Parking Fine Appeal Denied - Worth Taking to Court?

ExtraGuac on 25/06/2024 - 17:39
Last edited 25/06/2024 - 19:02 by 1 other user

Hi all, looking for insight on a dispute I’m having with one of the Melbourne local councils. I parked my car in a 2 hour zone on the side of a street near work. After 2 hours I returned to my car and noticed there was a chalk mark on one of my tyres made by one of the parking inspectors to note what time I was parked there at. I drove my car a short distance away and parked in a car park within a 3 hour parking zone. I didn’t check to see if the chalk mark had worn off the tire because it was raining and I was in a rush to get inside. When I returned to my car after 3 hours, I noticed I had been issued a fine approx. 2 hrs after I had parked my car, even though it’s a 3 hour zone. I realised the mark from when I had parked in the 2 hour zone hadn’t worn off the tire when I moved my car, and so the inspector erroneously thought my car had been marked within the 3 hour zone and I had overstayed.

I appealed the fine pointing out there were patches of the mark that had worn away in their picture of my car, plus there was dirt/debris visible over the mark indicating it had been driven on. I didn’t have any other proof of the time I entered the car park, however. Unfortunately the council has denied my appeal, they acknowledge the dirt over the mark indicated the car had moved but that because it was raining that day if I had moved my car a sufficient distance the chalk should have come off completely? I think they think I moved my car within the 3 hour car park and not between the two different parking zones.

My only options now are to pay the fine or appeal in court. It’s not a lot of money but I am willing to go to court over it on principle, because I am 100% certain I am in the right. Just wondering what people think my chances are of winning? I feel like the onus should be on the council to prove I didn’t get the mark from a different area, and they should change their system if it’s possible to lead to errors like this (take photos of cars after marking and when rechecking, or use different colour chalk in different areas perhaps?). I don’t mind taking a day off work to attend court if needed but what’s the worst outcome if lose? I’ll just have to pay the fine or could there be additional fines/penalties?

Automotive Parking Fine

Comments

  • spackbace on 25/06/2024 - 17:40
    +27

    but I am willing to go to court over it on principle

    Someone get Dennis Denuto!

    • ExtraGuac on 25/06/2024 - 17:47
      +16

      It’s the vibe of it, you know?

      • Gunnar on 25/06/2024 - 23:53
        +2

        Glass of water?

      • anonymous01 on 26/06/2024 - 22:14
        +12

        If you are in the correct, go ahead and take them to court.

        99% they will back off if they are in the wrong. I've had issues with Council fines before.

        Self experience: Parked in a paid public parking spot, and walked to the meter to pay for the parking. They had a sign saying to use the #wellknown app. I downloaded the app, register/paid etc., and go back to the car around 3-4 minutes later.

        Lo and behold, there is a fine on the windshield.

        I contact the council and explain the situation and send the parking receipt and told them I am willing to send them the dash-cam video with timestamps. There was literally 1 minute difference between my parking and receiving the fine. They backed off and still tried to blame me and told me that I should be more responsible to make sure the parking was paid before I parked.. it literally made no sense. How can I pay before I park, if the meter is so far away from the parking? I have no choice but to pay AFTER I park, especially if there are other cars behind me when I am entering the parking area.

        That was the day my dash-cam paid for itself.

    • Jimothy Wongingtons on 25/06/2024 - 17:47
      +5

      Its uh… the vibe of the thing, your Honour

    • DashCam AKA Rolts on 25/06/2024 - 20:05
      +6

      Sorry, he's busy still trying to fix that printer.

      • MrFrugalSpend on 27/06/2024 - 13:23

        Why doesn't he get his girl to do that for him?

      • R-Man on 26/06/2024 - 23:08

        Does the council have evidence of its claims though?

        • Chandler on 27/06/2024 - 12:44

          Does the council have evidence of its claims though?

          Yes?

          the mark that had worn away in their picture of my car […] because it was raining that day if I had moved my car a sufficient distance the chalk should have come off completely

          That, and eyewitness testimony of the parking inspector/s.

      • Chandler on 27/06/2024 - 12:41
        +1

        Who's wasting the time of the court? OP or the council?

        I'm with OP on this - assuming OP's story checks out, council has erroneously issued a fine due to their dated procedure for checking compliance with parking restrictions. OP did not exceed the restriction in the first park and moved to a different parking area. They have done the right thing.

        So your saying council should be able to fine anyone, without needing to ensure the fine is valid?

