# What classifies as moving car to avoid fine?



## chode84 (1 October 2009)

Hey everyone,

Not having much luck finding an answer to this so thought I would ask you guys. 

I drove down to Sydney last night with a couple of friends to go to a concert and we left our car on the side street all night. This didn't pose a problem as the 1hr limit only kicked in at 9am this morning. 

We ended up leaving at about midday today and so made sure we kept moving the car every hour from 9am. Anyway long story short we got a ticket  and I can only conclude that the ranger mistakenly thought the car hadn't been moved when in fact we drove it up the street a couple of spots. 

Is there any legal definition on how far a car has to move to classify as a new park?  I would have thought anywhere would be fine. Just trying to get all facts right before arguing the case. Thanks for any advice!


----------



## Wysiwyg (1 October 2009)

The law is an ass (mule) and if you fight, it will kick. Few succeed at great expense when fighting the law. If the laws of the land were followed to the letter then nearly every man, woman and child would be a criminal at some stage in their lives.
That is clearly not the case and there are only a few d.h`s these days. Noticably much improvement in the police force and generally more "normal" in carrying out their job these days of catching real criminals.


----------



## springhill (1 October 2009)

chode84 said:


> Hey everyone,
> 
> Not having much luck finding an answer to this so thought I would ask you guys.
> 
> ...




Here's an article i found that may clear things up for you chode.
I believe this to be the case in Perth aswell.

"A tip for Sydney drivers – you can get a parking ticket even when you’ve moved your car!

Here’s a tip to help you avoid a parking fine if you’re a Sydney driver – moving your car just a  few spots (or even around the corner) before the expiry of a timed parking restriction may not be enough to avoid getting a parking ticket.
The SMH reported yesterday that a woman lost her appeal against a $79 parking fine she was given even though she moved her car before the 2-hour parking limit expired, into a spot around the corner.
To avoid a parking fine, you need to leave the “parking sector” – and it looks like that’s a bit of a grey area: 

“A parking sector… is usually an area
between two [sign-posted] one-directional arrows, unless indicated
otherwise. Generally a zone would not extend beyond one street, but we’d have to check with [the] council if this is
the case here.”

The woman who was fined was parked in One Island Drive, Pyrmont. It sounds like enforcement is at the discretion of the council involved – so you may want to check with your local council about how they define “parking sectors” or play it safe and drive a decent distance away if you have to move your car."


----------



## Whiskers (1 October 2009)

I would say so long as it was driven out of the park within the time limit and if you came back and the same park was vacant your time starts again... but as you actually parked in a different spot, I'd say the parking officer is the 'Ass'.

There is a big uproar in certain areas from the public against overzealous parking inspectors to the point where the council has changed the military/police look of the uniform to more friendly colours without the shoulder badges etc and directed officers to give more warnings and less fines.

It may be worth your while asking, or writing if necessary, to have the council give you all the details including the parking spot number/location and time if it is not already provided. It may be good if you were able to get the parking officers route details for the day also.

Not sure how it's done now, but I think parking spots used to be numbered on the road and the officer would mark the location of the valve stem with your rego number on their clipboard.

You could potently take action in a court for 'Wrongful/Incompetant issuance of a parking fine' or at least get a bit of evidence together and make a lot of noise threatening too, ie by writing a firm but courteous letter to council stating the facts and pointing out any anomonalies or 'holes' in their parking monitoring system.


----------



## Ato (2 October 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> The law is an ass (mule) and if you fight, it will kick. Few succeed at great expense when fighting the law. If the laws of the land were followed to the letter then nearly every man, woman and child would be a criminal at some stage in their lives.
> That is clearly not the case and there are only a few d.h`s these days. Noticably much improvement in the police force and generally more "normal" in carrying out their job these days of catching real criminals.




Your old avatar was much better Wys!


----------



## Whiskers (2 October 2009)

springhill said:


> It sounds like enforcement is at the discretion of the council involved – so you may want to check with your local council about how they define *“parking sectors”* or play it safe and drive a decent distance away if you have to move your car."




This may be at the root of the issue I mentioned. I think it was in Sydney.

Do you have a link to the article or better still the case, Springhill?

If the council has 'Parking Sector' provisions in the local parking laws and are invoking them  'at their discretion' then you have the right to insist on a reason why they invoked the discretion in your case... eg if you had no history of parking fines and was minimally overtime, you are on first base in Common Law and the Court of Public Opinion.

I'm not a lawyer, although I did study a bit of law and have family in the police service assisting another family member with a similar 'discretionary' issue... but as I recall the notion of 'Common Law and Equity', if there are 'Parking Sectors' they aught to be highlighted/notified with equal prominance as the availability of parking, eg the time limit sign... ie to say the parking limit applies to the particular sector as opposed to a single parking spot.

Yes I know Legislative Law over-rides Judical Law, BUT in the long run it won't cos the Court of Public Opinion can see to that.

