The almighty parking saga - a victory of sorts?

[Phurrball]

Ok -

Many of you will be aware of my ongoing annoyance with various actions of our fair city's finest parking wardens.

I count myself fortunate as I am in a good position to formulate adequate responses rather than roll over for the man - this doesn't mean I have the time to do this, and the research is at a cost to my ongoing committments.

Since there has been TV coverage on the matter, it is of greater than normal interest, so I thought I'd set out the saga so far.

It's worth pointing out I'm no saint - I've accrued many tickets that I deserved. I pay these. Somtimes the council have been merciful and let me off when perhaps they legitimately might not have.

As a poor student living miles away with minimal public transport, it's always a choice whether to risk over staying, or not paying. Sometimes you win, sometimes you loose. That's life. I live with most of what is slapped on the car. It contributes to congestion and takes up a lot of room.

However, I can and I will crusade against baltant unfairness with all of my skills and resources.

All I want is a common-sense approach rather than pedantic ticketing of technical breaches that harm no one - ESPECIALLY FOR MOTORCYCLES WHICH DESERVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT BECAUSE OF THEIR HIGH OCCUPANCY, FUEL EFFICIENCY AND CONGESTION-BUSTING SIZE

I think we are getting the powers that be to listen. I am happy with the response I received from Mr Tomlinson, the head parking man. He seems pretty reasonable.

Here is teh saga so far. Read "Letter 1" first, then "ACC response". These are both attached to this post. There is more to follow. Some edits have been made to protect privacy.

[Phurrball]

OK - after reading the response from the infringement review person. I was enraged and incredulous.

Then amused as I'm pretty certin victory would be mine in the District Court.

I'd rather not go that far though, it is a waste of my time and money, and that of Auckland's long-suffering ratepayers.

Note the attached photos.

Last night I emailed Mr Tomlinson, the head parking man:


[Please note courtesy copies of this email to other interested parties: Les Mason, BRONZ; Stephen Dodge, AUSMC; Phil Vine, TVNZ Fair Go.]

Dear Mr Tomlinson,


I wish to express my disturbance at a quite unsatisfactory response from your infringement review team. Les Mason from BRONZ gave me your email address in regards to this matter.

I suggest that you read the attached correspondence and detailed supporting materials as attached to fully appreciate my concerns.

First, read my detailed letter and the supporting materials, and then read the response I received from your staff. These are labelled accordingly in folders within the attached zip file – I apologise for the large size of this, but as you will see, it is very comprehensive.

I am concerned that I may have struck a similar administrative error to the one detailed in the recent Fair Go piece regarding your parking officers and their approach to motorcycles. TVNZ’s Phil Vine received a hard copy of my letter during discussions leading up to that story.

I am anxious to avoid wasting Auckland ratepayers’ money on a court case which I believe Auckland City Parking Services would loose in the District Court based on the binding High Court precedents, statutory requirements and other evidence I can adduce – all of which I have set out in detail.

I imagine you are glad the response from your review team was not public, as the first lines insinuate that either I am mistaken or lying regarding the broken sign.

It is even more surprising that your review officer decides I am mistaken and officer 212 is correct about the state of the sign without asking to view the photographic evidence I possess.

I take my reputation very seriously for professional reasons, as shortly I must have my good character certified to the Auckland District Law society when I am admitted to the bar.

Quotes from unpublished High Court decisions should allude to the letter writer as having either legal training or advice. Your review team may wish to be more observant of the sources of supporting material when assessing the merits of submissions.

The evidential photographs I have are in series with the ‘Insecure SVIN.jpg’ photo attached – you may wish to note the date and time stamp on that, and observe the high resolution photos taken the following day that confirm my statements regarding the broken sign. For technical reasons I cannot retrieve the balance of these photos from my phone without expert assistance. I am happy to show these to you if you desire, and I will retrieve them to submit to any District Court hearing should you not be minded to review this decision.

