A dumb parking ticket
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,837
Likes: 0
From: Floating around the AUDM
Vehicle: X3 Sprint, S-Coupe Turbo
A dumb parking ticket
I got a $60 ticket for parking here, +rep if you can actually see the parking signs.
I naturally wrote to the council and explained that the signs were invisible, attached these photos and a bunch more. Their response:
My points:
-The signs were not visible within a 360 degree view of the driver's door of my car, because trees
-The ticket machine is easily blocked by any car parking behind me
-It's busy as f*ck and the sun is in your eyes at that time of day (4pm)
-There's no law that governs how far you need to go to check for signs upon parking
-Parking tickets are like 50c anyway, who wouldn't pay that?
Their points:
-No
-The signs behind the trees were clearly visible
-f*ck you
-You should walk in a 30 foot radius around your car every time you park, to look for signs
-Pay me $60 or I'll f*ck you with a debt collector
...
I'll keep this updated
I naturally wrote to the council and explained that the signs were invisible, attached these photos and a bunch more. Their response:
Dear wheel_of_steel
We have reviewed your recent infringement notice.
After consideration of the matters you have raised in relation to the infringement, and the City's record of the incident, we have determined that the Infringement Notice will stand.
Our Officer's notes and photographs, taken at the time of the issue of the infringement, identify that there was not a valid ticket visible from the outside of the vehicle. (No sh*t sherlock) The notes also indicate that the signage advising "1/2P TICKET" was clearly visible within 15 metres to the front and 10 metres to the rear of the vehicle and the ticket maching was located within 10 metres to the rear of the vehicle.
It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that they are aware of the parking conditions by checking for signage where they choose to park and park legally.
We have reviewed your recent infringement notice.
After consideration of the matters you have raised in relation to the infringement, and the City's record of the incident, we have determined that the Infringement Notice will stand.
Our Officer's notes and photographs, taken at the time of the issue of the infringement, identify that there was not a valid ticket visible from the outside of the vehicle. (No sh*t sherlock) The notes also indicate that the signage advising "1/2P TICKET" was clearly visible within 15 metres to the front and 10 metres to the rear of the vehicle and the ticket maching was located within 10 metres to the rear of the vehicle.
It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that they are aware of the parking conditions by checking for signage where they choose to park and park legally.
My points:
-The signs were not visible within a 360 degree view of the driver's door of my car, because trees
-The ticket machine is easily blocked by any car parking behind me
-It's busy as f*ck and the sun is in your eyes at that time of day (4pm)
-There's no law that governs how far you need to go to check for signs upon parking
-Parking tickets are like 50c anyway, who wouldn't pay that?
Their points:
-No
-The signs behind the trees were clearly visible
-f*ck you
-You should walk in a 30 foot radius around your car every time you park, to look for signs
-Pay me $60 or I'll f*ck you with a debt collector
...
I'll keep this updated
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,837
Likes: 0
From: Floating around the AUDM
Vehicle: X3 Sprint, S-Coupe Turbo
This ticket is worth 7% of my car's value. Just sent this reply today.
We'll let that one brew.
Dear Mr Urquhart
I have reviewed your recent correspondence.
After consideration of your statement, and my own record of the incident, I have determined that your denial of my appeal was unsatisfactory. This correspondence is not a second appeal, as the central points in my first appeal have not been refuted to a satisfactory standard.
My notes and photographs, taken both at the time of issue of the infringement and on the day immediately afterwards, identify that there was not a parking sign nor ticket machine visible from the outside of the vehicle. The notes also indicate that signage advising “1/2P TICKET” was obscured by trees within 15 metres to the front and obscured by trees 10 metres to the rear of the vehicle and the ticket machine was obscured by a parked SUV within 10 metres to the rear of the vehicle.
It is the City’s responsibility to prove that the signs were visible. As the party that issued a fine, the City bears the burden of proof to validate why the charge is justified. The City of Joondalup Parking Local Law 1998 does not, however, regulate what is and is not the driver’s responsibility. There is no legal requirement for the driver of a vehicle to travel 15 metres to the front and 10 metres to the rear of their vehicle to perform a search for possible parking signs.
As stated in my previous correspondence, there were no signs or ticket machines visible upon alighting my vehicle. I have attached photos of the perspective from my vehicle to further clarify this point.
As a result, I urge the city of Joondalup to reconsider its stance on this matter.
Yours sincerely
wheel_of_steel
Your shitty suburb
I have reviewed your recent correspondence.
After consideration of your statement, and my own record of the incident, I have determined that your denial of my appeal was unsatisfactory. This correspondence is not a second appeal, as the central points in my first appeal have not been refuted to a satisfactory standard.
My notes and photographs, taken both at the time of issue of the infringement and on the day immediately afterwards, identify that there was not a parking sign nor ticket machine visible from the outside of the vehicle. The notes also indicate that signage advising “1/2P TICKET” was obscured by trees within 15 metres to the front and obscured by trees 10 metres to the rear of the vehicle and the ticket machine was obscured by a parked SUV within 10 metres to the rear of the vehicle.
