 19/08/2018 - 17:16
          +7

          It was funny yesterday.

        • franco cozzo on 19/08/2018 - 17:35
          +1

          …so no '…NO TOUCHING!' from now on? that makes me sad :(

  • jjjaar on 18/08/2018 - 08:36
    +2

    I’ve seen someone in a cast be fined for putting their leg (with foot and shoe overhanging into the aisle) on a seat. If that wasn’t excused, I doubt yours would be.

    • stampella on 18/08/2018 - 11:29
      -7

      In our case I am mostly hoping to gather extra info related on how to ask them to bring the CCTV recording to court.

      I would have thought that the leg should be fine as long as this does not provide any impediment to passage in the aisle or fruition of the service.
      Train car empty? That's fine. Train car full? Not fine anymore, that seat is needed, as is the unimpeded passage of the aisle. I believe that AO (and the governing rules) are there also to provide a fair assessment in cases like this.

      Personally I would also fine the ones that keeps the seats busy with backpacks and such when the train is chock full for example, but that's an acceptable behavior when the train is empty.

      • Tech5 on 18/08/2018 - 12:05
        +4

        The "fruition of the service"? Get out of here

        • buckster on 19/08/2018 - 12:34
          +7

          @stampella: it may not just be your wife who could benefit from a boost in English ability…

        • stampella on 19/08/2018 - 16:13

          @buckster: I agree with you on this. Working on it as we speak :)

      • HighAndDry on 20/08/2018 - 17:06

        I would have thought that the leg should be fine as long as this does not provide any impediment to passage in the aisle or fruition of the service.

        You'd be wrong.

      • syousef on 20/08/2018 - 21:07
        +2
        1. Your wife's shoe touches a dog turd.
        2. Then the shoe touches the metal part of the seat.
        3. Then someone touches that metal part of the seat.
        4. Then that person touches their food.
        5. Voila. Dog crap on their food.

        There is a reason for no feet on seats. You shouldn't have to wash your hands every time you touch any part of the train.

        • QW3RTY on 21/08/2018 - 10:27
          +15

          6- Person eats their food, contracts gastroenteritis.
          7- Person unable to go to work, must stay home a couple of days to recover.
          8- Person no longer bumps into their future partner and love-of-their-life on the train the next day.
          9- Person blissfully unaware (apart from the rampant vomiting and diarrhoea) of their life being changed forever.
          10- Person gets to their mid-30s, ends up settling with somebody out of convenience, not out of love.
          11- Person gets a mortgage, has a kid, goes through the motions of married life.
          12- Person lays awake at night, staring at the sleeping face of somebody they feel they hardly know, wondering if things could have been different.
          13- Person begins to drink.
          14- Person starts slipping up at work, missing family dinners at home, loses contact with old friends.
          15- Person feels isolated and trapped in their own life — a life they never really wanted.
          16- Person wakes up screaming in the night, finally snapping under the building pressure.
          17- Person becomes a completely different person.
          18- Person's partner wants a divorce.
          19- Person loses their home, their only child, their circle of friends.
          20- Person thought they would feel a guilty sense of relief, finally free from the charade of the adult life they were in.
          21- Person is gravely wrong. Person is alone. Person is sad. Person feels they have nobody to turn to.
          22- Person has completely hit rock bottom.

          Frankly, I think your wife should feel terrible for everything she's done to this poor person. The least she can do is pay the fine.

        • syousef on 21/08/2018 - 12:01

          @QW3RTY:

          Wife make you watch Sliding Doors again? hehe

        • QW3RTY on 21/08/2018 - 12:36
          +1

          @syousef: Never heard of the movie, until I searched it just then. Now I feel like an unoriginal hack.

        • syousef on 21/08/2018 - 17:20

          @QW3RTY:

          That just goes to show how freaking old I am.

    • stampella on 18/08/2018 - 12:50

      Added reply…in a cast?! I missed that bit before. That's almost certainly justified and justifiable!

      • wozz on 20/08/2018 - 12:10

        agreed. One of my friends hurt their fingers, so I told them they could rest both legs on the train seats because they might need a cast in the future (if said fingers turn out to be broken)
        completely justifiable too.

