jayseven Posted September 16, 2013 Posted September 16, 2013 I like to think about how I would've dealt with the above situation. If I was the guy paying the fine, I probably wouldn't have bought a bunch of small change. If I did, I don't think I'd've pushed it all over her keyboard and whatnot. If I was the lady accepting the payment I think I would've stated that I could not confirm his payment until the money was verified and bagged as the correct amount - then proceeded to count very slowly and perhaps make a few mistakes, before calling over a colleague to double-check the count. If I was the security guard I would've had a fucking sense of humour - that dick had absolutely no power whatsoever and probably just fancied the lady. But yeah - the guy should be within his rights to pay the fine with small change, but he is acting without due care for his fellow citizen when he purposefully causes extra hassle. That forces delays to anyone behind him (which, contrary to the earlier situation where the count is made slowly, the emphasis is still on the douche trying to be a douche). This guy wants to be in and out and cause as much hassle as possible -- much like his parking, I presume. Without context for his original offense it is easy to say he's behaving like a twat. It could've been received better, though; all this "we refuse to accept something because we dislike how we have lost control over the situation" is lame.
Sheikah Posted September 16, 2013 Posted September 16, 2013 Everything I have been able to find out suggests that in Australia to pay for that amount of fine with such small change renders it non legal tender. For that reason the woman is completely in the right to refuse it.
Rummy Posted September 16, 2013 Posted September 16, 2013 I'm no expert on the matter so I can't comment with certainty. It seems quite unobtrusive to me but if it's illegal it's illegal. Laws are laws whether you agree with them or not. If you want to change the law, do what you can to do so. You can't just ignore it because you disagree with it. You can argue whether laws are fair or not but at the end of the day they are still laws and we have to abide by them. If the car in that picture is parked illegally, the driver must face the consequences. My personal opinion is that the parking is fine but there could be things I'm overlooking. I'm sure there's something about not parking across a certain amount of pavement which may not seem fair in this case as there's no clear obstruction but should we have specific parking laws for every individual road? (I'm working with the assumption that it is illegal parking even though it doesn't look like it because I think you are trying to surprise me :p) This isn't a complaint or judgement on you; but that's why I worry posting it because of my arguments so far on the debate. People answering in response to my own attitude rather the arguments or questions. All I'd like is your honest opinion of what you see in the photo. There won't be a right or wrong at the end of it all, but it's difficult to present a full case without doing something like this. It's something I personally know more about, but I'd like to see what people say without me indicating either way. I don't wish to influence the judgement either way, but similarly I'd like it if a response was as impartial as it might be - just on the photo alone. Everything I have been able to find out suggests that in Australia to pay for that amount of fine with such small change renders it non legal tender. For that reason the woman is completely in the right to refuse it. So does 'legal tender' apply to fines then? My issue was tender seems to imply an exchange, an offer, whereas a fine is rather opposite in it's more a demand(and implemented with no objection) that I wondered if legal tender applies to such. I genuinely don't know, but imagine it could be a finer point of law.
Sheikah Posted September 16, 2013 Posted September 16, 2013 In fact here is the Reserve Bank of Australia's own say: A payment of coins is a legal tender throughout Australia if it is made in Australian coins, but this is subject to some restrictions about how much can be paid in coin. According to the Currency Act 1965 (section 16) coins are legal tender for payment of amounts which are limited as follows: not exceeding 20c if 1c and/or 2c coins are offered (these coins have been withdrawn from circulation, but are still legal tender); not exceeding $5 if any combination of 5c, 10c, 20c and 50c coins are offered; and not exceeding 10 times the face value of the coin if $1 or $2 coins are offered. For example, if someone wants to pay a merchant with five cent coins, they can only pay up to $5 worth of five cent coins and any more than that will not be considered legal tender Thus: - Guy still has fine - Guy behaved like douche
Rummy Posted September 16, 2013 Posted September 16, 2013 Jeeeeeeeeeez. I understand the concept of legal tender. Tender is apparently derived from to offer. Does 'legal tender' apply in the context of a fine given there is no offer per se, there is no debt rendered for goods or services, it is something placed on the person liable immediately without contest. (subject to potential further contest - does payment of it still come under jurisdiction of 'legal tender' - fines of this nature are paid to the state. My only question is do the held definition of 'legal tender' still apply legally in such circumstances!)