I also note that the brochure regarding court hearings was not in this letter, as referred to at the end of page 1 and the start of page 2.

I suggest that you review this decision along the lines requested in my letter to avoid the unnecessary waste of the time and money of all parties to any court case.

I am happy to meet with you regarding this should you wish.

Yours Sincerely,

Ross Dellow.

PS – you may wish to have a look into the correspondence in the ‘Additional matter’ folder. A wagon or hatch can be a GSV under certain circumstances. Are you really happy with officer 71 issuing a mail-out ticket that indicates he wasn’t close enough to serve the ticket on the vehicle, let alone properly ascertain whether the vehicle concerned was a GSV? See the letter.

[Phurrball]

Phew! :blink: are you still with me?

OK - here's where things start to get better:

[Note some more documents in support - these are court cases and a bit heavy going and dry. You were warned.]

Mr Tomlinson's very reasonable response:



Hi Ross,

Thank you very much for bringing this matter to my attention, no need to apologise for the size of the file, on the contrary I appreciate the lengths with which you have captured information regarding this matter.

Similarly, I appreciate your concern in regard to wasting ratepayers money and my objective is certainly to ensure that these matters are resolved before a decision is made to proceed with court lodgement.

I have initiated an investigation into the matter and I welcome your offer to meet with me to discuss this and I may take you up on your generosity.

I will ensure that the infringements are placed on hold in our system immediately pending an outcome of the investigation so that no further unnecessary action occurs.

Having seen the full story in fair go last week and taking advantage of your CC to Stephen, I have asked one of my managers to contact Stephen to put in place a dedicated case manager to deal with any queries or concerns from the Uni motorcycle club and review any current issues.

I am very keen to support motorcycles and scooters as a transport choice for Auckland City and I will also be canvassing the idea of setting up a stakeholder group with representatives from perhaps BRONZ, Uni Club etc. to look at developing motorcycle and scooter solutions for Auckland City.

Again, I will ensure that this important matter you have raised will receive my full attention. I anticipate that this investigation will require two-three days before I can respond to this matter and ascertain the need to engage in your time further. I will contact you on Tuesday with where we are at with this.

Thank you again for your diligence in pursuing this issue

Regards
Brian

This looks good. We may yet get a sensible approach through a bit of effort and some cooperation. :Punk:

[Ixion]

Well done.

It may of interest that, many years ago, I received a ticket for parking in a "No parking" area (ironically, I think it was in Symonds St, though a very different Symonds St then).

I contested the ticket (from ACC) on the grounds that although there WAS a sign saying no parking, access to the vicinity of the sign was blocked by construction work. A wire barrier of the usual type had been erected around the construction zone, adjacent to where I parked. The area fenced off by barrier included the pole on which the sign was. The barrier prevented anyone from approaching the pole to view the sign, which was moreover obscured by cement trucks and such like.

The council cancelled the ticket

I have written , on behalf of BRONZ , today to Mr Tomlinson asking where the extra bike parking he promised has gone to.

ar

[Phurrball]

OK -

A quick vote of thanks -

One man ranting in letters is a crank. A group of interested stakeholders is worth listening to (Stolen from Ixion's inimitable wisdom I think)

We would not be where we are today without the concerted efforts of the following people and organisations:

Ixion and BRONZ, Stephen [El Presidenté] AUSMC, Luke, and Phil from Fair Go. Others have helped and supported too.

Thanks too are due to Brian Tomlinson, for his willingness to listen.

I'm off to collapse now...:sweatdrop

[Squiggles]

I have asked one of my managers to contact Stephen to put in place a dedicated case manager to deal with any queries or concerns from the Uni motorcycle club and review any current issues.

That'd be the message on me voicemail then.... better topup!

[Ragingrob]

You are a legend Ross. Good work to all those people involved in these matters! That is a brilliant outcome and it looks like more good news is awaiting us in the future.