        • wozz on 20/08/2018 - 13:21
          +2

          lol @ negs

          its called sarcasm (in the negger's defense, it was a pretty poor joke/sarcastic comment, so I understand if this invites more negs)
          To clarify: There is no excuse for feet on seats, it's offensive for a multitude of reasons..

    • ely on 22/08/2018 - 06:48

      Wow, that's insane. Just sitting on a seat puts some of your leg (upper thigh) on the seat. Bottom of shoes makes sense, anything else not so much.

  • Shadowsfury on 18/08/2018 - 09:23
    +3

    I get you might want to push for the AO to be telling the truth, and you should. But no sympathy from me at all about feet on seats, no matter where or how they might have been placed.

    • stampella on 18/08/2018 - 12:07
      -7

      Thanks for grasping the true motivations of my request here!

      And, just to put everything in proportion, resting a foot on the lower support of the metal bar alongside the doors (usually deemed acceptable by the majority of passengers and AO alike) could also be fined for $238. As long as the foot doesn't touch the floor, the fine does apply.

      It's not a rant against the rule prohibiting uncivil behavior. I am more concerned about a rule, not clearly communicated beforehand to the vast majority of passengers and loosely worded. For these reasons this rule is routinely infringed daily by hundreds of passengers unknowingly.
      Ignorance is no excuse, but the next time you will travel on a train please consider how many people would be guilty of the same offence if said rule would always be applied as worded. When ignorance is wide-spread there is likely a bigger problem.

      More importantly, I am 100% sure that the AO provided a false (sworn) statement. This is sooooo wrong in my poor brain.

      • HighAndDry on 20/08/2018 - 17:07
        +8

        not clearly communicated beforehand

        No feet on seats is clear to 99.99% of people.

  • TheBilly on 18/08/2018 - 10:32
    +18

    You think thats bad. My phone is connected to my cars bluetooth and when I receieve a call the phone screen still lights up. I usually put the phone in the cup holder in the centre, so down below. I get a call at a traffic light one night and the phone lights up the cabin, I answer using steering wheel controls, 30 seconds into the call, I get a knock on the window by a motorbike cop pointing to pull over. After pulling over he accuses me of handling a mobile phone while driving. As I tried to explain to him its on bluetooth and the phone screen lights up, he just shuts me off saying, Ive got video footage and if you want to contest it you can take to court. When I receieved the fine in the mail, I requested the review of the security footage, they effectively said, either contact the officer directly or take it to court. Moral of the story. Either take it to court and hope and pray with the evidence you currently have is enough to prove the point or just pay the fine and move on. I think these bastards are trained in methods to deflect protest and get the fine to you, because once you have the fine, they know you don't have the time or money to take it to court so you are bound to pay it to make the problem go away. Maybe 1 out of a 1000 individuals will actually take it as far as they can to fight back, but its a solid tactic with a good success rate for the 'public servants'.

    • stampella on 18/08/2018 - 11:44
      -3

      There are many horror storied out there.
      Truth to be told, there are also stories of leniency (some cases just, some cases unjust).

      There are circumstances in which I think that everybody should wear a GoPro (cheaper GB knock-off, as that's OzB) 24/7. But then we get very close to an unpleasant state of constant control and full blown adversarialism. That would be half of a failure of society.

    • payton on 18/08/2018 - 14:05
      +11

      I hope you contested it in court, because if your hand didn't touch the phone, the copper's video cannot change that fact.

    • mauricem on 19/08/2018 - 15:17
      +8

      I recall something in the legislation about the phone must be in a commercial phone holder before you can make or receive calls. Cup holders, on seat or lap not allowed. Maybe state specific, CBF looking it up;)

      Maybe thats what they pinged you for?

      • meetyourmaker on 19/08/2018 - 16:43

        I think that's only applicable if the person is not using it hands-free connected to the car.

        Sucks pretty hard if it just lit up anywhere else on the car as phones normally do, and he/she operated the phone purely through the car controls on the steering wheel and then required to fight it in court.

        • HighAndDry on 20/08/2018 - 17:08
          +4

          No, it includes handsfree use. You can't even use it if it's on the seat next to you - it has to be in a holder designed for mobiles if you want to use it in your car at all while driving.