The Peeps Posted September 16, 2013 Posted September 16, 2013 I did still try to say my personal opinion. In my view there's nothing wrong with parking that car like that.
Sheikah Posted September 16, 2013 Posted September 16, 2013 Jeeeeeeeeeez. I understand the concept of legal tender. Tender is apparently derived from to offer. Does 'legal tender' apply in the context of a fine given there is no offer per se, there is no debt rendered for goods or services, it is something placed on the person liable immediately without contest. (subject to potential further contest - does payment of it still come under jurisdiction of 'legal tender' - fines of this nature are paid to the state. My only question is do the held definition of 'legal tender' still apply legally in such circumstances!) "Throughout Australia" Anywhere
Rummy Posted September 16, 2013 Posted September 16, 2013 Thanks Peeps, apologies if I misinterpreted. I'm going to leave the picture open to some hopeful further discussion before I go into the case in more detail. "Throughout Australia" Anywhere The state isn't a merchant. Am I talking dutch? My question is that - does the concept of 'legal tender' apply to fines imposed by the state? All questioning aspects explained in previous post. I don't understand why this is such a hard question to actually answer. Does it apply to fine imposed by state; yes or no, source your evidence. I'm not talking trades, barters, agreed goods, services, etc. I'm talking a fine imposed - there is no choice involved for the fine-ee, as it were. Does it have a separate legal distinction, and as a result does 'legal tender' apply to such exchanges or not?
Sheikah Posted September 16, 2013 Posted September 16, 2013 (edited) Legal tender applies to all payments, and there's a few other sites that go into this in more detail. But just as a source for what I was saying before. CURRENCY ACT 1965 - SECT 16 Legal tender (1) A tender of payment of money is a legal tender if it is made in coins that are made and issued under this Act and are of current weight: Edited September 16, 2013 by Sheikah
Diageo Posted September 16, 2013 Posted September 16, 2013 I'd say if it was ReZ that had somehow been screwed over and he knew they had to accept the money and did this, everyone would be laughing at it.
The Bard Posted September 16, 2013 Posted September 16, 2013 It's simultaneously funny, and a dick move. Sort of like meatspin.
The Peeps Posted September 16, 2013 Posted September 16, 2013 I'd say if it were ReZ he wouldn't have been such a dick about it. Also from seeing ReZ's reaction, he wouldn't have done it in the first place :p
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted September 16, 2013 Posted September 16, 2013 I'd say if it was ReZ that had somehow been screwed over and he knew they had to accept the money and did this, everyone would be laughing at it. It's all in the delivery. I have no doubt ReZ would be able to pull it off as a good-natured prank, but this guy was being smug and self-righteous, which was just cringeworthy. EDIT: Beaten to it by Peeps.
Rummy Posted September 17, 2013 Posted September 17, 2013 Legal tender applies to all payments, and there's a few other sites that go into this in more detail. But just as a source for what I was saying before. I'm going to debate this with you later. Right now I'd welcome judgements on the photo from anyone willing to provide such. I'll explain in detail tomorrow or Wednesday.
Jonnas Posted September 17, 2013 Posted September 17, 2013 I heard a story of a guy who pulled this in Portugal. He got a ticket (for speeding, I think?), but the cop was a dick about it and overcharged him (I believe it was 200€ for something that's usually below 100€). He went to the police station and paid like that simply to spite said policeman. Different situation, definitely. In this case, it's only even remotely justifiable if he's contesting the fine and using the video to raise awareness to it. And it is a terrible video to gain any kinds of support, at any rate.