Two thumbs up from me :2thumbsup

P.S. I saw you knock that sign down Ross you sly fox!

:msn-wink:

[Phurrball]

[snippity]
P.S. I saw you knock that sign down Ross you sly fox!

:msn-wink:

Winky all right.

I think that's what upset me the most.

The sign genuinely was broken and I genuinely didn't see it. I believed my parking was OK based on a quick glance at the signage.

I can't say I like an atmosphere of fear that dissuades bikes in the CBD through fear of tickets.

I would have deserved the ticket if I was just being a clever dick, but I wasn't. Tickets issued to about 4ish other bikes and scooters too.

As Ixion says - it's been law for a long time that signage must be effective. It isn't if it's broken or obscured. The broken sign could not be seen from a vehicle on the carrigeway. It was bloody obvious to a pedestrian (like a parking warden).

Sigh. I just want common sense to prevail WRT parking, rather than the enormous time and effort required to take on a ticket issued in seconds. *I'm starting to sound like Peter Dunne. Please shoot me now...*

[Fatjim]

Mate, if you had left it 2 months and then complained you would have got off this as the guy who issued the infringement if he still worked for the council would I doubt remember your circumstances. You just need to ask the right questions.

My favourite ticket is inconsiderate parking. Most parking wardens are too young to know what the word means, let alone be able to describe it in detail.

[Phurrball]

Mate, if you had left it 2 months and then complained you would have got off this as the guy who issued the infringement if he still worked for the council would I doubt remember your circumstances. You just need to ask the right questions.

My favourite ticket is inconsiderate parking. Most parking wardens are too young to know what the word means, let alone be able to describe it in detail.

Doesn't seem to work that way Fatjim. You can be as well-reasoned as you like, policy seems to be to call your bluff and invite you to go to court. Unless of course I just struck an 'administrative error' like in the Fair Go case.

Parking wardens SHOULD be ticketing for inconsiderate parking rather than just the easy pickings. The Police too, should be ticketing for retarded and dangerous driving too more than minor speeding.

'tis all about what's easy to prove in my humble (and jaded) opinion.

'tis just not the way the world works these days with key performance indicators in play.

It's amazing what you can be ticketed for under the ACC bylaw and Road User Rule 2004. I'm waaay to familiar with these for my own good.

[Real_Wolf]

You know, if parking wardens took PICTURES of the cars tehy ticket, proving it, which wouldn't be too hard (how many phones don't have camera's these days, your telling me the PDA's they use can't get a little camera attatched?), then they can take a picture as evidence.

Yes, there will still be the problem of them taking a picture which doesn't actually show the "problem", like your broken sign, but in general it'd show what they actually looked for, and then it'd be easy to tell them why they were wrong, and what they screwed up

[Patar]

I want phurrball to be my own personal parking offences lawyer, too bad I can only pay with lint and paper clips atm :no:

[rie]

mighty good job, ross. law school is useful in all kinds of ways but i am pleased to see you capitalising those skills. i would certainly consider this a victory in many different ways.

...on the flipside, now you have all your riding mates trying to bum legal work off you.

[Squiggles]

You know, if parking wardens took PICTURES of the cars tehy ticket, proving it, which wouldn't be too hard (how many phones don't have camera's these days, your telling me the PDA's they use can't get a little camera attatched?), then they can take a picture as evidence.

Luke has a picture they took, its from the rear and only shows the plate really

[Gubb]

Awesome work mate, next time though, remember that there is a subtle difference between "lose" and "loose".

I know it's pedantic, but after all that effort, little things make a difference.

Top work though.

[blossomsowner]

well done



I can assure you however there is the occasional reasonable/rational human in the beaurocracy we face each day.........

we recently got a parking ticket for no wof on our van in pukekohe, issued by the local council. i rang the council and found out who to talk to about it.

then rang the person and spoke with them and they said to put my concerns in writing to them.

this I did admitting the fault but explaining it had been rectified and i was pleased they were helping the ltsa with compliance issues so please let me off now because I have spent the money on the wof and have nothing left to pay large fines. (very brief summary).


several days later a letter arrives from the lady I spoke to previously saying my infringement is downgraded to a warning......no fine.



