So to add to the deluge of council accused non compliance heres an interesting one.
And the TLDR of it is council issued a fine, evidence is 3 photos taken after the fact and a statement which can easily be questioned and destroyed, council trying to dodge questions and strongarm me into paying—-
Setting up the day, i'd been at work doing a run (job not important at this point), it was a pretty hot day, pulled into a shopping center and nearby a bus terminal area theres a 15m park.
Only needed to run in for one thing so this was sufficient, after indicating I noticed a council officer chalking cars, and i've had to wait quite a bit to pull into the park due to the officer to move out of the way. i've chucked a dash cover up due to the heat and my work's policy of concealing any valubles or perceived valuables in the car (expensive comms gear mounted in the front of the vehicle, obviously can't cover up the whole car, but it's procedure and the car can really heat up in 5-10 minutes).
I've run in and come out approximately 10-12 minutes later to find a nice little package on my wipers informing me i'd exceeded 15 minutes, which by my estimates would have still placed the officer around, but there were none in sight.
Figured hey they'd jumped the gun, ill go home send them a message requesting their evidence sort this out.
I get a reply over a week later with 3 photos of my vehicle, one of the rear of the vehicle showing the 15m parking sign in clear view, one of the front of my car with the fine on it, and one that is a partial view of my tire.
I send them a request for all the evidence involved in the matter as these 3x photos, are all dated after the offense was alleged to have taken place, none in the 15 minutes prior which I would have gone, hey maybe I must have misjudged the time, paid it and moved on.
But alas, none of the photos pointed to this, instead it gave the idea that they'd jumped the gun.
They straight up play me off, acting as if I have no right to further information and that I may lodge a dispute on the fine.
I reply to them, that at current I have no grounds to make a dispute, I'm simply trying to review the situation at hand to make a decision, I also reply to them that I will also require documentation of what time the other cars there were marked.
Two pretty simple requests. The replies from here forth debate my "rights to know" these things, questioning the relevance, all the while insisting I "just pay the fine as the council is satisfied".
I also have several "This matter is considered finalized, and there will be no further correspondence" to which I kept getting replies despite this.
So the thing i've not disclosed to them at this point is I work in the security industry and on this day in question my route was in relation to this, so therefore I was on duty and count as a professional witness, i've not disclosed this to them and I am not planning to do so anytime soon, I also had a run sheet with signatures in relation to this, which as you can imagine my employer is not keen to handover for the purposes of disproving a fine, and the council would likely claim it's been fudged, so these two things are something i've not planned upon bringing up.
Further correspondence in with the compliance officer and it's pretty clear this person has limited training, i've mentioned to them how at this point an offense has only been alleged, where they are inferring that an offense HAS taken place, as well as inferring that all 3 photos are going to be accepted by a magistrate and be decided in the councils favor and that i'd have to pay court costs.
I question these statements again stating that, i've got every right to ask to see all the evidence in regard to the alleged offence, and that it seems as if the councils expiation department is trying to intimidate me into paying the fine.
I've again reiterated that I wish to review all of the councils evidence, I even make it simple, if the evidence is simply :
the 3x photos
a statement from the officer
Can you please confirm this so I can consult the correct advice.
I also request to get further information on when cars around mine were marked as this will be relevant to my case - again this simple request is deflected and parts of the powers enacted to the council as well as directing me to dispute the ticket are again prattled off to me.
Friday I am now offered to get a phone call from the head of the expiation department, I express how I dislike talking on the phone and I don't think that
A) this is appropriate given the situation as I am recording everything in text form to seek advice (plus looking at all the inconsistencies in their evidence and argument)
B) why are they afraid to state anything to me in writing to a point they want to state it in a voice conversation with no record?
C) (I didnt say this one)I just hate talking on the phone
Come friday afternoon call from an unknown number while i'm at work, I generally don't answer these, they call me 5-6 times so I figure this must be an emergency, nope, I get a guy who gives me the incorrect name numerous times and i'm about to hang up and thinking its a wrong number or a stitch up, then all of a sudden this guy goes, oh wait a second sorry wrong name is this (insert name here), after 2 minutes of me asking him to state the nature of the call before i'm giving any information, he begrudgingly identifies himself as the manager of the expiation department.
He starts off pretending to be friendly telling me that he can't understand my dispute as it has come through blank, I inform him that i've not lodged one, I went to issue a request for further information like i've been requesting in emails, and that the system seemed geared to not be able to handle this.
He laughs, and goes oh it's this one, your the guy asking lots of questions, I inquire with him as to why this is an issue, a 10 minute back and forth now goes on with this guy trying to refuse to hand over any information, and trying to effectively batter me down into either paying the fine or taking it to court, where he likes to keep adding that "and we will win", at the end of this run, he finally decides to go hardball and says in a really sarcastic tone, "maybe you'd like me to organize for you to speak to our solicitor". (I found that quite hilarious). It's become pretty evident due to this guys tone and frequent talking over me and treating me like a kid, that he's extremely sure of himself and proclaims himself several times before this to be a compliance specialist.
So after he tries to drop the solicitor remark, I figure hey what the hell, and I state to him what the purpose of this would be?
He starts to prattle off again about how most people don't know the laws so have to have it explained to them by a lawyer.
So I identify myself, I hold a certificate 4 in compliance, and part of my role at my company is as a compliance officer, he instantly sees this as a hostile move and instead of trying the lawyer line again, starts bragging of how he has worked in the department for 20 years, how up until recently all that was required of the officers was "their word". I've stated to him how these days that could easily be destroyed in court, i've deliberately not given up the flaws in the photos in case I have to take this to court. I interject that right now the situation presents as this, there are 3 photos after the fact which do not prove an offense has been committed, and a statement from a professional witness.