Iun Posted September 17, 2013 Posted September 17, 2013 (edited) This happened in China, and it was an attempt to spite the victim - a restaurant owner was forced to pay 10,000 RMB to a woman beaten up by a waiter from his restaurant. He paid the fine in 1 jiao pieces (10 jiao to 1 RMB). It was an utter, utter dick move. And the worst part of it is, the bank had to spend two days counting it all in shifts. @Rummy I've looked at the picture. I don't get it. Does the sign mean no parking like that? Edited September 17, 2013 by Iun
EEVILMURRAY Posted September 17, 2013 Posted September 17, 2013 Don't worry @Rummy, I get what you mean by legal tender in this context.
Blade Posted September 17, 2013 Posted September 17, 2013 Im not entirely sure. Theres nothing in statute that I can see which states fines or commercial transactions should be treated differently with one another. Then again ive only had a brief look at the Coinage Act 1971. Its not really something I have had a query about.
jayseven Posted September 17, 2013 Posted September 17, 2013 Jeeeeeeeeeez. I understand the concept of legal tender. Tender is apparently derived from to offer. Does 'legal tender' apply in the context of a fine given there is no offer per se, there is no debt rendered for goods or services, it is something placed on the person liable immediately without contest. (subject to potential further contest - does payment of it still come under jurisdiction of 'legal tender' - fines of this nature are paid to the state. My only question is do the held definition of 'legal tender' still apply legally in such circumstances!) The offering of money is the 'tender', not the offering of a good or service. The 'legality' of the offering of money is at question here, though I see what you are saying. In a shop, for example, they have the right to refuse payment because they owe the customer nothing and promise no guarantee. The law in Australia (which globally tends to just be an unwritten courtesy code) is in place to bring down various other costs that a price tag would not necessarily take into consideration - the extra time and manhours (or minutes) it takes to count, sort and exchange that money plus the space the money takes up add tiny costs here and there. Even the state can have a right to refuse the payment if it inconveniences them.
ReZourceman Posted September 17, 2013 Posted September 17, 2013 What's the story with the white car? I'm not competent enough to know if its illegal or not/why they said it was illegal? As for Rummy's what ifs, none of that matters. I wouldn't even have minded if he paid with change if he WAS being screwed over, the entire bit at the council place was horrendous viewing. I also think that the guy came over for a bit of support for his colleague....the guy was being physically imposing by repeatedly pushing the money over the counter, as well as being rude and dismissive - I think anyone seeing their friend go through that would go over. Not only that but I think she looked over too.
Serebii Posted September 17, 2013 Posted September 17, 2013 Interesting fact. My brother and father have managed to get over 120 tickets repealed over the last 5 years. Most of the parking signs within Bournemouth are not legally enforceable and so the council always just cancels the ticket because they can't fight it. Despite that, they're trying to file a suit against my brother acting like he's a serious parking offender, despite the fact that they can't enforce a damn thing.
Jon Posted September 17, 2013 Posted September 17, 2013 Interesting fact. My brother and father have managed to get over 120 tickets repealed over the last 5 years. Most of the parking signs within Bournemouth are not legally enforceable and so the council always just cancels the ticket because they can't fight it. Despite that, they're trying to file a suit against my brother acting like he's a serious parking offender, despite the fact that they can't enforce a damn thing. Why park somewhere where you're going to get a ticket just because you think you can get away it? Just seems like being a douche for the sake of it to me.