        OP should get together a group of people armed with chalk and mark everyone tires…

      • smartazz104 on 27/06/2024 - 08:46
        +1

        Man stop yelling.

      • Succulent on 28/06/2024 - 16:44

        Why is this negged? @HeWhoKnows was just stating a fact. Was it negged because capital letters being used? It is similar to jv using bold. I guess thats why jv was negged a lot too..

        • spackbace on 01/07/2024 - 17:50
          +2

          That member has a long history of replying to top comments just to try to get their point across, rather than simply making a comment further down the page.

          Hence that's the reason for my neg on their comment, and I will continue to do so when they reply to my comments without any actual response to my comment

  • tsunamisurfer on 25/06/2024 - 17:42
    +14

    If your principles are worth more than a day of your time then go for it.

    I hope you win, how will you prove that you moved your car to another zone thereby officially resetting the 3hr timer?

    • ExtraGuac on 25/06/2024 - 17:46

      More than a day? Will I have to attend court on more than one day?

      Not sure what you mean about resetting the 3 hr timer? Prove I moved my car after the 3 hrs when I had already been fined? The dispute is surely just whether I had overstayed in the 3 hr zone at the time the fine was issued?

        • ExtraGuac on 25/06/2024 - 21:56
          +4

          No, I did leave the car park after the 3 hours I just don’t understand why I’d need to prove that in this case, because it’s not relevant to the question of whether I had overstayed at the time the fine was issued?

          I’ve had parking fines before and always admitted fault and paid them straight away, this one grates me because I hadn’t overstayed. I’ll concede it may not be worth the risk of getting a bigger fine if I take it court, that’s why I created this post.

          • gromit on 26/06/2024 - 07:53
            -1

            @ExtraGuac: Because sadly the onus of proof is on you or at least to convince the court you are telling the truth, this is be a huge task, especially if as you say you have had multiple overstay parking fines before. There proof is the word of the parking inspector and anything else they may have recorded in doing there duty.

            • LinkMonkey on 26/06/2024 - 16:04
              +6

              @gromit: Actually you are mistaken. The burdon of proof is on the inspector/council, that's why they issue tickets, take photos, etc.
              What you're thinking of is whether or not OP can show that evidence is insufficient.

              • gromit on 26/06/2024 - 18:05
                +2

                @LinkMonkey: And the inspectors word/notes is considered proof, HENCE anything that says it didn't happen that way is on you to show. They don't have to prove he didn't move from a spot far enough away, he will need to provide that proof.

              • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 28/06/2024 - 21:54
                +1

                @LinkMonkey: Actually you are mistaken. Strict liability offence. Just like most traffic matters.

    • holdenmg on 25/06/2024 - 18:05
      +33

      If you have a Android Phone, look @
      https://timeline.google.com/ and you may be able to isolate your Phones Movements on the day in question.
      Bonus points if it shows the time you parked, left and reparked elsewhere…

      • whyisave on 26/06/2024 - 17:07
        -1

        Wow…Google Timeline.
        This feels amazing & "intrusive" at the same time,
        but funnily enough, my GPS is usually off, so I don't see any pins on the map.

    • Assburg on 26/06/2024 - 12:47
      +3

      Onus is on them to prove he didn't move his car… chalk kind of indicates that.

      He might have google maps profile running to keep track of his movements too.. I generally keep it on for similar reasons.

    • t_c on 26/06/2024 - 21:06

      It's been proven when you make it difficult for people, they loose their bs principles.

    • ddilrat on 27/06/2024 - 01:27
      +1

      Don't they have to prove he didn't?

  • Ocker on 25/06/2024 - 17:48
    -6

    The council would argue that for your argument to have an credibility, you would have needed to park your car in the 3 hour zone with the tyre rotating exactly to the same position it was in the two hour zone. Very unlikely.

    • ExtraGuac on 25/06/2024 - 17:53
      +7

      It’s not that unlikely because it happened? Only the same ~1/3 of the tire had to be visible for the mark to be visible, it’s not like they mark the tires at the exact same height/position because different tires are different sizes etc?

      • Ocker on 25/06/2024 - 18:17
        -1

        Good luck if you take to court! I don't know, but I would reckon the parking officers place their chalk mark at a specific location according to the time the tyre is marked?
        Take it to court and lose and you would likely need to pay not just the fine, but also the council's legal costs

  • emblurr on 25/06/2024 - 17:59
    +4

    Maybe your google history timeline shows you moved your car.

    • holdenmg on 25/06/2024 - 18:05

      Yes, see my post (above) for the how to.

