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

          • larndis on 28/06/2024 - 09:28

            @factor: I don't think this is the result of corrupt parking inspectors though? More like a failing of the old chalk system, which is on its way out anyway

  • Windows7forever on 26/06/2024 - 07:03
    +1

    It sucks but i would pay the small fine and move on. A great piece of advice my parents gave me was to "pick my battles" in life.

  • apple2016 on 26/06/2024 - 07:47
    -1

    Going to court is going to take a day out for you, but you might actually win this… so your call

    • factor on 26/06/2024 - 19:50

      And it will take two days if you don't submit a written notice of pleading on the first occassion. Normally the first visit is to plead guilty or not-guilty. Those who plead guilty then get a chance to talk to the magistrate about special circumstances that should see a lower penalty. Those who plead not-guilty get a court date, and before the second court date the evidence the council intends to use should be disclosed to you.

      My experience in both NSW and ACT is that the first hearing can be skipped by submitting a written notice pleading not-guilty. The paperwork from the court will explain this (and the paperwork about court dates is from the court, not from the council).

      • sumyungguy on 26/06/2024 - 19:55

        I believe in NSW you can plead guilty instead of going to court. If you plead not guilty you have to attend court.

      • apple2016 on 27/06/2024 - 09:19

        Those who plead not-guilty get a court date,

        Not always, I once did this (not-guilty). but Judge gave me an offer to plead guilty, but she would squash the charges as special circumstances. took that as I did not want to get a lawyer and send time arguing at court to prove not guilty. This was in VIC

  • Poor Ass on 26/06/2024 - 07:57
    +1

    Ok so we all watch a lot of tv and assume there is presumption of innocence right but that's only for criminal trials.

    Apprantly it doesn't work with the council from experience. You have to prove you didn't do it so anything you got would help… You ruled out google tracking and no dash cam. Any cameras in the 2 areas you parked or inbetween showing your car moved?

    Had the no parking on solid line and no parking when signed fines before which I proved with a photo there wasn't any of those before and won.

    • Dollar General on 26/06/2024 - 08:52

      It’s called Strict Liability

      • Poor Ass on 26/06/2024 - 09:13

        good to know

      • trapper on 27/06/2024 - 11:42
        +1

        Strict liability means that intent is not necessary.

    • SlickMick on 26/06/2024 - 09:06

      Councils make mistakes all the time, but you're right in that if they think they can get away with it they'll play hard ball.
      In this case, it just depends on whether there are records kept when marking tyres, and if not, whether there should be.

      I would hope that if the council can't prove that the tyre was marked in the 3 hour zone, OP will get off. It seems like a huge flaw in thier policy that needs to be resolved - I just don't know whether a local court would take that on.

      I have an example of council backing down (though they took thier sweet time about it). An inspector fined every car parked in a no standing after 5pm zone, at 8am. (He's done the wrong side of the street.) A heap of us in the office got done. We all refuted, and where told to standby. After months, we were told no further action would be taken.

      IMO this council should have backed down on this one too. The fact that they haven't, probably indicates they think they will win, which is a shame. I'd like to see this fixed. OP has a stronger case than Dennis Denuto.

      • Poor Ass on 26/06/2024 - 09:21
        +3

        Councils make mistakes all the time

        I think sometimes they do it intentionally and see who actually bothers to challenge it and I would say more people would just pay it even if they are in the right… especially older generation with non English backgrounds

      • JonathanGibbie on 27/06/2024 - 11:26
        +1

        The onus should be on the council to produce proof to the court that the citizen is in the wrong, but the onus is reversed because they drafted the laws in such a way that you need to prove to the court that you were innocent.

        It is all revenue raising…

        In a civil matter the person alleging the wrong must be able to prove the wrong, not the other way around. However, government seems to have seem to have this oddity where the default position is in their favour which does not make them a model litigant.

        Suppose I sue you for breaking my door, I must be able to prove it was you that did that otherwise the court would just dismiss my case. It is an upside down clown world and we accept it.

