Woman fights the good fight, gets out of $107 traffic fine… all for a low price of $57,000 in legal fees, and four years of her life
by RealUltimatePapo
Woman fights the good fight, gets out of $107 traffic fine… all for a low price of $57,000 in legal fees, and four years of her life
by RealUltimatePapo
12 Comments
This is the way it is with most things. Easier to pay the fine then fight the injustice.
If she had the money to fight it, good for her. Cities often count on most people not challenging bogus tickets.
This is the line that got me:
>“The Council inspector who photographed her car was in fact driving in in the opposite direction, ironically proving that it wasn’t safe for her to overtake the vehicles in front.”
She got a ticket for “double parking” even though it wasn’t safe for her to move.
Good on her for fighting this, but she’d be stupid if this led to her to being in financial hardship.
It seems pretty obvious that the government should have to cover all her legal fees. Since she did not commit any crime and was false accused.
And THAT is why “You can’t fight city hall”
>“A driver must not stop on a road if to do so would put any part of the vehicle that the driver is driving between a vehicle that is parked on the road and the centre of the road,” they read.
“Strictly speaking, if you are in a line of traffic at a red light and there is a parked car to the left of your car and the centre of the road on the other side, you are double parked,” she said.
>She said Mathie had nowhere to go without crossing onto the wrong side of the road, and photos showed a child crossing in front of her car at the time — highlighting the safety risks.
>“Mathie didn’t just turn off her car and get out, she was in a line of traffic with nowhere to go without crossing onto the wrong side of the road,” she said.
>“The Council inspector who photographed her car was in fact driving in in the opposite direction, ironically proving that it wasn’t safe for her to overtake the vehicles in front.”
>A City of Playford spokesperson told the ABC the council pursued the case to “preserve the integrity of the expiation process, which is an essential regulatory function relied on by councils as well as the South Australia Police”.
The “double parked” rule is written in such a way that they claim you are “parked” if you are sitting in your running car at a red light, and your car is not actually parked.
The city fought it because they want to be able to be assholes to the people who drive there, not because the law is good or just.
“Is not about the money. It’s about sending a message.”
Can you sue the municipality for legal fees?
Fucking lawyers. They’re almost as bad as the cops.
Here’s the thing… yes she paid $57K in legal fees, so how much did the council pay? ALL of it through bottomless rate payers dollars acquired via increasing council rates… there should be a cap on how much councils can spend on litigation
This absolutely makes no sense to me. She was stopped at a red light and there was a car parked on her left (Australia drives on the left), and she was fined for double parking? How does that make any sense?
Surprised? It’s a WOMAN!