Serebii Posted September 17, 2013 Posted September 17, 2013 Why park somewhere where you're going to get a ticket just because you think you can get away it? Just seems like being a douche for the sake of it to me. I think they're going overboard with it, yeah. However, it illustrates a point to the council that they continue to ignore. They cannot legally enforce these parking spots, yet they do. If each one got out publically, it'd be disastrous for the council
Rummy Posted September 18, 2013 Posted September 18, 2013 (edited) Right. To come back to the photo, it is a long story of the issue with the parking ticket system - mildy touched on by Serebii. I'm very familiar with the case in the photo, and I'll explain it fully but it's a bit tl;dr so I'll spoil it all. Firstly though, my main issue on all of this is that I take great issue with @ReZourceman's assumption that because someone gets a ticket, they've 'parked like a dick'. Nobody sees anything wrong with the photo, and certainly @Tales notices that he is parked as indicated by the little blue P sign. ReZ sees no reason why there's an issue, and I presume doesn't see it as 'parked like a dick'. @Peeps sees nothing wrong, and neither does @Iun. The motorist in question saw nothing wrong either, parked according to the sign - but you know what? Look close and you see some white under the wiper blade. THAT...is a ticket. For...£110. Issued? 23/11/2013 - a month before christmas. But I'll explain more for anyone who cares to read of the unfair system, the other circumstances, and why I can understand a person's frustration. It's a london borough, ftr. And did you know? Parking with your wheels on the kerb anywhere in london is illegal! Even if you're trying to not block the road and not cause an obstruction! The motorist actually knew this, having gotten a ticket in someone else's car for the same 'offence' previously(had he parked without wheels on the kerb, cars wouldn't have been able to pass). He later found out it's been illegal since the 70s(iirc), but more enforceable with tickets since mid-noughties. HOWEVER...this restriction is removed by....a blue p sign like in the picture! tl:dr summary -parking classed 'illegal' by council -ticket slapped on a month before xmas for £110 -shit ton of process along the way -ticket ruled invalid at adjudication in june, but it took 6 months to get to that point 1. Ticket(Penalty Charge Notice) slapped on car 23/11/2012 - month before xmas. Motorist actually found it 10 minutes after issue. The ticket is for £110 to be paid within 28 days. The ticket notifies that if it is paid within 14 days - it is only £55. If paid at any time, the entire case is closed. Already, it encourages the motorist to pay. It's ok though, if they think it's not fair, they may submit an informal appeal... 1b. Being this is a month before xmas, and the motorist feels completely wrong as he parked within the instructions of the signage - he earmarks £110 to potentially front for this ticket. That kinda matters at xmas. Frustration No1. Note: A penalty charge notice is exactly what it says. It isn't actually a formal serving, it's a notice of a formal serving of a penalty charge, in this case known as a Notice to Owner. If the motorist doesn't pay the charge within 28 days, then this NtO for £110 will be served upon the registered keeper. 2. Informal appeal is submitted. By e-mail, on 03/12/2012 after motorist has sought some advice. The timeframes of 14, 28 days etc are very strict. He hears nothing to even acknowledge receipt. If an informal appeal is recieved within 14 days, but rejected, offer of £55 is likely to be extended for another 2 weeks from rejection. Again, the system encourages the motorist to pay by presenting an apparent discount. However, payment made at ANY point closes the case. Essentially it's like a case settlement. 2b. Sends further e-mail on 08/12/2012 asking if original was received. Receives again no response. Frustration No2/worry of timeframes. Telephone call made a few days later regarding case - informed e-mails WERE received(wouldn't know if hadn't enquired) and that 'case is on hold while it's considered'. Whilst the motorist is held to strict time frames, the council are not. He is not privy to a solid timeframe of when a response can be expected. Frustraion no3. On going worry as money could go towards xmas. 3.18/12/2012 - letter of notice of rejection of informal challenge. With no direct addressing of points made(in this case, the blue p sign). So far also, none of this has actually formally occured - there are no standards required to be met by the council as it's informal. While asked to consider all appeals - most councils actually tend to reject informal challenges now as parking tickets are quite a money turner(look at public 'transparency' information published, FOI requests etc - there's a large jump in parking revenue at least amongst london councils in recent years). £55 discount offered again, system encourages motorist to pay. This also resets the 28 days. 3b. It's christmas, much is happening, and now the money must certainly stay earmarked if motorist wants to fight this. Xmas isn't the cheapest or richest of times. 4. 