  • 82norm on 26/06/2024 - 08:08
    +2

    Do it. The truth will set you free, although at a cost.

    • payless69 on 26/06/2024 - 10:27
      +1

      Maybe a free day on Saipan island?

  • Mintee on 26/06/2024 - 08:12
    -1

    Have you by any chance got Google Timeline history switched on, on your phone, that may further support your argument for the day.

  • Joey2scoops on 26/06/2024 - 08:13
    -1

    You're not the first and won't be the last. You will not win this. Don't waste your time and a courts time over $96.

    • SlickMick on 26/06/2024 - 08:45
      +8

      That's a reason why OP should fight this, and take it all the way to ensure no citizen is ripped off by a council again.

      OP: I'll contribute to your gofundme campain.

    • belongsinforums on 26/06/2024 - 08:45
      +3

      It's the council that's wasting op and the court's time tho

  • BobLim on 26/06/2024 - 08:32
    +4

    Surely a chalk mark is just a time saving measure so they can more quickly identify for which cars they need to look at their other evidence to determine whether an infringement occurred?

    I've seen them mark each tyre then take photos of each numberplate and the whole row from the other side of the street - Surely this with a timestamp is their "start time", not the last time they got the chalk out?

    • trapper on 27/06/2024 - 11:53

      Yeah this is correct.

  • SlickMick on 26/06/2024 - 08:42
    +3

    There must be a record of the inspector who marked your tyre in the 2hr zone, and no record of you being marked in the 3hr zone.
    Short of a cover up, you should be good if due diligence is done.

    • smartazz104 on 27/06/2024 - 08:50
      +1

      All they have is the chalk mark, what I find interesting is this inspector not only marked cars on the side of the road with chalk, but marked cars in a different parking area with chalk as well…

  • afah0447 on 26/06/2024 - 08:55
    +2

    There are still councils using chalk? Wow.

    • kaleidoscope on 27/06/2024 - 00:47

      ifs quite common and easy as. Recently toured nz and i could see chalk marks most places i went 🤷‍♂️

    • JonathanGibbie on 27/06/2024 - 11:17

      Yeah, they are still using chalk.

  • Morphio25 on 26/06/2024 - 09:49

    First thing I'll tell you is that it's not just one day in court. You don't get to trial at your first hearing. There would be at least 2 hearings before you get to trial, plus the date of trial = 3 days of work you have to take off for this.

    • 82norm on 28/06/2024 - 21:32

      Trial….its not a murder case FFS. It will be sorted in local court.

      • Morphio25 on 29/06/2024 - 08:09
        +1

        I've worked in a court of summary jurisdiction (which a case like this will be heard in) for the last four years. Clearly you have no idea how that system works.

  • payless69 on 26/06/2024 - 10:26
    -2

    Grabbing Popcorn until Dr jv steps in.

  • Rosesarered on 26/06/2024 - 10:27
    +1

    They're trying to discourage parking in inner city areas as limited parking for residents anyway and they pay rates, you only work there. Trying to push people to catch public transport into these inner city areas. You may not have realised that the 2 hr & 3 hr bays maybe within the same zone, that is why it was promptly rejected by the Council as a slam dunk fine. Will cost you a lot more if you take it to court with all the added costs, so do yourself a favour and just pay it !!!

    • FutureTech on 26/06/2024 - 12:56

      the guy's work also pay rates no?

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 27/06/2024 - 08:13

        Did they fine the 'guy's' work?

      • Rosesarered on 05/07/2024 - 09:35

        the guy's work also pay rates no?

        Yes they would but only a limited number of parking permits per property. A business with 10 employees and only 3 permits would be polluting the area with cars and there maybe a limited number of parks within a zone.

    • smartazz104 on 27/06/2024 - 08:51
      -1

      You may not have realised that the 2 hr & 3 hr bays maybe within the same zone

      That doesn't make sense, might as well claim the entire city is one zone.