I know its a different situation (and a different council) but it gives hope that they are not all complete bastards.

[Real_Wolf]

...on the flipside, now you have all your riding mates trying to bum legal work off you.

What do you mean "now", we always have

[motorbyclist]

What do you mean "now", we always have

hold on, isn't rie doing law too?

she's better looking as well....

quick! 'request-legal-assistance' her!:eek:

:chase:

[Hanne]

Well the council lady left a message for Stephen to give her a ring, he did that just before. And apparently she was very helpful. So any problems with WOF/Rego stuff, flick Stephen a PM, should be easier to sort things out now...

(Hopefully won't have to write any more please-let-me-off-the-$800-fine-I-didn't-do-it! letters in the near future.)

[ManDownUnder]

Awesome work mate, next time though, remember that there is a subtle difference between "lose" and "loose".

I know it's pedantic, but after all that effort, little things make a difference.

Ya reckon? Add the "r" onto both and you get Carver either way...!

[Phurrball]

Awesome work mate, next time though, remember that there is a subtle difference between "lose" and "loose".

I know it's pedantic, but after all that effort, little things make a difference.

Top work though.

Aw, bejebus! Where did I fuct that up?

And I try so hard to be a good little BDOTGNZA acolylte...

Thanks for the positive comments and responses folks - I did it for all motorcyclists as well as myself.

[Nivosus]

haha nice letters. def got your lawyer hat on eh :P?

[Phurrball]

Hi Ross,

just updating you on your query, unfortuantely I will be requiring an extra couple of days to conclude my investigation, but rest assured I will be contacting you again on Thursday. It is unlikely that I will require you to meet up with me, delightful I'm sure the occasion would be, I do not see the need to further waste your time.

Thank you for your patience

Regards
Brian

Not sure about the delightful occasion - Either Mr T is a very nice chappy, or is being a bit sarky? I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now.

[xwhatsit]

Not sure about the delightful occasion - Either Mr T is a very nice chappy, or is being a bit sarky? I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now.
He's supposed to be a very nice chappy by all accounts :)

Can't say how impressed I am with all of this. Wish I had the ability to mount a challenge like this :niceone:

[Phurrball]

Thanks for your comments poster-formerly-known-as-a-persian-fella -

The point is I shouldn't have to knit a bloody prize-winning quilt when a stitch of observation and common sense would have prevented the whole thing. (But that in and of itself offended my sensibilities to the extent that I went to such lengths...)

No mention as yet of what is to happen to the fines slapped on the other scooters/bikes or why letter was denied and stamped "FAIL" the first time around.

And who is Owen BTW? Someone from BRONZ?

Today's response: (On the very day promised too - gold star for Mr Tomlinson!)


Hi Ross,

Please find attached formal response to your infringement notice. In short your infringement notice has been exempted.

I have decided in conjunction with my manager responsible for this area (name deleted), that due to insufficient evidence supporting the actual date of damage to the sign and the extraordinary lengths you have gone to as you state in your email to protect your reputation and good character that the ticket should be exempted.

Again, I appreciate the lengths you have gone to in raising this issue to my attention and I apologise for the inconvenience this has caused.

Should you have any queries or concerns in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me

To update on my other comments, I understand ****** has also left a few messages for Stephen and is currently in contact with Owen

Regards
Brian

[Formal response attached as a PDF]



Thank you Brian and ******* -


I really do appreciate your efforts in cleaning up this mess as I provided a lot of supporting material that was quite detailed.

One or two things still need clearing up -

1) I would still like confirmation that the consecutive SVINs issued for the same offence have been remitted or refunded on the same basis as mine.