      • ExtraGuac on 25/06/2024 - 18:08

        Tried this already :( I have an iPhone and location tracking was off for Google maps (have turned it on since but too late to help me for this case)

  • sumyungguy on 25/06/2024 - 18:04
    +1

    How much money are we talking?

    • ExtraGuac on 25/06/2024 - 18:08

      $96

      • sumyungguy on 25/06/2024 - 18:10
        +6

        Just a fine, no demerits, no impact on your traffic history, no consequence for future insurance eligibility. Court cost $90.60 for a single offence. You're gonna save $5.40… if you win.

        • ExtraGuac on 25/06/2024 - 18:18
          +2

          Wait I have to pay to attend court even if I win? Surely if I win I pay nothing?

          • sumyungguy on 25/06/2024 - 18:20
            +4

            @ExtraGuac: Nope, because the court will have incurred admin costs. https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/parking-and-transport/parki…

            • ExtraGuac on 25/06/2024 - 18:45
              +3

              @sumyungguy: Sorry maybe my post wasn’t clear, the council isn’t City of Melbourne, one of the other LGAs. There wasn’t anything about an admin fee on the other LGA’s website if one chooses to take it to court. Pretty sure on the City of Melbourne website where it says the fee applies ‘provided the court finds the matter proven’ that that means the council will charge the admin fee if you go to court and the fine is upheld?

              • sumyungguy on 25/06/2024 - 19:42
                +4

                @ExtraGuac: Which LGA are you in? It may indeed be that there is no fee payable if you win. Please accept my apologies for making that erroneous suggestion.

                • factor on 26/06/2024 - 19:42

                  @sumyungguy: The council will "seek to recover" their costs — only the victorious party gets to seek their costs. Nothing to pay if the council fails to prove the offence. It doesn't matter which LGA, nothing to pay if you win in court.

          • El cheepo on 25/06/2024 - 18:33
            +6

            @ExtraGuac:

            Wait I have to pay to attend court even if I win? Surely if I win I pay nothing?

            It’s not a lot of money but I am willing to go to court over it on principle

            Win win for you taking it to court then.
            Save $5.40 and fight the man on principle!

            I look forward to the inevitable next post if you take this to court.

        • smartazz104 on 27/06/2024 - 08:47
          +2

          You're gonna save $5.40… if you win.

          This is OzBargain, people would sell their integrity if they could save $2.

        • syousef on 27/06/2024 - 09:24
          +1

          You're gonna save $5.40… if you win.

          Given OP's parking history he'll probably get another fine while at court. So subtract another $96.

  • dontboopthesnoot on 25/06/2024 - 18:05
    +22

    If the car don't fit you must acquit

    • GordonD on 28/06/2024 - 18:04

      If the car don't fit you must acquit

      That's how I got off the only parking ticket I've received in my life.

      The ticket said black Holden reg whatever.

      I said sure my car is that reg, but its a black Renault. Show me a photo.

      They said, er, we don't seem to have one, so forget it.

  • MS Paint on 25/06/2024 - 18:09
    +8

    Just show the magistrate your time stamped dashcam footage of you moving the car and you will win no problems.

    • ExtraGuac on 25/06/2024 - 18:17
      +4

      If I win the court case I will use the $96 I saved on the fine to purchase a dash cam :)

      • sumyungguy on 25/06/2024 - 18:21

        Or at least you'll get $5.40 to put towards a dash cam

        • kaleidoscope on 27/06/2024 - 00:45

          Price of petrol these days i bet it’d be negative to drive in + pay for more timed parking

    • thrillhouse on 26/06/2024 - 08:36
      +3

      I was going to say this. I know it's hindsight now, but a dash cam with timestamps on the video would have resolved this dispute immediately.

      Not attacking the OP at all, but I can't understand why everyone doesn't have a dash cam (honestly, manufacturers should be putting them into all new vehicles). They are incredibly cheap insurance, that cost an absolute pittance when compared to the value of our cars, insurance excess, etc.

  • Hvrd on 25/06/2024 - 18:18
    +7

    Take it to court and the council will fold faster than superman on laundry day

    • gromit on 26/06/2024 - 08:40
      +1

      That generally only happens for a council that is already overburdened with work/cases etc. many will fight you regardless of time and effort well and truly outweighing the financial gain.

      • Chandler on 27/06/2024 - 12:48

        Well council's lawyer does need the work…

      • Jackson on 27/06/2024 - 23:49
        -1

        Nope, if you are in the right, and it's obvious, and you aren't a repeat offender and not a drongo or a junkie, you will get off faster than you can blink.