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 27/06/2024 - 14:25

        It does make sense. Some zones can capture nearly all of an inner metro Melbourne suburb. Just look up the City of Yarra parking zones for an example of this.

  • noslappers on 26/06/2024 - 11:07
    +3

    take them to court, ask for it to be done over video conference call, no need to go into court or take a day off. I just recently did this, lost the case but worth a try, dont believe there was any added costs, actually cost me less as after i appealed to the council they just sent me another fine with late fees on it! and as it actually then had to be paid to the infringement company not direct to the silly council, they actually asked how much would you like to pay, i set up $10 a month dd. Cause why not!

    Also something else to be aware of, i believe my last parking fine had a message that read along the lines that if you would like to dispute this it needs to be in writing and mailed to a PO Box - Absolute BS, I called the council and they gave me an email address!

  • lint on 26/06/2024 - 11:44
    -2

    Do you have dashcam footage of you moving your car from the original spot to the car park? If so, you probably have a good chance challenging the fine.

  • Willy Beamish on 26/06/2024 - 13:05

    mark on tyre is such a dumb and lazy way to do their job.

  • Manny Calavera on 26/06/2024 - 13:40
    +1

    If as you say there's grit on the tyre and you can demonstrate that though you only moved a short distance (literally point on a map), it was between zones, then on your court day they'll have someone dealing with these all in a row, they should take a look and figure it's not worth the hassle.

    Plus, you'll get to see everyone else in the same boat float their arguments in front of the magistrate, can be entertaining.

  • tabitha731 on 26/06/2024 - 14:00

    You can’t park in the same vacinity when u have had your tires chalked already. U have to be in another area to reset your timing.

    Btw… why does everyone in Melbourne drive to work? That’s a big reason why there’s soo much congestion in ur CBD, and it doesn’t help you have a lot of bad drivers trying to navigate your random road rules

  • Arkan on 26/06/2024 - 14:22
    +1

    When I was younger and my time was worth a lot less, I went to court a couple of times to appeal offences. My advice is anything under $300 is not worth going to court. You sound like you don't have any sound evidence to get them to overturn it and you really need to have rock solid evidence. On top of that fine you will be hit with a fee for taking it to court- ~$100 so you've both wasted your time and it's cost you more.

    Within the internal review stage is the best chance to the fine dropped, I've been able to find faults in the actual fine. Little details like they classified my car as a sedan, instead of hatch. They mark the wrong model car (Hyundai instead of Toyota), the description of the offence not matching the penalty offence. The fine needs to be spot on, any fault and it invalidates it. Check those details!

  • nibblesh on 26/06/2024 - 14:40
    -2

    If you have your google location history for maps, you might be able to prove the time when your car entered the parking zone

  • Hangryuman on 26/06/2024 - 15:48
    +1

    go to court - and let us know how that works out for ya - I think you can make one telephone call from jail … jes' kidding - you should be fine(d?)

  • ripesashimi on 26/06/2024 - 15:53
    +2

    Fight to death if you are right.

  • Herbse on 26/06/2024 - 18:39

    If they let you off this. Then anyone and everyone can and will do the exact same thing.

    After reading so many complaints from people who think they've done the right thing but still got fined and no appeal, I've learnt the reason they stick to their fines is because allowing someone off based of some loose story means everyone will do the exact same thing.

    • factor on 26/06/2024 - 19:55
      -2

      No dodgy story here - the council has provided their photographic evidence - and the OP sees a clear issue in the photograph. The court will see that issue too.

  • nignucial on 26/06/2024 - 20:05
    +2

    What's the location, date, and time?
    If you're lucky, fellow Ozbarginers might have a dashcam footage of your car parking/moving :)

  • angywoo on 27/06/2024 - 00:53

    I'd be more annoyed that they are drawing on your car…

  • kaleidoscope on 27/06/2024 - 00:53
    +1

    Councils are on an aggressive revenue raising agenda these days and it’s absolutely bs at times. If what you say is true go to court and it’s worth the effort even if you loose. I wouldn’t simply pay a fine for an act I did not do. No one including a govt body can just walk all over you just because the system is inconvenient or less accessible to fight against injustice.

