Legal advice - parking?

[j.c]

Did you go into a station and file an accident report?

yes, 20 mins after the accident, i went in reported it. only thing received is a letter of acknowledgement and a case number. i have call many time to check update, nobody can tell me anything about the case. i have gave it up eventually. so i took the driver to dispute tribunal, still no luck so far! if the police came or helped at first place, i shouldn't have to go through the grief like this.

[PirateJafa]

Superglue, car door. Need I say more.

Kneadit, exhaust pipe, doorhandles, window wipers.

Even let some/all the air out of the tyres, then kneadit into to air valves.

[Patrick]

finally, after 7 months, my dispute tribunal claim has been declind!!
The referee thinks it favours to the car driver because the height of the my motor bike is lower than the bottom of car rear window, therefore the driver can't see my bike.
He has no liability over this at all.
Motorbike is legal to park at angle with due care!

Absolutely ridiculous. To say he didn't see it... what was he blind? Didn't he look at his surroundings as he approached his car, as he went to unlock his door etc etc..... and see a perfectly big enough motorbike parked there???????

I'm pretty sure the road code states that if you can't see what is behind you, you are required to get out and look.
I can't see anyone hitting ANY stationary object and not having it be their fault...

Reversing car hitting stationary object is ALWAYS at fault... even if the stationary object was parked on yellows.....

Park your bike on the side of the road outside your house, Or a mates house where its quiet and you have available space.

Now jump into a car and reverse up until you are unable to see your bike anymore (this is why i say do it at a mates place incase you can see your bike or it dissapears and you accidentally hit it)
If bike does dissappear, jump out and take a measurement of how far away it is from the rear of the car.

But if bike doesnt dissappear, Take your findings back to court. Show him. Photo's are really helpful.

Request a different judge. One that doesnt seem to be against motorbikes.

Photos do speak a thousand words. Good idea here.....

Im afraid I am not very clued up on how these things work but, you can get free legal advice from your local citizens advice bureu www.cab.org.nz

This is true....

Yet another case of fuckin stupid busy bodies calling themselves JP's. You can appeal.

http://www.justice.govt.nz/publicati...lish-jusdt0016

SECTION 3 After the Hearing

What happens after the hearing?

Appeal

If you feel the referee conducted your hearing in a way which was unfair and prejudiced your case, you can file an appeal against an order of the Tribunal. An appeal should be filed at the Disputes Tribunal in the District Court within 28 days of the Tribunal order being made. A judge in the District Court decides whether or not there are grounds for appeal.

Appeal for sure. This is not just wrong, but the decision has absolutely no legal basis.

Isn't it true that Disputes Tribunal referees don't actually Have to stick to the law when coming to a ruling?

Still good grounds to Appeal it though, it would seem by what your saying.

Take it to Fair Go, or Campell Live.
Not from a 'poor motorcyclist' point of view. But from a This could happen to any of us point of view.

Good call. Next port of call.......... Ixion might be able to help BRONZ wise?

On the flip side - did you file an accident report with the Police? If you did, and the Police found the other driver at fault and charged them, then it would have made your tribunal case even more straight forward.

True....

The police obviously don't want to do anything, i have been chasing them up before tribunal, i have got nothing from them, just passing me around their call centres and location police staion. useless!

Quote the file number. They will be able to tell you exactly where that file is... or should be.... Geez, even I can find that in a second. PM me if you like.

Unfortunately, being in Auckland, a minor non injury crash that Police were not called to the scene to attend is extremely very low on priorities. Not an excuse, just a reality. Hence the need for insurance.....

yes, 20 mins after the accident, i went in reported it. only thing received is a letter of acknowledgement and a case number. i have call many time to check update, nobody can tell me anything about the case. i have gave it up eventually. so i took the driver to dispute tribunal, still no luck so far! if the police came or helped at first place, i shouldn't have to go through the grief like this.

True. But as above, a minor non injury fender bender is low on the list of priorities. PM me with the number. I will check for ya.

[breakaway]

I still can't wrap my head around how fucking silly this is.

What if it was a child? Is it okay to run it over because it is "too low" to the ground and couldn't be seen from the rear view?

This is fucking pathetic. It's really difficult for me to get worked up, but this has done it.

[cowboyz]

I still can't wrap my head around how fucking silly this is.

What if it was a child? Is it okay to run it over because it is "too low" to the ground and couldn't be seen from the rear view?

This is fucking pathetic. It's really difficult for me to get worked up, but this has done it.

me too actually. It just seems really crazy. there HAS to be more to the story.. This just isnt possible.. but then again.. NZ justice is an oxymoron!

[breakaway]

I think it's more likely that some old crusty JP is trying to railroad OP because he's probably young and a motorcyclist.

I've heard many times small claims court can have people walking away disillusioned, but this is beyond ridiculous.

[Swoop]

Patrick sums it up nicely in post #63.

the referee also mentioned the bike is parked with front wheel against the curb and it was an old car, doesn't have left door miror (apparently legal), the bike is in the blind spot of the driver, so the driver didn't see it.

