Infringement notice -Not displaying rego in prescribed manner (in wallet)

[pritch]

thats swearing false affidavit and probably lying oath.
Either way, it's lying. Bad karma, and you're an asshole.

Where's Hitcher when you need him?

[SPman]

The OP has not commented whether it was council issued or not.
Going back were councils not allowed to fine for no rego/wof unless they had broken another rule (parking or somewhat), or is that gone by the way now?

Anyway, another reason to move to OZ, well NSW anyway, rego stickers are goneburgers for light vehicles.
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/registrati...els/index.html

No rego stickers in WA for the last 2 yrs or so. Parking wardens are only allowed to issue tickets (illegally) for parking offenses - none of this cheapskate zealous policeman malarky. Takes a cop about 30 secs to check if your rego is current or not so the whole thing is bullshit, anyway - but - hey - it brings in more moolah, and that's all that counts!

[Akzle]

He's a donkeyhole?

you're a donkeyhole.

Where's Hitcher when you need him?

touching little boys.

[R-Soul]

1. To help us determine what is the best "defence" we need to know if this ticket was created by a police officer or a parking warden.

2. I remember reading somewhere that leaving the old ticket showing when you have a new one is also an offence that carries a fine.

3. If the rego on the bike had lapsed very resently and you can show that you have now paid for a new one (and it is now fitted as per the book) you will get of the ticket. There is normally a 14 days period to sort this from when the old rego had lapsed. (Been there done that).

4. Instead of asking for dubious advice on KB you should use the phone numer provided on the ticket for advice. I have found them most helpful.

It was issued by the council, not a cop.

I dont see how the display of old information is offensive at all? How can it be an offence?

My rego was paid for in January, and was still valid. Still is. Thats why I got a "failure to affix" fine instead of a "failure to have a valid rego" fine. So they must have known. The whole things just reeks of money generation for the council.


I was hoping for some insider info from peopel that may have got off such fines before (as opposed to abuse).

[R-Soul]

Did you get any de-merit points with that ticket?

It doesn't mention demerit points, so I guess not.

[Milts]

It was issued by the council, not a cop.

I dont see how the display of old information is offensive at all? How can it be an offence?

My rego was paid for in January, and was still valid. Still is. Thats why I got a "failure to affix" fine instead of a "failure to have a valid rego" fine. So they must have known. The whole things just reeks of money generation for the council.


I was hoping for some insider info from peopel that may have got off such fines before (as opposed to abuse).

In wellington here, but same thing happened to me.

Went in to the office where you can make a formal appeal, filled out a sheet and stated that my bike had been rego'd on that day, that the rego had always been current, and I had no idea why the ticket had been issued. Ticket was waived within a week.

[Conquiztador]

It was issued by the council, not a cop.

I dont see how the display of old information is offensive at all? How can it be an offence?

My rego was paid for in January, and was still valid. Still is. Thats why I got a "failure to affix" fine instead of a "failure to have a valid rego" fine. So they must have known. The whole things just reeks of money generation for the council.


I was hoping for some insider info from peopel that may have got off such fines before (as opposed to abuse).

You might find this interesting and/or informative: http://www.consumer.org.nz/news/view...bels-and-fines

And here, some clarity to what is and what is not an offence. You will find the relevant information from about #80 onwards. Happy reading... http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regul...tml#DLM2938442


P.S You are concerned re attacks on KB??? Nobody and no comment is tabo on here. Just grow a thicker skin!

[R-Soul]

This was the most relevant section, but I cannot find anything that matches what I did:

85 Registration plates or licence not displayed as required
(1) A person commits an offence if the person operates a motor vehicle by driving or using it on a road if the motor vehicle—

(a) displays any registration plate or licence that is not authorised to be affixed to the motor vehicle under Part 17 of the Act; or

(b) displays an object or a design that is reasonably likely to be mistaken for a plate or licence authorised to be affixed to the motor vehicle under Part 17 of the Act.

(2) A person commits a stationary vehicle offence if the person operates a motor vehicle by causing or permitting it to be on a road if the motor vehicle—

(a) displays any registration plate or licence that is not authorised to be affixed to the motor vehicle under Part 17 of the Act; or

(b) displays an object or a design that is reasonably likely to be mistaken for a plate or licence authorised to be affixed to the motor vehicle under Part 17 of the Act.

(3) In proceedings for an offence against subclause (1) or (2) that relates to the display of a registration plate that is not authorised to be affixed to the motor vehicle, it is a defence if the defendant proves that personalised plates—

(a) have been issued to the motor vehicle; and

(b) have been dispatched to the person acquiring the plates in the 7 days preceding the offence but have not yet been received by that person.

Compare: 1986 No 6 s 17(a)

[unstuck]

I find it hard to belive you are still crying over this.

[Conquiztador]

This was the most relevant section, but I cannot find anything that matches what I did:

85 Registration plates ........ Compare: 1986 No 6 s 17(a)

Try this one (And you realise why you have been feeling that squeeze around your balls):

91 Evidence of registration and licensing

• (1) The fact that a motor vehicle is operated without having registration plates affixed to and displayed on it in accordance with these regulations is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, sufficient evidence that the motor vehicle is not registered in accordance with Part 17 of the Act.
  
  (2) The fact that a motor vehicle is operated without having a valid licence affixed to and displayed on it in accordance with these regulations is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, sufficient evidence that the motor vehicle is not licensed in accordance with Part 17 of the Act.
  
  (3) For the purposes of this regulation, valid licence means a current licence or a licence issued for the motor vehicle that is to come into force within the next month.
  
  
  
  
  

[FJRider]

It doesn't mention demerit points, so I guess not.

A Council ticket. They have NO authority to issue demerit points. A police issued ticket would have ...

[FJRider]

... P.S You are concerned re attacks on KB??? Nobody and no comment is tabo on here. Just grow a thicker skin!

We know the difference between Infringements and Infractions ...

[FJRider]

My rego was paid for in January, and was still valid. Still is. Thats why I got a "failure to affix" fine instead of a "failure to have a valid rego" fine. So they must have known. The whole things just reeks of money generation for the council.

It matters little ... changes little ... if you have paid the required fee or not. "Failure to affix current ... " is the prescribed charge. Either by council staff or Police.

Notify the Council you intend fighting the charge in court as you did have (and can prove) current rego. As their parking staff may have trouble remembering what day it is ... and they (and their evidence) will be required in court ... the council may drop/withdraw the charges ...

[R-Soul]

Try this one (And you realise why you have been feeling that squeeze around your balls):

91 Evidence of registration and licensing

• (1) The fact that a motor vehicle is operated without having registration plates affixed to and displayed on it in accordance with these regulations is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, sufficient evidence that the motor vehicle is not registered in accordance with Part 17 of the Act.
  
  (2) The fact that a motor vehicle is operated without having a valid licence affixed to and displayed on it in accordance with these regulations is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, sufficient evidence that the motor vehicle is not licensed in accordance with Part 17 of the Act.
  
  (3) For the purposes of this regulation, valid licence means a current licence or a licence issued for the motor vehicle that is to come into force within the next month.
  
  
  
  
  

If that is the basis then I am sweet because I can prove otherwise...

[R-Soul]

I find it hard to belive you are still crying over this.

Some people can afford to wipe their ass with $200. I am not one of them.

That $200 was for my new front brakes. Now I will have to make do with metal-to-metal contact for a while... I guess the law is having its intended consequences then?

Hampton Downs anyone?