    Good luck

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 27/06/2024 - 08:17
      -2

      Of course OP isn't right. They'd post the council otherwise. They've changed car parking spot within the same parking zone and have now ghosted since coming to this realisation.

      • ExtraGuac on 27/06/2024 - 08:41
        +1

        Hi sorry I don’t have time every day to spend on Ozbargain!

        Not sure why it matters which LGA it was specifically, would rather not give too many identifying details about myself online.

        As I said, if I had changed car spots in the same zone I would have copped the fine. I’m not considering lying in court over a $96 fine lol.

        • Broke-Ken on 27/06/2024 - 10:27
          +1

          Not sure why it matters which LGA it was specifically, would rather not give too many identifying details about myself online.

          If you're not willing to provide the LGA, then I would suggest googling said council, as there a several in Melbourne that have a reputation of being quiet ruthless with parking fines, and rejecting almost all claims.

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 27/06/2024 - 11:45

          It matters which LGA as certain LGAs literally have mapped parking area zones that are quite large and have different laws than outer metro ie. Yarra City. It has nothing to do with the chalk mark, and you freely admitted you only drove 'a short distance'.

          • ExtraGuac on 27/06/2024 - 13:45
            -2

            @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Yes but an area marked as 2P and an area marked as 3P would surely be different zones? They also did not say in their response to my appeal that both areas were considered as the same parking zone.

            • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 27/06/2024 - 14:15

              @ExtraGuac: Nope. Those signs represent parking restrictions. Not zones. You can have various time limits on the same sign, let alone numerous signs on a 10 metre stretch of road.

              Like I said, depending on the LGA the parking areas can be quite big…for this exact purpose. To stop people who don't live there from parking there all day. Look up the City of Yarra parking zones. Big area, multiple suburbs. Only a handful of zones.

              Guess your misunderstanding thinking a sign indicates a zone backs up my theory that you didn't leave the zone ;-)

              • ExtraGuac on 27/06/2024 - 16:08

                @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Can you send me more info about these parking zones? The fine isn’t from City of Yarra but when I googled their parking zones anyway it seems to be only relevant to parking permits? The LGA in question doesn’t have anything about parking zones that I can see on their website. As I said, I moved my car from a 2P area of street parking to a 3P public car park, the opposite side of the street is permit-restricted parking and the car park isn’t covered by residential parking permits.

                • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 27/06/2024 - 18:37
                  +3

                  @ExtraGuac: Google harder and read harder then. I'm not doing homework for you if you won't provide the relevant LGA.

            • Rosesarered on 05/07/2024 - 10:20

              @ExtraGuac: Do you want them to give you all the information you need to fight their fine. Lazy f___! They won't take it if they can't win. They have prosecutors on the payroll. Give me both areas you parked in and I will tell you if both are in the same zone as you don't seem to know, but still want to go to court and waste more of your own money to fight something you are not 100% sure about. 🫣 Go ahead and make my day !!!

  • JonathanGibbie on 27/06/2024 - 11:13

    On a side note:

    Does anyone know if you just throw a glass of water and don't move the car, what happens then? How can they prove you didn't move it outside into another parking zone and then come back to the same spot… Will they still fine you?

  • johnfuller on 27/06/2024 - 11:25
    +1

    if you think your in the right, contest it

  • trapper on 27/06/2024 - 11:51
    +1

    The chalk mark isn’t actually the evidence; it’s just a tool to help parking inspectors be more efficient. On their second pass, they can save time by skipping cars without a mark.

    Inspectors record your registration number and the time they first see your car. When they return later, they record it again, and if you’ve exceeded the allowed time, you get a fine.

    Depending on local rules, simply moving to a new parking spot might not reset the time. You may need to move to a different street or even further for it to count as a 'new' parking session. This might be what caught you out.

