Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Transport

Sponsored by Chamberlains - complete legal services for business

Why bother paying parking fines?

By johnboy - 10 August 2009 48

The Canberra Times brings word of the expectedly shambolic state of parking fine collection in the ACT:

    At January 1, more than 160,000 unpaid fines were sitting on the rego.act database, some dating back to 1980, and all but 22,300 were overdue.

Apparently there’s $23 million worth of them.

Why not just slap the unpaid fines onto the next rego fee?

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments
48 Responses to
Why bother paying parking fines?
1
toriness 9:14 am
10 Aug 09
#

amen to that. or have a public register of shame like they do in tassie.

Report this comment

2
harley 9:50 am
10 Aug 09
#

My preference is to make the fine commensurate with the Redbook value of the vehicle. Say, 0.3%… A Falcodore would get a $90 fine, but a merc or audi might get a $270 fine. I see more tickets on high-value cars than on crap boxes.

Once the accumulated fine value goes over 5% of the vehicle value, it gets towed. No ands, ifs or buts. Pay the fine, and the towing cost then you’re good to go.

Course – the rego idea works too, but I still want the relative value of the fine changed to discourage parking illegally just because the well off can afford it.

Report this comment

3
Ceej1973 9:51 am
10 Aug 09
#

How can this be? I was late paying my fine, but had an admin fee slapped on top, which I didnt pay, due to a misunderstanding of “the fine print”. Anyway, while OS I got a last notice reminder telling me to pay the admin fee by a date which was while I was still OS. If I chose not to pay the admin fee I would a) lose my licence or b) lose my right to drive in the ACT. So naturally I paid the admin fee. So what I am confused about, is, is there a glitch in the TAMS database’s or are there a hell of a lot of people driving around illegally, or, is TAMS more leaneant with non fine payers over non admin fee payers (who have already paid the fine)?

Anyway, I agree with JB, or if multi offenders, start taking points off their licence.

Report this comment

4
PM 10:40 am
10 Aug 09
#

A lot might belong to those who don’t live here any longer.

For example, a mate of mine had a dispute over a parking fine, and was told he’d have to prove he was in the right, not the other way around, but he had no real evidence. He told the operator that he didn’t even live here and they can go scew themselves. He was threatened with a “You’ll never drive in Canberra again!” – which he found hilarious….

Report this comment

5
miz 10:43 am
10 Aug 09
#

An amnesty would be in order for fines over five years old, as I suspect it would cost more than they are worth to pursue them.

Report this comment

6
caf 10:49 am
10 Aug 09
#

Ceej1973: It’s just a guess, but it might be that the laws in the old days didn’t let them suspend your license or rego for non-payment of fines – so possibly they can’t apply those rules to old fines issued back then.

Report this comment

7
harvyk1 11:09 am
10 Aug 09
#

harley said :

Course – the rego idea works too, but I still want the relative value of the fine changed to discourage parking illegally just because the well off can afford it.

Harley, there has been a suggestion (in some of the richer suburbs of Sydney) of making fines a percentage of the weekly income for just this reason. The richer amoungst us simply parked illegally because they wouldn’t miss a $100 if they where fined, whilst the lower paid that $100 could mean the difference between eating and not eating.

Report this comment

8
andym 11:21 am
10 Aug 09
#

Wonder what percentage of these belong to diplomat plated vehicles?

Report this comment

9
tortfeaser 11:27 am
10 Aug 09
#

So this is saying ~22,000 fines weren’t overdue, ie were within the 28 day payment period. So roughly 22,000 x 12 x $72 = $19 million pa in fines? A nice little earner.

Report this comment

10
Master_Bates 11:39 am
10 Aug 09
#

Hmmm – This is interesting – in an era where Katie is wanting to move the pokies to increase revenue – they couldn’t be bothered collecting the parking fines…..

I winder if it is basically bacause the quality of staff in our DPP is soo wofal, that they would simply loose any court battle, with costs being awarded against them.. Mmmmm How to turn +$23 mil into -$mil….

Report this comment

11
caf 12:50 pm
10 Aug 09
#

tortfeaser: Guess that’s about $100/year less rates that the rest of us have to pay, then. Sounds good to me.

Report this comment

12
SheepGroper 12:59 pm
10 Aug 09
#

harvyk1 said :

The richer amoungst us simply parked illegally because they wouldn’t miss a $100 if they were fined, whilst to the lower paid that $100 could mean the difference between eating and not eating.

Gosh, the lower paid could just park legally in the first place.

Report this comment

13
housebound 1:25 pm
10 Aug 09
#

I know of only one person who PLANS to park illegally, and includes the fine in their annual budget (they say it is cheaper than paying for all day parking every day).

Other than oddballs like that, most people don’t plan to get fined. It’s usually an accident.

Report this comment

14
Special G 3:08 pm
10 Aug 09
#

Turn them into warrants. $100/or 1 day in the bin. Then when people start getting arrested or pay the fine on the spot things might get done. Linking it to suspensions is simply not working.

Report this comment

15
ahappychappy 4:06 pm
10 Aug 09
#

harvyk1 said :

harley said :

Course – the rego idea works too, but I still want the relative value of the fine changed to discourage parking illegally just because the well off can afford it.

Harley, there has been a suggestion (in some of the richer suburbs of Sydney) of making fines a percentage of the weekly income for just this reason. The richer amoungst us simply parked illegally because they wouldn’t miss a $100 if they where fined, whilst the lower paid that $100 could mean the difference between eating and not eating.

Or maybe the people who need their $100 could park legally.

What about those who own an expensive car who don’t actually earn that much? Is that fair to them? Maybe they spent all of their savings on their car as they felt that a reliable/safer car is more important than a few other material goods.

Your logic is flawed.

Report this comment

1 2 3 4

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2016 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Search across the site