        • bluey47 on 22/08/2018 - 16:04
          +1

          @HighAndDry:
          "is secured in a commercially designed holder fixed to the vehicle, OR can be operated by the driver without touching any part of the phone."
          https://www.racv.com.au/on-the-road/driving-maintenance/road…

    • dogboy on 20/08/2018 - 10:15

      If you go to court and win, can you then claim costs incurred against the state? Or even better yet, sue the AO for a false statement/fine? I think if this was the case then the AOs may be a little more interested in getting things right the first time.

  • whooah1979 on 18/08/2018 - 10:41

    she's not a resident and was just visiting

    Take a long holiday and they’ll eventually write it off.

    • stampella on 18/08/2018 - 11:31

      Thanks for the advice, but we are not looking to evade the fine.
      We want it to be assessed thoroughly and, more importantly, want to prove (likely through the CCTV recording) that the AO submitted a false sworn statement.

      • whooah1979 on 18/08/2018 - 11:35

        How much is it?

        • stampella on 18/08/2018 - 11:44

          $238

        • whooah1979 on 18/08/2018 - 11:56
          +14

          @stampella:

          Wow.

          I’m all for offences and fines where people are at risk of injuries. This offence is not one of them. Pure revenue. Shame on you vic.

        • Ughhh on 19/08/2018 - 10:50
          +2

          @whooah1979:

          What about people who stick gum everywhere? The gum isn't causing risk injuries.

        • buckster on 19/08/2018 - 12:24
          +1

          @Ughhh: what if you have gum anaphylaxis

        • johnno07 on 21/08/2018 - 12:03
          +1

          @whooah1979: If you are so dumb as to actually break a law as simple as "don't put your feet on the seats" you deserve excessively punitive fines.

  • outlander on 18/08/2018 - 11:54
    +6

    I've had something similar happen. Its just part of living in this country. People in authority lie, and because they are in authority they get believed. Unless you have a equal or higher position of authority, you just have to deal with it. For the time being at least.

    The ticket people are especially bad, because they are technically police, afforded all the same protections, but the requirements are lower and they only undergo a brief training period. They also have KPI's to achieve, so your loss is their gain, making them very motivated to treat people harshly.

    In the case of CCTV, I think your out of luck. As far as I know, the cameras inside trains only activate if someone pushes the emergency button, but it would certainly be good to get clarification on that. If your going to court, as a defendant you have the right to request a copy of the Summary Brief of evidence, which will include anything the prosecution will use to prosecute you.

    • stampella on 18/08/2018 - 12:28

      Wow! While I do understand the technical motivations behind the cameras not being active on a constant basis, I feel like if it would truly defeat the purpose of them! I mean, part of the CCTV recording merit is helping to backtrack what brought to an emergency situation…impossible if they work as stated.

      And I totally think that the reporting/fining process should not be conducted with KPI based metrics as these MIGHT push the impartiality required by the process down a cliff.
      Especially if clear mistakes are not easy to rectify in a review and court process that should be impartial by definition.
      The review was useless here. The court process…we'll likely see.

      Thanks for the advice regarding the Summary Brief. That's really an helpful bit of information! What she received is a Preliminary Brief and in there there is only the sworn statement from the AO. That is basically the word of the AO against the word of my wife (and my recording of my phone conversation with the AO and, eventually my testimony of good character of my wife and all the related proofs of said good character).

      It's unbelievable how much I'm getting pissed off by that false statement…feels like a blow below the belt.

      • [Deactivated] on 20/08/2018 - 12:23

        There is a buffer on the recordings, so it does still save the footage for some time before the button is pushed.

    • Burnz316 on 20/08/2018 - 15:19
      +1

      Just a heads up..

      The cameras on the trains record non stop, pushing the emergency help button doesn't start or stop the recordings.

      The recorders hold approx. 30 days (usually less) worth before over writing themselves.

      This applies to the newer trains in Syndey, and may be different elsewhere and on older trains.

  • picklewizard on 18/08/2018 - 13:50
    +11

    Just wanted to say - I had a bunch of false allegations made against me from a pack of AOs.

    Long story short - I had no ticket. I thought I had a ticket. I produced 5 consecutive weeklies with no gap between showing that I am not a fare evader (back in the days of paper tickets.) They weren't having it. I stood my ground. I'm not a fare evader.