What your "esteemed" adjudicator has ruled, now means that if I hop into a large truck and reverse (without checking clearances or obstacles) I am now innocent if I do any damage!
Totally wrong ruling.

[bogan]

+1 to the fair go idea.

It does seem a pretty clear cut case, makes me think too, I don't check my blindspot immediately behind the van on all occasions, if I'm angle parked for example you could probably hide a small scooter (illegally parked) behind hit so I would run it over, or a toddler etc. One would hope nobody is stupid enough to leave a scoot or toddler in such a position of course, but perhaps I should have a better look just to be safe.

[j.c]

the story is:
the car was parked there when i came, no other cars behind the driver, then i parked far enough from him (1.5 meter according to the witness. i have a letter from the witness). few minutes after i went in a shop close by, i heard the crash, i rushed out, saw the bike fell on the road. he just said i didn't see and you can do whatever you want to do, then jumped in the car trying to drive off, i quickly grabbed his car door and called police. we both waited about 30 minutes, no police turned up, i called police again, they said they are busy and i need to file a claim in the local station, so i did about 1 hour later.
in the first hearing, the referee asked me to measure the height of the bike and driver to measure the height of the bottom his rear window. in the second hearing, he went through these with us, didn't call the witness which was in the agenda from last hearing. a week later after the hearing, i received the letter from him and declind my claim, favour to the defendant.
his reasons are:
1. he believes i parked to close to the car, less than 1.5 meter. (i don't believe he has verified this with the witness.)
2. i did not park the motorbike with due care.
3. he believes the bike is too low for the driver to see, so no negligence to the driver.
4. i am inexperieced rider as an experience rider said he would not park behind the car. (he only heard this from the driver, no evidence)
so, after all, he made this ridiculous decision. i talked to a lawyer this morning, she said it is very hard to appeal as the rules around it. unless i can prove the referee made mistakes or being unfair in the hearing procedure. lawyer fee will cost $600, no garantee to win the case.
i so bloody regret didnt have full insurance now, that would make things much much easier.

[sleemanj]

You know the make/model of car involved right?

Find said make/model of car at a car yard and ask if you can do a little test.

Park bike behind at 1.5m in the same manner as it was on the fateful day, sit in drivers seat of the car, now, can you clearly see the bike? If yes, take a photo, if no, give up now, I don't see how you'd appeal it.

Assuming you can, move the bike closer until it is no longer plainly visible from the drivers seat.

For bonus points, draw a scale diagram of the vehicle, bike etc, then you can work out the sight-line from the driver and get an exact measurement of the minimum distance the bike would have to have been before it became too hard to reasonably see. I would suggest that the seat or at least tank should be clearly in view of the driver, to be reasonable to see the bike.

If it should turn out that the bike was plainly visible from the vehicle at, say, 1 m, I'd suggest that the adjudicator got their calculations wrong and this could be grounds for an appeal. If it's only just visible at 1.5m where you think you parked.... probably very difficult to get an appeal.

What you want to do is show that accepting the adjudicators position that you were parked closer than you say, that you would still have been clearly visible. I think realistically that's the only traction you'd get towards an appeal.

If the bike wasn't clearly visible (CLEARLY visible), I think you should just chalk it up to experience and remember that when parking a bike you need to take care that blind-as-a-bat car drivers will have no trouble seeing the bike.

If you were a parent, you wouldn't let your kids play behind a car in it's blind spot, and if you did, you'd probably not want to see the driver of that car get unduly punished for the inevitable accident - there but for the grace of god and all that.

[Okey Dokey]

The driver may even have walked right past the bike to get to his vehicle, and then backed into the bike.

It happened to my bike once, years ago.

[Patrick]

Referree made a mistake here. You have a witness.[/B]
2. i did not park the motorbike with due care. Another mistake..... how does he come to this conclusion?
3. he believes the bike is too low for the driver to see, so no negligence to the driver.The biggest mistake. Like trucks reversing into cars now... just plain daft
4. i am inexperieced rider as an experience rider said he would not park behind the car. (he only heard this from the driver, no evidence)

And another strange decision. You could park it parallel or angled - it was your parking space, as long as it is not blocking the roadway... He, the car driver, didn't look. THAT is the problem.

You don't always need a lawyer for court. Others on here have represented themselves. There must be an appeal process you can follow, and if not, FAIR GO....

[j.c]

And another strange decision. You could park it parallel or angled - it was your parking space, as long as it is not blocking the roadway... He, the car driver, didn't look. THAT is the problem.

You don't always need a lawyer for court. Others on here have represented themselves. There must be an appeal process you can follow, and if not, FAIR GO....

thanks Pat, will see if can get an appeal.

[Patrick]

See PM.

Appeal or Fair Go.

[breakaway]

Also you should post the name of the moderator / referee here in public domain so if anyone from here has an issue again and gets him/her, they may ask for another on the grounds that he/she doesn't actually know how to do their job.