        I hve got off the hook every time I have gone to court, the most recent 3 months ago. The court was not busy, the judge was done by 11am or so. I had prepared a short statement, but I almost said nothing. The judge read the appeal I had sent to the debt office and just said he remembered that day (regarding poor weather) and it was completely obvious from the statement that I should not be fined or lose any points

  • Elppa8 on 25/06/2024 - 18:57
    +4

    From Vic Roads: "When moving your car to another parking spot, you must move it out of the area or length of road controlled by the parking sign."
    You may have a case, proving it could be difficult though.

    • bobbified on 25/06/2024 - 20:23
      +24

      I could be wrong, but I think it'd be reasonable to expect that a two hour parking zone and a three hour parking zone are different 'areas'.

  • [Deactivated] on 25/06/2024 - 19:41
    -1

    Go for it, I'd be pretty surprised if the council actually took it to court. The magistrate can also order the council to pay the court costs but I do believe you need to submit that claim before the day or something (look into it)

    You will 100% win though (again I would highly doubt the council would legitimately show up to court, they'd spend 3x the fine just on the time lost)

    • Downvoter on 25/06/2024 - 21:05
      +4

      Council defend everything in court to stop precedents.

      • ExtraGuac on 25/06/2024 - 21:40
        +2

        Yeah I suspect they deny all appeals to avoid setting a precedent too, seems like they didn’t even look at the evidence I submitted to them.

      • FutureTech on 26/06/2024 - 12:52

        but defending cases in court is exactly how precedents are set?

        • nwa on 26/06/2024 - 13:03
          +2

          Yes they will drop the case before it reaches trial, to avoid loosing and setting a precedent.

  • djkelly69 on 25/06/2024 - 20:19
    +7

    Honestly if they have acknowledged that you moved the car but claim it was not far enough, go to court. A chalk mark on a wheel is hardly indisputable proof, and neither is 'it should have rubbed off completely'.

    • ExtraGuac on 25/06/2024 - 21:24
      +3

      I’ve re-read their response and I actually misread it the first time. They said that ‘any movement of a vehicle causes its tyres to pick up dirt from the road, if the vehicle is moved a sufficient distance after its tyre has been marked with chalk the mark is significantly altered’. They then claim the mark in question on my car was ‘clear and intact’, whereas I had actually submitted a marked up copy of the photo highlighting areas where the mark clearly was not intact/was covered in dirt. It’s as if they didn’t read what I submitted to the appeal at all?

      Surely if I go to court now with their statement that if I had moved my car the mark wouldn’t be intact, showing (again) that the mark wasn’t intact that should be pretty clear cut?

      • LinkMonkey on 26/06/2024 - 16:10
        +7

        Not legal advice, but, you should definitely take this to court.

      • R-Man on 26/06/2024 - 23:13
        +1

        It's bizarre that dirt on chalk is what it's boiling down to?? If Melbourne suddenly became too clean, and no dirt was available to mess up tyre chalk, would more people cop unfair fines like this …

        • Chandler on 27/06/2024 - 12:51
          +1

          Could actually be the case for OP. With it raining, would decrease the volume of dirt on the road. Also if the road/s were resurfaced recently.

  • Gdsamp on 25/06/2024 - 20:42
    +2

    LWYRUP

  • bazingaa on 25/06/2024 - 21:27
    -1

    wait! do they mark tyres with calk ? I have never noticed

    • ExtraGuac on 25/06/2024 - 21:37
      +1

      They do around my house and workplace, which under two different councils, so I assumed it was a widespread practice in Melbourne?

      • areustillpretty on 25/06/2024 - 22:27
        +1

        I think at least City of Melbourne moved to digital.

    • 2esc on 26/06/2024 - 19:39

      Its been done that way for decades lots actually have the chalk mounted on a hand held rod/stick. I thought some councils were moving away from chalk though.

    • DarwinBoy on 28/06/2024 - 01:04

      It's old school. Some councils have moved to ground sensors but that obviously costs more.

    • ExtraGuac on 25/06/2024 - 22:35
      +16

      I didn’t move my car ‘down the street’, I drove about 1-2 mins away into a free car park within an entirely different parking zone (2P -> 3P). Why did you comment on a post you didn’t read?

      • Poor Ass on 26/06/2024 - 07:50
        +6

        Just a thing people do here unfortunately

        Shoot first….

      • cloudy on 26/06/2024 - 21:34
        -1

        don't mind peg, he's normally really helpful, but must be stress of work or something these days makes him want to collect negs.