It is the City’s responsibility to prove that the signs were visible. As the party that issued a fine, the City bears the burden of proof to validate why the charge is justified. The City of Joondalup Parking Local Law 1998 does not, however, regulate what is and is not the driver’s responsibility. There is no legal requirement for the driver of a vehicle to travel 15 metres to the front and 10 metres to the rear of their vehicle to perform a search for possible parking signs.
As stated in my previous correspondence, there were no signs or ticket machines visible upon alighting my vehicle. I have attached photos of the perspective from my vehicle to further clarify this point.
As a result, I urge the city of Joondalup to reconsider its stance on this matter.
Yours sincerely
wheel_of_steel
Your shitty suburb
We'll let that one brew.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
From: Perth, Western Australia
Vehicle: 1999 Elantra GLS Sportswagon
The vehicle behind you was illegally parked also, i wonder if he got an infringement from the police rather than from the parking inspector ? The City of Joondalup wouldn't care as long as they paid for a ticket.....
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,072
Likes: 0
From: New Jersey
Vehicle: 2000 Hyundai Tiburon
This sucks, I hate dealing with parking tickets. In the city of Philadelphia, it's gotten so bad that they've made a national TV show out of following the meter maids.
Good luck with your appeal, but my guess is you're out $60!
(Maybe tell them I said the meter was upside down?(it's been long enough that I can make one of those jokes))
Good luck with your appeal, but my guess is you're out $60!
(Maybe tell them I said the meter was upside down?(it's been long enough that I can make one of those jokes))
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,837
Likes: 0
From: Floating around the AUDM
Vehicle: X3 Sprint, S-Coupe Turbo
I got this back today:
This really annoys me, they have the attitude of 'we sent you a half-page letter stating that we think the infringement stands, so pay us money'. Anyway, here is my response for them to consider:
Dear wheel_of_steel
I refer to your letter received by the City on 16-10-12 regarding your recent Infringment Notice P202766.
Upon receiving your first appeal, the City reviewed Infringement Notice P202766 as per your request. A response addressing the matters related to the infringement was sent to you on 11-10-12.
Please note that your options regarding Infringement Notice P202766 are as follows:
-Submit a second appeal which will be reviewed by an independent Officer*; or
-Have the matter determined by a court and submit the request to the City 8-11-12; or
-Pay the modified penalty of $60 by 8-11-12
Yours sincerely,
Silly parking enforcement man.
*The 'independent officer' is the head of parking enforcement, how very independent.
I refer to your letter received by the City on 16-10-12 regarding your recent Infringment Notice P202766.
Upon receiving your first appeal, the City reviewed Infringement Notice P202766 as per your request. A response addressing the matters related to the infringement was sent to you on 11-10-12.
Please note that your options regarding Infringement Notice P202766 are as follows:
-Submit a second appeal which will be reviewed by an independent Officer*; or
-Have the matter determined by a court and submit the request to the City 8-11-12; or
-Pay the modified penalty of $60 by 8-11-12
Yours sincerely,
Silly parking enforcement man.
*The 'independent officer' is the head of parking enforcement, how very independent.
This really annoys me, they have the attitude of 'we sent you a half-page letter stating that we think the infringement stands, so pay us money'. Anyway, here is my response for them to consider:
Dear Mr Silly parking enforcement man
I refer to your letter that I received on 23-10-2012 regarding my recent Infringement Notice P202766.
Upon receiving my first appeal, the City may have reviewed Infringement Notice P202766 as per my request. However, a ‘response addressing the matters relating to the Infringement’ was not sent to me on 11-10-2012.
The letter that was sent to me on 11-10-12 outlined payment information and simply stated that the signs were visible: This is not an acceptable justification of a $60 fee, nor is it an acceptable refutation of my first appeal letter which contains photos that demonstrate the signs being obscured.
Please note that your options regarding Infringement Notice P202766 are as follows:
-Directly refute the issues raised in my first appeal letter, with evidence
-Cancel the infringement notice
This is not a second appeal.
Yours sincerely,
wheel_of_steel
I refer to your letter that I received on 23-10-2012 regarding my recent Infringement Notice P202766.
Upon receiving my first appeal, the City may have reviewed Infringement Notice P202766 as per my request. However, a ‘response addressing the matters relating to the Infringement’ was not sent to me on 11-10-2012.
The letter that was sent to me on 11-10-12 outlined payment information and simply stated that the signs were visible: This is not an acceptable justification of a $60 fee, nor is it an acceptable refutation of my first appeal letter which contains photos that demonstrate the signs being obscured.
Please note that your options regarding Infringement Notice P202766 are as follows:
-Directly refute the issues raised in my first appeal letter, with evidence
-Cancel the infringement notice
This is not a second appeal.
Yours sincerely,
wheel_of_steel
Super Moderator
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 10,795
Likes: 5
From: Pflugerville, TX
Vehicle: 2000 Elantra
Dear subject:
Your second appeal letter has been received and processed. You are now due the original $60 plus $120 in processing fees and interest. Because shut up.
XOXOXO
-The Man
Your second appeal letter has been received and processed. You are now due the original $60 plus $120 in processing fees and interest. Because shut up.
XOXOXO
-The Man