2) Why is there a disconnect between your response today and the response of the infringement review team when supplied with exactly the same evidence? (I do actually have evidence of the sign being broken on the day the notice was issued - it's just not easily accessible or replicable)

3) I'm still not happy with parking services' resolution to continue with P2965985:

No parking was available to pick up my passenger so I stopped in a loading zone and remained in my vehicle. There is a tension between due care and consideration provisions of the road user rule and the absolute prohibition which was ticketed for.

The fact that the officer chose to serve the SVIN by mail physically means they were not close enough to determine whether the vehicle being ticketed was a GSV [they would need to sight the rear seats and check for an operator's name amongst other things - I did not see this happen as I was in the car] No photos have been produced or alluded to which prove the vehicle ticketed was not a GSV.

Whether my vehicle was or was not a GSV is a moot point, as I contend the infringement notice was issued unsafely in a manner that would not stand in a defended court hearing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In these 2 instances, my time and effort in researching and persuing the matters are worth far in excess of the infringement totals, and it concerns me that common sense was not displayed by parking officers or the infringement reviewers of first instance.

It is particularly important that the first instance adjudicators are thorough and fair to avoid the injustice wrought by a compartatively powerful local government agency calling the bluff of the average time-stretched Auckland motorist.

Thanks again for your time and consideration in this matter,

Ross Dellow

[bomma]

wow it takes them two goes to figure out that your photo preceeds the date that the sign was reported as "needing repair"??

good stuff p-mac!! looks like you've got a serious case of stickittotheman-itis :niceone:

[Phurrball]

They get away with it too often, and it touches my social-justice nerve.

If only a few percent really take it to them, hopefully they'll think twice before issuing "Technically correct but totally inequitable" tickets.

There's quite a few unreported cases floating around in cyber-law land showing I'm not the only one, and some people persue dodgy tickets beyond all reason to the highest appellate courts in the land (Until someone denies them leave to appeal to any further anyway!)

[Ixion]

Well done. No Owen in BRONZ that I know of. I'm not impressed with the phrasing , "exempted" your ticket.

Sort of implies that it's really a valid ticket but "because of the extraordinary lengths you have gone to" we're going to let it slide. Rather than "we shouldn't have issued it in the first place"

(As the sign was not lawfully placed at the time, the ticket was surely not technically correct ?)

[Ragingrob]

Yeah it's more a matter of "Damn you caught us out, ok well we wont make you pay".

Nice work Ross! :2thumbsup

Now any future cases should have a straight through passageway for wrongfully ticketed offences thanks to you making a hole in the dam!

[Phurrball]

Well done. No Owen in BRONZ that I know of. I'm not impressed with the phrasing , "exempted" your ticket.

Sort of implies that it's really a valid ticket but "because of the extraordinary lengths you have gone to" we're going to let it slide. Rather than "we shouldn't have issued it in the first place"


I agree - it does seem to offer me passification rather than vindication which is why I have asked for a little more.


(As the sign was not lawfully placed at the time, the ticket was surely not technically correct ?)


And correct on the above point. I'm pretty sure the two HIGH court cases I quoted should prove that the ticket was illegal. Signs must be "functional" as legally defined in both the case and statute law I provided.

In the farthest reaches of possibility, the situation implied could be correct (but it wasn't):

In the intervening 30 mins or so, someone could have broken the sign after the ticket was correctly issued. I have photos that prove it was broken when I returned to my bike (wouldn't have parked there if I knew it was a loading zone). I'd be happy taking what I have to the court, but I thought I'd save everyone's time and money.

[Squiggles]

To update on my other comments, I understand ****** has also left a few messages for Stephen and is currently in contact with Owen

Yer, i've spoken with her, if anybody picks up a wof/rego ticket and they've got a current one at the time i'm to send the ticket details in to her and she'll sort it

[carver]

Ya reckon? Add the "r" onto both and you get Carver either way...!

thats why their is a RR is my name

Road Race