  • ilostnemo on 25/06/2024 - 22:36
    +3

    Can you tell me the actual offence you were pinged for.

    One thing certain LGs do is photograph the position of the valve stems. (Very Very unlikely to be in identical spots if the vehicle has moved)

    In the LG I work at, the vehicle has to leave the thorughfare for a certain amount of time before returning, (This stops people just moving 2-3 bays up and the clock restarting)

    LG do attend court, and if the LG wins and costs are awarded your $96 could become $1096.

    Read the LG local parking laws.

    • ExtraGuac on 25/06/2024 - 22:45
      +2

      Parking for longer than the permitted amount of time, or words to that effect. They only have photos of my car at the time they issued the fine, not the original position it was in (because it wasn’t in the car park when they marked they other cars in there - but I’ve seen them marking the cars before and they don’t take ‘before’ photos only ‘after’ when issuing the fines).

      If I had just moved my car within the same 3P car park I would have already conceded the fine, but I did move it between two entirely different areas.

      It probably isn’t worth the risk of incurring a bigger fine if the court sides with the council though, unfortunately I don’t have any other evidence to corroborate my account other than pointing out the chalk mark was partially worn in the photo.

      • Porker on 26/06/2024 - 07:28
        +3

        From Council's perspective, I expect that the partially worn chalk could have easily been as the result of moving within the 3P area.

        It'll be hard for you to prove the movement was your stated 2P to 3P.

        Your arguments and principles are nothing new to Council. You're not presenting anything new or new principles that they haven't already considered for other appeals or not have built in to their business model for review. That is, they're ready for the argument - court isn't an area they're afraid of attending, they're there frequently for appeals.

        They have council officers dedicated for appeal review and whose salary includes court time, so there's no additional cost for them to attend apart from Court fees.

        To increse your success of appeal, you'll need evidence demonstrating that Council was wrong to issue the fine. Ie. Wrong road rule penalty applied, or that you moved from 2P to 3P, or the officer is/was not authorised to issue the fine, etc

        • FutureTech on 26/06/2024 - 12:53
          +1

          If it goes to court then the onus of proof is on the council not OP

          • Makaveli99 on 26/06/2024 - 22:03
            +1

            @FutureTech: Council usually have documented paper work. The fine/ infringement notice is evidence as well was parking officer witness statement etc. The OP evidence is photos that may suggest vehicles was moved but state of chalk line does not prove certainty. Dashcam would help

    • Sinnerator on 26/06/2024 - 09:06

      different LGAs have different methods

  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 25/06/2024 - 22:48

    $5 says you parked in a LGA with designated parking zones.

    Name the LGA.

  • Euphemistic on 25/06/2024 - 23:04
    +1

    Im surprised they still do chalk marks.

    Got any location data records on your phone?

  • brad1-8tsi on 25/06/2024 - 23:32
    +1

    I can drive 10km and the chalk is still visible on my tyre. Has happened multiple times as I live in a 1hr zone and they mark tyres first and check regos online when they return.

    It's bloody annoying on the "good car" having the crayon (it's not chalk) visible.

  • Cave Fire on 25/06/2024 - 23:34

    I think you're in the right here. These days, parking officers play "hardball". They've realised they can deny appeals and your only options are pay or go to court. Maybe write a letter/email or ring to speak to someone to explain.

  • AustriaBargain on 26/06/2024 - 00:42
    -1

    You're not uncovering a child abuse scandal or anything here. The principle doesn't really matter if the effort outweighs the savings.

    • LinkMonkey on 26/06/2024 - 16:14
      +7

      The standard you walk by, is the standard you accept.

      • AustriaBargain on 26/06/2024 - 16:17

        Paying an unjust parking fine isn't facilitating the crime of the century.

        • factor on 26/06/2024 - 19:47
          +4

          Contesting a dodgy parking fine takes a dodgy parking inspector off the streets for a day to sit around court. Moral win.

          • AustriaBargain on 26/06/2024 - 20:00

            @factor: Sounds more like petty revenge than justice. Believe me, I love me some revenge. It's humanity's most defining feature I think. Not the nicest, but the one that sums up "people" the best. It makes the best movies, it's the most powerful motivator I can think of, and when you achieve it it feels so sweet. But revenge over a parking fine? Doesn't seem worth the effort. Seems inconsequential if it'll take a lot of your time and mental energy.

            If this parking inspector killed OPs wife or son or dog or something then I'd understand.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join