I'm curious to see the details of the case above, ie how well the lady was represented and what arguements were put to the magistrate. If no compelling arguement was put re any higher legislation and any inconsistancy or irregularity in the enforcement of the local law then the magistrate would pretty much as a matter of course rule in favour of the council.


----------



## springhill (2 October 2009)

Whiskers said:


> This may be at the root of the issue I mentioned. I think it was in Sydney.
> 
> Do you have a link to the article or better still the case, Springhill?
> 
> ...




Whiskers, same case but different article in more detail

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/03/05/1204402556098.html


----------



## Whiskers (2 October 2009)

Thanks for that Springhill.



> The State Debt Recovery Office has rejected an appeal by a Coogee woman to be excused from a $79 ticket she received when she parked in Darling Island Road, Pyrmont.




I'm from Qld and not real familiar with NSW, but it seems like the woman has so far just taken the first step in the process complaining to the State Debt Recovery Office. As the article later says she still has the option of going to court, and being a FairFax Media Employee, I'd guess that's just what they'll do next.



> The Herald asked Sydney City Council to define a parking sector, but a spokesman said he would not be able to respond before the newspaper's deadline.




How long does it take to refer someone to the particular definition or section in the by-laws!!!



> A spokesman for the Roads and Traffic Authority, Alec Brown, said laws forbidding a motorist to park continuously "in an area or section of road to which the sign-posted parking restriction applies" had been in force since 1999. *However, the "enforcement and interpretation of parking rules is a matter for councils*". Mr Brown added that unhappy "motorists can contest a parking ticket in court".




It looks like a big ambiguity to me. Mix descretion with ambiguity and you have good grounds to get off in a court with good legal representation.


----------



## Tink (2 October 2009)

Yeah that happened to me

With the new fandangle gadgets they have, they no longer mark wheels, so if you are in the same section, you get a fine, not that I disputed it. The few cars parked around me all got one..


----------



## chode84 (2 October 2009)

Thanks for the replies everyone.

If it is in fact the parking "sector" that you have to move from then I guess we're not going to get away with it. What a bulls**t law though. Ah well we'll give it a shot and I'll let you know if it works.

Thanks again.


----------



## gordon2007 (2 October 2009)

At the risk of sounding like a goody two shoes. Wouldn't it of been easier to just pay for a proper park? I just think that when I go out somewhere, I can't be stuffed constantly worrying about moving my car just to save a few dollars. When I plan to go somwhere I just accept that that is the cost of entertainment.


----------



## gooner (2 October 2009)

chode84 said:


> Hey everyone,
> 
> Not having much luck finding an answer to this so thought I would ask you guys.
> 
> ...




Easiest way to "move" the car is to rub off the chalk mark with a "wet one".


----------



## Soft Dough (2 October 2009)

I guess the theory of relativity is not an acceptable explanation?


----------



## MrBurns (2 October 2009)

The parking guy probably saw the chalk on your tyre and didnt know that car had been moved, always rub the chalk out.


----------



## Riddick (2 October 2009)

gordon2007 said:


> At the risk of sounding like a goody two shoes. Wouldn't it of been easier to just pay for a proper park? I just think that when I go out somewhere, I can't be stuffed constantly worrying about moving my car just to save a few dollars. When I plan to go somwhere I just accept that that is the cost of entertainment.





I totally disagree. having to pay for parking is purely and simply a revenue raiser for councils. we are taxed by all 3 levels of government for the provision of roads. if we are visiting the city for shopping the cost of parking spaces is calculated and added into the rates and charges for shopkeepers.

I so detest paying for parking I have removable regstration plates and a set of spares I got from a wreckers yard. If i know i am going to stay longer than the time i fit them after i park. takes only a few seconds.

bring them down!


----------



## MrBurns (2 October 2009)

Riddick said:


> I totally disagree. having to pay for parking is purely and simply a revenue raiser for councils. we are taxed by all 3 levels of government for the provision of roads. if we are visiting the city for shopping the cost of parking spaces is calculated and added into the rates and charges for shopkeepers.
> 
> I so detest paying for parking I have removable regstration plates and a set of spares I got from a wreckers yard. If i know i am going to stay longer than the time i fit them after i park. takes only a few seconds.
> 
> bring them down!




What about your rego sticker


----------



## AlterEgo (2 October 2009)

chode84 said:


> Thanks for the replies everyone.
> 
> If it is in fact the parking "sector" that you have to move from then I guess we're not going to get away with it. What a bulls**t law though. Ah well we'll give it a shot and I'll let you know if it works.
> 
> Thanks again.




You may have a chance if you say that you left the area, and returned half an hour later (what time difference is between the 2 tickets?) and parked back in the same street. Officer has incorrectly assumed that you were parked there the entire time and so fined you.


----------



## Riddick (2 October 2009)

MrBurns said:


> What about your rego sticker




placed strategically behind a sticker and has worked so far. I never hang around long once i return to the car. in and gone. Can't stand going to the city so to be honest I stay as short a time asI possibly can.