    I refused to give my address. I told them they can call the police. The police came. The police agreed with me, but by law, I still had to hand over my details. I did this, and left.

    I recieved a summons in the mail. They claims I attempted to hit them, they claimed I used some of the most ridiculous language. Said I resisted arrest. Couldn't have been further from the truth.

    I was found guilty of the charges. Lawyer said there was nothing I could do as I had no evidence and that if I contested it, they would all testify and parrot one another. There's no chance I would win.

    Those charges cost me several jobs as they resulted in a criminal record.

    F—K AUTHORISED OFFICERS. They are scum-of-the-earth thugs (not an opinion I held until after these events transpired.)

      • idonotknowwhy on 19/08/2018 - 22:41
        +12

        I'm sorry but what the (profanity)?

        If they lied in court about him hitting them, that's perjury right there.
        If he didn't have a ticket, they could testify as such and picklewizard would lose, but there's no way it's reasonable to make up extra charges like that just because they "shouldn't have to put up with his bullshit".

        I hope you're never summoned for jury duty.

      • walvisch on 20/08/2018 - 18:59

        Harshreality I am truly sorry that your grandfather broke his neck in a concentration camp, but he shouldn't have been drinking whilst on duty in that watchtower. I see you have inherited that blindly following of rule and uniform and saying f- off fairness and justice. Hope karma bites you where it hurts

      • syousef on 20/08/2018 - 20:57
        +1

        With your attitude, when you wake up in a police state one day, don't ask why.

      • stickyfingers on 22/08/2018 - 05:02

        hi vicpol

    • payton on 18/08/2018 - 14:18

      i take it you're wearing a GoPro on your chest now whenever you board public transport?

      • smartazz104 on 19/08/2018 - 23:08

        Or he's triple checking to make sure he has a ticket on him.

    • Save 50 Cent on 19/08/2018 - 17:38
      +12

      Did any of them say you were a fare evader? Or just the fact you did not have a ticket is punishable and thus you have to provide your address? You could’ve and should’ve provided your address and then fought it in court like a civil human being would.

    • Dan_ on 19/08/2018 - 19:44
      +5

      The police agreed with me

      About what? That the weather was nice?

    • Save Medicare on 20/08/2018 - 14:50

      Did you look like you were from an African gang? (ie a bunch of kids enjoying themselves at the local park)

    • syousef on 20/08/2018 - 20:55
      +1

      Assuming you're telling the truth…

      You pissed off a mob of corrupt officers and challenged their authority. That was mistake number 1. You refused a lawful request to provide your details. That was mistake number 2 (whether or not it constitutes resisting arrest).

      Did your lawyer ask for the police report? It should have mentioned such allegations. What about the fact that you'd never behaved that way before? You could have brought in character witnesses. But your lawyer is probably right if they all swore to it that would have been considered enough evidence. I'm not a lawyer and have no experience, so I don't know if he or she dropped the ball. Perhaps it was worth attempting to fight it anyway from what you've said.

    • XCOM v2 on 21/08/2018 - 17:13

      should of given your details before police had to be called.

    • callum9999 on 23/08/2018 - 06:13
      +1

      "I've paid for tickets in the past!" isn't a valid reason for not having a ticket…

  • payton on 18/08/2018 - 14:09

    think you missed the critical window to get evidence by leaving something from March till Agusut
    The CCTV would've been your evidence that the AO provided a false sworn statement.

    • stampella on 18/08/2018 - 14:18

      This is what I am afraid of…but how to confirm that? I have only found a Freedom of Information website that doesn't clearly states the full charges we might have to pay to request access (only an initial charge is clearly specified).

      Months ago a friend told us "Nah, no need to grab CCTV, this is not CSI. Just explain everything in your review request and provide a stat dec"…
      The request to check the CCTV recording I made on the review request was completely ignored (as appears to be the rest of the review request).

      • payton on 18/08/2018 - 14:21
        +4

        try Legal Aid Victoria, maybe
        tell your friend with that advice to chip in on the fine!

        • stampella on 18/08/2018 - 14:33

          Thanks for your reply. Was keeping Legal Aid as last resort, as I felt it like for "serious" stuff, but apparently they also deal with fines.
          Worth asking advice.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join