The almighty parking saga - a victory of sorts?

[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!

[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

[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

[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!

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.