----------



## chode84 (2 October 2009)

> You may have a chance if you say that you left the area, and returned half an hour later (what time difference is between the 2 tickets?) and parked back in the same street. Officer has incorrectly assumed that you were parked there the entire time and so fined you.




Yeah thats a good point. Although I bet everyone tries to use that one even when they havn't. Ruining it for the rest of us who actually do move the car! Maybe sue for vandalising the car (chalk) 

On the topic of "why not just pay for parking", I also disagree with the notion that we should have to pay for parking in a residential street. Also there pretty much isn't anywhere to pay for parking in this area unless you want to walk 30 mins to your car.

Like your work Riddick.


----------



## AlterEgo (2 October 2009)

chode84 said:


> Yeah thats a good point. Although I bet everyone tries to use that one even when they havn't. Ruining it for the rest of us who actually do move the car! Maybe sue for vandalising the car (chalk)




Well they can't possibly prove that you were parked there for the entire time. I guess they just rely on people not contesting it.


----------



## Whiskers (2 October 2009)

I agree parking fines are just another form of revenue raising in many cases. In Bundaberg near where I am mostly, I'm not aware of any paid parking areas, but parking is increasingly regulated. People who work in the city had very little all day parking available and were doing the lunch break moving thing after council regulated even more of those spaces. 

Fortunately being a smaller community, public uproar about the inconvenience and safety of women in particular having to walk long distances, particularly in the evening after work to get to their car and the unavailability of other transport and poor street lighting caused council to reconsider. 



AlterEgo said:


> Well they can't possibly prove that you were parked there for the entire time.




That's true... unless the area is covered by video surveillance for example.



> I guess they just rely on people not contesting it.




This is also true. 

The key to contesting is firstly to volunteer little information, especially anything that they may be able to use to incriminate you, and to turn the situation around to *put the onus on them to prove their case *which you do by persuing the appeal process.

People tend to automatically 'defend' themselves/their positions. 

In Law the onus is on the Prosecution/Applicant to prove their case... not for you to defend an unsubstantiated complaint. Your task and your right is to demand all the evidence they have to substantiate their case and to discredit their evidence, highlight ambiguity and alternative scenerios etc.


----------



## badger41 (2 October 2009)

Not parking related, but how's this for a "gotcha"?

A senior police officer on WA radio today was queried about the use of fog lights. He stated that they can only be used in the case of fog (or other dangerous situations - smoke perhaps?), and MUST NOT BE USED WITH OTHER LIGHTING SUCH AS HEADLIGHTS.


Well, I just checked out our Suzuki SX4 and our Mazda3, both fitted with fog-lamps. The fog lamps REQUIRE the headlights to be turned on before they will operate. Presumably the Suzuki and Mazda comply with ADRs, how come the State law doesn't? Check your own vehicle, and state laws!

Badger


----------



## gordon2007 (2 October 2009)

Riddick said:


> I totally disagree. having to pay for parking is purely and simply a revenue raiser for councils. we are taxed by all 3 levels of government for the provision of roads.




I don't dispute that. But still, at the end of the day, it's just easier to pay for a proper park then to have to disrupt myself every hour or two and move a car. 

Perhaps I'm stubborn, but there is no way I'm going to interrupt a good steak, show or anything else juggling car parks just to save myself a $20-30 parking fee. Knowing that I may be successful and I may not. And if not, I then end up with a bigger cost then just paying for a proper car park.


----------



## Lantern (2 October 2009)

In the radical little village that I live in we once had a good laugh.

We were in the middle of a very large police opperation that went on for six months. Somewhere in the middle of this a parking warden came out from the local city council. He came out of the police station, walked down one side of the street chalking the cars then proceded up the other side back towards the police station, eventually chalking every car in the village. 

As soon as he entered the station one of our more radical young females got a wet rag and rubbed every mark off every tyre.

 An hour later he came out of the station, we all watched him walk back down the street, checking the cars. When he reached the pub, where we were, he seemed to realise he had been had and just turned on his heels and went back up the same side of the street to the police station, got in his car, and left.


----------



## jono1887 (2 October 2009)

do they still use the chalk on the tyres?


----------



## Tink (3 October 2009)

jono1887 said:


> do they still use the chalk on the tyres?




No, from what I have seen, they store your rego in this little gadget they have. If they come back and you are still in the section -- ciao ciao


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (3 October 2009)

jono1887 said:


> do they still use the chalk on the tyres?




I always carry chalk with me and when nobody is looking I put chalk marks on tyres.

It keeps the traffic moving especially when I wear an original hat I got at auction in the UK when "On the buses" was canned.

Its quite interesting to sit in the window of the Herbert Hotel to watch the fun on Sturt St. when the drivers notice the chalk.

One poor fellow who can't afford an Arnage, he drives a Continental , gets quite irate at the Council when he sees me tag his car. 

gg


----------

