jaykay
6th October 2008, 21:54
Auckland have gone a step further than the Police Infringement Bureau - and managed to make even more mistakes on their Reminder Notices for alleged parking infringements.
The following reasoning is my own opinions, based on rulings from the UK.
Possibly all Reminder Notices from Auckland (and quite possibly other areas) are invalid and therefore not Reminder Notices at all - this suggested response to such a piece of paperwork should explain things:
"The Reminder Notice (xxxxxxxx) is invalid as it fails to comply with Section 21 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, by informing me that the notice was issued and served on the same day, and providing a due date other than 28 days from date of service mis-states the true legal position. Therefore, to determine the validity of the purported Reminder Notice, a hearing is requested."
In addition to these errors, as usual the reverse of the notice states you have to write within 28 days from date of service (whenever that is) to request a hearing - as discussed in other threads the Crown solicitors here in Christchurch have conceded this wording is "completely wrong". The law states the Informant has to receive the hearing request within 28 days.
Auckland Reminder Notices show conflicting service and due dates and it can be difficult to determine when to actually write - to be on the safe side it is suggested that the above reply is put in the post the day before the due date shown.
Please note, I don't have sort of personal tickets or court cases outstanding, I just seem to know a lot of people who make a habit of collecting such things.
The following reasoning is my own opinions, based on rulings from the UK.
Possibly all Reminder Notices from Auckland (and quite possibly other areas) are invalid and therefore not Reminder Notices at all - this suggested response to such a piece of paperwork should explain things:
"The Reminder Notice (xxxxxxxx) is invalid as it fails to comply with Section 21 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, by informing me that the notice was issued and served on the same day, and providing a due date other than 28 days from date of service mis-states the true legal position. Therefore, to determine the validity of the purported Reminder Notice, a hearing is requested."
In addition to these errors, as usual the reverse of the notice states you have to write within 28 days from date of service (whenever that is) to request a hearing - as discussed in other threads the Crown solicitors here in Christchurch have conceded this wording is "completely wrong". The law states the Informant has to receive the hearing request within 28 days.
Auckland Reminder Notices show conflicting service and due dates and it can be difficult to determine when to actually write - to be on the safe side it is suggested that the above reply is put in the post the day before the due date shown.
Please note, I don't have sort of personal tickets or court cases outstanding, I just seem to know a lot of people who make a habit of collecting such things.