challenging a parking fine in court

[plato85]

I've got a parking fine which I'm considering taking to court which could cost me several hundreds if I lose. The law is vague and I'm not sure how strong my argument is so I need your advice. I consider you guys as good as lawyers.

I pulled into a car park, and the parking sign said to pay on a mobile app, "PayStay" and it gave an area code.

I downloaded PayStay and paid the correct area, but I switched two letters on my license plate and I didn't notice.

I got an $80 ticket. The law I allegedly broke was:

"Parking where fees are payable: The driver must (a) pay the fee (if any); and (b) obey any instructions on or with the sign, meter, ticket or ticket-vending machine.

Definitions:

traffic control device means a traffic sign, road marking, traffic signals, or other device, to direct or warn traffic on, entering or leaving a road;

with, for information about the application of a traffic control device, includes accompanying or reasonably associated with the device;

 

 

I applied for an internal review and the city wrote back "We don’t withdraw fines in these circumstances. Before starting a session, drivers are given multiple opportunities to check that they have entered the correct vehicle registration and zone number. If these details are not accurate, you have not correctly paid for parking and the PayStay session is not valid. We strictly enforce the correct use of PayStay."

I'm thinking of taking this to court on the grounds that the instructions within the app are not reasonably with the sign because:

1. The law is vague and obviously wasn't written with a phone app in mind.

2. It is not reasonable to argue that a typo in a phone app is a crime, and there is nothing anywhere in the road rules about making typos.

The City claims that my parking was "not valid" even though they acknowledge that they have a record on their system that I've paid. If they know I've paid then I must have obeyed the signs, and the only thing that makes my parking invalid is that they say it is invalid.

Is my argument sound enough? Or is it a stronger argument that the app is reasonably with the sign because the sign mentions the app?

 

[mgggb]

On 8/25/2017 at 7:59 AM, plato85 said:

I've got a parking fine which I'm considering taking to court which could cost me several hundreds if I lose. The law is vague and I'm not sure how strong my argument is so I need your advice. I consider you guys as good as lawyers.

I pulled into a car park, and the parking sign said to pay on a mobile app, "PayStay" and it gave an area code.

I downloaded PayStay and paid the correct area, but I switched two letters on my license plate and I didn't notice.

I got an $80 ticket. The law I allegedly broke was:

"Parking where fees are payable: The driver must (a) pay the fee (if any); and (b) obey any instructions on or with the sign, meter, ticket or ticket-vending machine.

Definitions:

traffic control device means a traffic sign, road marking, traffic signals, or other device, to direct or warn traffic on, entering or leaving a road;

with, for information about the application of a traffic control device, includes accompanying or reasonably associated with the device;

 

 

I applied for an internal review and the city wrote back "We don’t withdraw fines in these circumstances. Before starting a session, drivers are given multiple opportunities to check that they have entered the correct vehicle registration and zone number. If these details are not accurate, you have not correctly paid for parking and the PayStay session is not valid. We strictly enforce the correct use of PayStay."

I'm thinking of taking this to court on the grounds that the instructions within the app are not reasonably with the sign because:

1. The law is vague and obviously wasn't written with a phone app in mind.

2. It is not reasonable to argue that a typo in a phone app is a crime, and there is nothing anywhere in the road rules about making typos.

The City claims that my parking was "not valid" even though they acknowledge that they have a record on their system that I've paid. If they know I've paid then I must have obeyed the signs, and the only thing that makes my parking invalid is that they say it is invalid.

Is my argument sound enough? Or is it a stronger argument that the app is reasonably with the sign because the sign mentions the app?

 

My advice is to just pay the ticket. 

[A4E]

2 hours ago, mgggb said:

My advice is to just pay the ticket. 

Second that. You will spend time and energy, and you will have to focus on it probably for some time. Also you could lose, and that can also make you depressed and what not... And imo it does not seem that you have a clear cut case, so its risky for sure.

Some of the only gratifications of winning would be to send a message to the 'bullies' and saving some money, but you don't know for sure that you will win, and the journey there is filled with obstacles for sure... all of which is time, energy and money you can spend with something else.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

Go to court and say you weren't the one who parked the car. Your friend/wife/brother/whoever did it. Watched it happen in front of me one time I went to court to deal with a speeding ticket. A girl approached the bench about a parking ticket, said her boyfriend was driving the car and not her, and the judge through it right out.

Often there is an option right on the ticket. On Seattle camera-tickets, there's a "Non-Responsibility" box you can literally check.

[rogueanarchist]

That people generally back-down and just pay extortion money with no resistance is part of the reason society is in its current state. Have you examined any of Marc Stevens' material, by chance?

[plato85]

I applied to court and I wrote to them that they are essentially accusing me of ripping them off, and I think they’re going to look quite silly trying to assert that in court.

 

Thanks, I agree rouge. I'll check out Marc Stevens. Anything in particular?

[Tyler H]

If you think you can change their mind via reason then you haven't been paying attention... 

[plato85]

I'm hoping the court system and trained judges isn't as irrational as local government and the general public.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

53 minutes ago, plato85 said:

I'm hoping the court system and trained judges isn't as irrational as local government and the general public.

You don't have rights in traffic court. You have privileges. Your driver's license and your vehicle license are evidence that you are bound by the government's rules. By the time you get to actual court, there is only one question left to discuss: Did you do it or not? The judge isn't interested in hearing anything else. Explaining why you did it is simply an admission of guilt.

A request for discovery, prior to the court appearance, is the proper legal method for challenging your opponent (not the judge) for evidence of their claim. Essentially at this point, it's not a question of whether or not you did the act, but whether or not the rule applies to you. If the claimant is unable to produce any evidence of his claim, then you have ability to dismiss the court case. You would do this at the beginning of the court session, and simply say, "I sent a request for discovery, I received no reply, so I would like to make a motion to dismiss." The judge should look the court record for your case and see that this happen, then dismiss the case. The dismissal is because the plaintiff didn't follow proper procedure for the case, so whatever you did is no longer relevant.

Marc Stevens approach, last I heard his work, was to file the request for discovery and straight up ask, "Do you have any evidence that this law applies to <person> because <person> is physically located in <location>?" There never is any evidence, so he just files motions to dismiss. From what I understand, he is seeing a lot of success with this approach.

If you're going to do a request for discovery, make sure you do it in the proper way. Not doing it in the proper way, and not recording it properly, essentially means you didn't do it, and therefore doesn't count.

[Jsbrads]

Judges are often subject to the whims of politicians and the politicians use these tactics to raise funds for the municipality. Most judges know which side of their bread gets buttered and you don't stand a chance with them. 

I wish I could say the judges care about justice and tell them your story, but I can't. 

Save the fight for another day. Learn the loopholes you have to leap thru to park there and consider it a lesson.