    • ExtraGuac on 27/06/2024 - 13:49

      I don’t think they do note the regos/positions of cars on their first pass in this area, I see them chalking cars fairly regularly and they always just mark the cars one after another and don’t take any notes or pictures. When they issue fines they take photos of the car and the chalk mark. For my fine there were pictures uploaded of the car and mark taken at the time they issued the fine, no photos from the original time they marked the cars.

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 27/06/2024 - 14:30

        Read paragraph 3 again.

        Take it to Court and prepare to be shocked when they bring bodycam footage into evidence of the first pass ;-)

        • ExtraGuac on 27/06/2024 - 16:09

          Well if they have that footage it would be helpful for me because my car wasn’t parked in the car park when they were marking the other cars in there :)

          • trapper on 27/06/2024 - 16:20

            @ExtraGuac: How far away was your original 2 hour park?

            • ExtraGuac on 27/06/2024 - 16:24

              @trapper: 700m according to Google maps

              • trapper on 27/06/2024 - 16:26
                +2

                @ExtraGuac: 700 meters is quite a long jog in the rain ;)

                But probably still the same zone, need to check the local rules.

          • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 27/06/2024 - 18:38
            +1

            @ExtraGuac: Again, zones. Not car parks. You seem to confuse the 2.

  • Penguin30 on 27/06/2024 - 13:07
    +1

    Parking Fines are 100% an assumption from the Counsil nobody is sitting there watching your car for 3 hours assuming you haven't moved your car in that time.

    • ExtraGuac on 27/06/2024 - 13:52

      Certainly this is the case when they are relying on chalk marks to determine if a car has moved or not. But it surely such weak assumptions don’t hold up in court?

      • Porker on 27/06/2024 - 14:23

        The chalking of tyres is an age old method - it's been used for decades now.

        It sounds like you're still in the 'it's the principle' mindset such that presumably you're going to court? If so, please keep us updated of the outcome.

        • ExtraGuac on 27/06/2024 - 15:59

          I’m still on the fence about it, I’m pretty principled so I do want to argue my case but I’m also risk averse so I don’t really want to incur more costs if the court is likely to uphold the fine!

          I’ll mull over it for another few days and let you all know what I decide to do in the end!

  • freekay on 27/06/2024 - 15:21

    Please let us know how you went!

  • CommuterPolluter on 27/06/2024 - 17:58

    Post the photo!

    • ExtraGuac on 27/06/2024 - 18:36

      https://gyazo.com/a9dd6e81d2dae1e21aeae4f6625f55c6

      This is the photo they uploaded with the fine, the arrows I added when appealing. I'm surprised more of it didn't wear off after a 700m drive in the rain, so I do understand why after a cursory glance a fine was issued, but if you look a bit closer there's clearly areas of wear/dirt indicating that it was driven on.

      • JonathanGibbie on 27/06/2024 - 19:15
        -1

        That looks like a dodgy picture if that is from the council because it looks like a fresh chalk mark. 100% it should have come off if you moved the car but you should be aware that some council rangers need to meet KPIs and they might have drawn a chalk mark and then taken a photo. Especially, it should be noted that if the roads are wet, then it should have come off cleanly just by moving it a few meters.

        It comes off easily just by dumping a bottle of water on it. That is why I am confused about why the photo shows what it does.

        This is why a dashcam is a necessity.

        Were you driving a luxury car?

        Maybe start with FOI on the council ranger who booked you. Find out who they are.

        • ExtraGuac on 27/06/2024 - 19:25

          I had not considered that. I will definitely be investing in a dash cam after this experience! No, I don’t drive a luxury car, mine is a standard hatch, pretty scratched up actually.

      • DarwinBoy on 28/06/2024 - 01:41

        100% that should of worn off after 70m let alone 700m.
        But. I would assume a photo should be taken when it was chalked. Then 3+ hours the infringement issued with a photo again. That way the time stamps match up to validate the infringement.
        If they don't take original photos then what's to stop deceptive behaviours or errors occuring?
        Maybe do an FOI asking for all photographic details as well as infringement issuing processes.