As I was on duty at the time, any statement I give would also be treated as a professional witness statement, with anger he concedes that while this is true, "my officer will be believed over you as they have enacted powers of government" and decides to go off in that direction, before stopping himself and going, hey… you would have had a run sheet wouldnt you, I guess you wouldn't mind sending me a copy of your run sheet, as if he believed I didn't have one. I reply to him that if there was a run sheet for the day in question, there is no one in hell any security employer would allow one to be copied and sent to an unauthorized party.
He tries to dig into this, and I point out to him, look you've tried to tell me I have no idea what i'm talking about, but even you can admit right now that we can both agree in any industry what you've just asked me to do is a violation of the privacy act 1988.
As soon as deploying that he's backed down on demanding a run sheet to prove my legitimacy of being on duty, and then decided to go back to the solicitor angle, again trying to state that they have completely satisfied that their photos and their statement are enough.
I pause and I question him on this, and ask him so if you are confident that one statement and three photos are sufficient evidence, can I get confirmation that this is ALL of the evidence for you alleging the offense.
I get a subdued "well yeah".
Pretty pissed off that i've finally gotten an answer I pull the guy up on this we're now 15 minutes into the call, and I remark that this is literally the question i've been trying to get answered right from the start, this and the markers, why was it so hard and why are you refusing so hard.
He pulls back and states how this is NOT discovery, and they had no legal requirement to provide the evidence (pretty sure this is illegal, i've numerous times in documents referred to myself engaging in discovery where i've issued them written requests for evidence to review their case to choose whether to pay or dispute it, and instead been met with hostility).
He's refuted this, and i've asked him… at what point have you answered my questions, or your staff at any point that answered the first two questions, i've now got one answer what about the second question.
He asks me what that question was, I reply "about the markers, what times were the other markers placed on the cars"
He seems dumbfounded, he asks for what relevance that is.
I tell him exactly what happened, when I pulled up a female officer was marking cars, I had to wait for her to move for me to park. He then tries to go, and you put a sunshield up meaning you were to remain there for an extended period of time, way more than 15 minutes".
I reply to him that this is an assumption, I explain to him that it's company policy and why so, he laughs and starts to claim that i am "reaching" and that he's "heard it all before", I reply to him that while putting it up which took me a whole 30 seconds that officer had finished up on the next two cars and moved on. Meaning at my point of exit from the vehicle there was no officer around the vehicles.
Yet in my small time frame going in and out, i'd some how had the officer come back, mark my car, wait 15 minutes then ping me.
He laughs at me and goes "Thats exactly what happened". I've then gone, again thats an allegation, i've asked for all your evidence, you have 3 photos after the fact and a statement, I've got a statement that contradicts it, it's going to come down to photos that can't seem to prove anything.
Further more if other cars were fined there, you'd have all the time stamps when the tickets were issued, so i'd like a register of all of those, as its a bit suss if my car got done at the SAME time as other cars there as mine had pulled in after other cars there, and brings reasonable questions as to when my car was tagged in relation to the other cars.
He completely dodges this question and states to me "In my 20 years doing this we've never lost a court case" then keeps telling me how he has more stuff to do right now and will call me back later, i'm pretty annoyed at this phone call and dealing with the guy (if I talked to the police or clients how this guy was talking to me we'd lose contracts or get into fights).
I've then asked him how the evidence situation has changed in the last 3 months, he seems puzzled and I reply to him that several of my staff on many occasions while on duty have sent his expiation department alerts and photos of matters where sapol informed them they were not the best party to handle it, I single out a case at a local shopping center where a car was clearly illegally parked. They were notified, and photos were sent in which clearly showed the car breaking the law. All of a sudden he went from claiming photos were sufficient evidence for them to issue fines to a "well i'm sure that didn't happen" I offer to send him copies of the correspondence where his department had cited that mere photos were "Insufficient evidence as photos are insufficient evidence" he's then gone "oh that won't be necessary our officers never take the word of the general public" to which I reply, yet this offense was witnessed by on duty security officers (professional witnesses) and a member of sapol, who in fact was the one who directed them that the offense was a council matter".
He's then started to trail off telling me how "fake cops think they know everything" (thanks for the uncalled for insult mate) and then told me (not asked) he will call me back to discuss the matter further.
I've told him not to call me back, please email any further correspondence, and to please email me the statement of evidence you've just given me so I can refer it to advice. He replies to me "whats wrong with a phone call? I PREFER to talk to people and let them know how things are " (came across as "I Like to intimidate and harass people"), I again refer him to email me due to being busy and wanting a record of correspondence.
Since then i've been thinking this over for course of action - I get they are trying to intimidate me into paying the fine, which is making the part of me going hey this is a ton of effort dealing with a poor situation just get it over with.
Other part of me is feeling hustled and like they've tried to play the intimidation game on me.
Has anyone had an experience similar to this or taken this to court?
Given what they've presented and given my experience with court matters and presenting evidence to police and in court (including statements)… it's smacking incredibly of insufficient evidence.
I've had a case where we've busted a dealer on site in a complete, there is footage of him dealing, he was caught with substance on him, witnessed by three different officers trying to discard it, and he resisted arrest and assaulted a cop and the entire case fell apart because his lawyer argued that in the dealing footage, you couldnt see what he was handing out to people clearly therefore lack of evidence.
Now thats criminal law, so burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt.
I'm guessing council offenses fall into civil law which is proof to reasonable doubt.
Given the time frame, refusal to provide all evidence and relying on a statement and 3 photos which don't prove the offense, and the photo alleging the marker could be any tire on any car and again was taken after the fact (seriously a time stamped photo when it was put on, and taking a photo that showed the tire actually belonged to my car) would have altered my thought on this.
Anyone have any thoughts on it and moving forward?
I have a thought: you need a Tl; dr because that is waaaay too long to read