Ask an expert

Hi there. I've received a parking ticket for being over-time in a parking place. My car was chalked while I was at a business meeting and the receptionist told me this was happening. I went to my car and relocated it 40-metres further up the road (as did another colleague from the same meeting). After returning to the meeting we were again told by reception that our cars were being ticketed. I approached the officer and told him the car had been moved and the fact that the old chalk mark was still visible was irrelevant. He proceeded with the ticket writing.
In preparation for my court defense I returned to the same street yesterday and filmed on my GoPro video camera my car again being chalked. I attached the camera to the wheel-arch and filmed the tyre / chalk mark as the car was again relocated 40-metres further along the road. The footage shows quite clearly the chalk mark remains (though in a slightly degraded fashion).
My question is...where, in the Land Transport Act under which I'm being prosecuted, does it stipulate the minimum distance required to move in order to be judged to have vacated one parking space and occupied another? And secondly, is a simple chalk mark legal proof that a car has not been moved to another space where the chalk mark may still be observed??
Thanks for your help in this.

There is nothing in the Land Transport Act about how far you have to move, but different councils will have different bylaws about whether moving from one carpark to another in the same zone counts as a new time period or not. In the first instance you should appeal to the relevant council about whether you have breached their bylaw. For the size of the fine we would not recommend challenging in court. As for the chalking, despite being old-fashioned, this is used to verify compliance. But depending on the bylaw, the parking wardens should record in a notebook which parking bay number (or zone) the car was parked in at the different times recorded.

Thanks for your response. I'm going to fight this as the principle is very important. I will have witness testimony and video proof that chalking tyres is too unreliable. A simple time-stamped digital photo of a car next to a identifiable landmark is a far more reliable mechanism, especially with number plate recognition camera technology easily available these days. There was no allocated parking bays in this street area and the warden didn't even record the side of the street that the car was parked on.
I'll let you know how I go.

Dealing with minor cases in the Summary jurisdiction would prove difficult, Judge alone trials with court room full of lawyers and criminals would without doubt be extremely difficult for a lay person, I have been successful in writing to council and having the ticket(s) quashed, I would suggest this course of action in the first instance, a lawyer will cost about $200 an hour and that will not guarantee success, If I see chalk mark on my tyre I usually rub it off.

We would be very interested to know how you get on. We agree, there are more effective technologies to prove compliance than chalk, which councils should be using instead.

Thought you'd appreciate the update. I won, they lost. In fact, once I told them I would see them in court and I'd deal to them there, they threw up their hands and backed down, waiving the infringement. Just proves the point that individuals absolutely MUST stand-up to unfair bureaucratic ineptitude and bullying. Another vital victory for everyman.

Thought you'd appreciate the update. I won, they lost. In fact, once I told them I would see them in court and I'd deal to them there, they threw up their hands and backed down, waiving the infringement. Just proves the point that individuals absolutely MUST stand-up to unfair bureaucratic ineptitude and bullying. Another vital victory for everyman.

knobby that is very good news, I am pleased they have seen the error of their ways. :-) very cool