        • ExtraGuac on 28/06/2024 - 08:26

          An FOI request is gonna cost me $30 or so, I’d assume if they had photo/video of the cars in their original position they’d have included this in the set of photos they uploaded with the fine, or in their response to my appeal.

          I guess my case hinges on their chalk method being insufficient to prove a car has not left a parking area unless they have evidence of both the ‘start’ and ‘end’ times they witnessed the car in its position. If the court agrees with me I should get off? If they do produce footage from the time the cars were marked this will prove my car wasn’t there because it 100% wasn’t.

      • CommuterPolluter on 28/06/2024 - 20:00

        Yeah have a crack making that argument but be prepared to lose without some justification for reasonable chalk wear rates lol.

        Don’t you have a receipt anyway? Majority of Melbourne LGAs use PayStay or EasyPark, which will have given you a zone-specific receipt. Should be as easy as saying “yeah nah I was in this other zone until x:yy pm” as you know.

        • ExtraGuac on 28/06/2024 - 21:58

          No the areas I was parking in were both timed free parking zones without any meters/apps

  • Davo1111 on 28/06/2024 - 06:47
    +2

    i drove my car a short distance away and parked in a car park within a 3 hour parking zone

    My council has a rule about how far a car has to move. Be aware of this

    • ExtraGuac on 28/06/2024 - 08:28
      -1

      Can’t see any information about this on my council’s website. 700m is a decent distance away in any case.

      • drfuzzy on 28/06/2024 - 08:55
        +1

        Nope. Likely still within the same zone. Move out of the zone or go to a paid carpark.

      • DarwinBoy on 28/06/2024 - 16:24

        If you have moved outside one designated time zone to another timed zone then thats a change of area that has been deliniated with a point. Plus 700m is indeed a pretty good distance within a city.

  • drfuzzy on 28/06/2024 - 08:54
    +1

    If you read the council rules you will likely find there is a requirement to move your car completely out of the parking zone. You failed to do that and moved it a "short distance". The chalk mark is not relevant. Which council was it?

    Stonnington is one example where you can't move a short distance and rub the chalk and fulfill the rules.

    • ExtraGuac on 28/06/2024 - 09:08

      Maybe short distance was a bit vague, as clarified in my comments above I moved my car 700m from a 2P street parking zone to a 3P public car park.

      There’s no map of parking zones that I can find on the LGA’s website.

      • drfuzzy on 28/06/2024 - 10:46
        +1

        Are you trolling?

        You won't specify the council

        And you think the local laws revolve around what you can find on a website?

        • ExtraGuac on 28/06/2024 - 12:33

          lol no I have better things to do than troll on Ozbargain.

          If these parking zones exist then they need to be made available for the public to reference them otherwise how are we supposed to know where we can park? If there’s no map or reference to them on the council website how am I supposed to know that they exist? I’d also expect these parking zones would need to be visible on the parking signage itself.

          Also, l will reiterate that the council did not say anything about the two areas I parked being considered part of the same zone in their response to my appeal. If they had, I’d have accepted that and paid the fine.

  • djsweet on 28/06/2024 - 09:53

    It will get thrown out immediately. A chalk mark is hardly strong evidence. Anyone could have put it there, there is no way to determine if it would or wouldn't have come off in the distance over which you drove. Ie they would not be able to prove anything and you would get off. If you elect to be prosecuted in court they might just back off since they know they can't win. Idk though

  • TALL1one on 28/06/2024 - 11:53

    Hello all. Long time lurker but just joined.

    You say you moved 700 meters but it seems on the same street from what I gather. Thus, you are in error if that is correct.

    Parking signs
    You cannot park for longer than the time shown on a parking sign.

    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. <<<<<<

    • ExtraGuac on 28/06/2024 - 12:19

      It’s not the same street. I moved to a car park, the entrance of which is on a different street.

      • TALL1one on 28/06/2024 - 13:00

        OK, that does change things afaik.

  • carlJack on 28/06/2024 - 11:54

    Good luck OP. Hope you win.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join