03/01/2013 - after christmas is a bit calmed down - motorist writes urging the council to re-consider before issuing an NtO, and that costs will be filed for if possible. As expected, no response. 4b. Waiting game. Nothing can be done until NtO is served. Council actually have 6 months within which to serve this - despite a motorist only having 28 days to respond. Also the motorist isn't informed of this 6 months window. 4c. Motorist has started to look into purchasing first house. 5. 03/02/2013 - Motorist issued with formal NtO. Motorist seeks advice, and spends time researching in order to compose decent formal challenge. Which is essentially the same as the informal challenge, with a couple extra points and technicalities for strength of the case. It matters to make points in the formal appeal that might be dismissed by the council in order to later rely on them if needed at an independent appeal. 5b. Holiday abroad booked for two weeks from end of march to beginning of april...worry/frustratons no 4 given tight timeframes on many aspects. 6. 02/03/2013 - Rejection of formal representation received. Points addressed about kerb parking in london with references by council to roads of 40mph or less(bullshit, non-legally defined), being banned in london since 1985(again bullshit, act that should be referenced is from 1974) and reference to 'special white boxes' as an exemption(by which they mean parking bays...which they say not all local authorities use anyway). Incorrect comments on technicalities in documentation already proved wrong at adjudication. Couple of shocking typos on rejection too('fills' instead of 'feels') Given options of paying £110, or lodging an appeal. Appeal lodged on 08/03/2013, with PATAS(independent adjudicators for London borough as I understand it) - via council. 6b. Still looking to purchase first house. 7. Motorist on holiday with no access or proxy access to post from 25/03/2013-02/04/2013. Frustration 4.5 - still looming in back of mind. 8.. 11/04/2013 - Motorist issued with a CHARGE CERTIFICATE saying £110.00 is unpaid, 50% surcharged added and now owes £165.00. MUST pay within 14 days, otherwise court order will be filed which would essentially result in bailiffs. Means more costs. This is a MONTH of waiting, with no word - and a demand for money issued! With 50% surcharge. Major frustration no5. 9. Contact PATAS, appeal registered but in a 'inconsistent queue' because council fucked up somewhere. Shitting pants over bailiffs despite reassurance. 9b. Houses are stressful. 9c. Offer accepted on house previously wanted but off market. Houses are stressful. 10. 25/04/2013 - Finally hear from PATAS/Council. Appeal set for 3rd of June - motorist's birthday. Motorist agrees in coming weeks to a weekend away(130 miles one way) with friends for birthday - however it means he must return in time for 3rd of June in order to attend appeal at 14:00. Intends to drive own car to ensure nothing goes wrong that stops him getting to appeal, and not putting out friends. Frustration no6. 20/05/13 - Car breaks in a major way. Committed to holiday as booked. Realises insurance expires midnight 2nd June. Has to source car for weekend, and renew insurance, and contemplate fixing car. Frustrations 7 and probably 8. 11a. House appears to be going wrong. Seller not responding, questionable survey, costs put out. 11b. Council's required evidence pack arrives with motorist 3 days before adjudication - motorist heading off on weekend holiday. Glimpses, notes they have now quoted relevant and accurate laws, not at any point before offered to motorist(even at stage of formal appeal). Feels gutting that this might actually hold weight. Packs in bag to review on weekend...whilst on holiday, le sigh. Frustrations mounting. Motorist becoming a shell of a person with numerous things all going wrong(house, car, ticket, holiday weekend illness) at the same time, only one person gets a possible glimpse of this. Actually has anxiety attacks. 12. Leaves holiday evening 02/06/13 by self in car in order to return before adjudication at 14:00 next day(birthday) in order to avoid any risk of journey home going massively wrong the next morning. Motorist gets home on evening of 2nd of June circa 11:50pm. Finds out an Uncle he'd just been to see whilst on March/April holiday is in a coma. 13. 03/06/13. Adjudication day. Friends having last funs on holiday on motorist's birthday whilst he attends adjudication in Angel. Not very with it, worried, loses ticket halfway through journey. Stress at other end, has to buy another ticket. Takes day off work for it, not getting paid. 14. Arrives at adjudication in time. In adjudication for 5-10 minutes after an hour's journey. No council representative. Case allowed in motorist's favour without even being heard due to technical procedural impropriety by council. 6 months after ticket was casually slapped on car - finally cancelled. Win for motorist? Feels more like a loss in some ways. Hour journey back home. Costs? No. Because of the reason it was allowed. Celebrates with friends on birthday? No. They're on holiday. So basically fuck you. Fuck you, and fuck your judgements from a simple little video in front of you that shows a potential fraction of a story. Fuck you assuming he 'parked like a dick'. Why can't we give someone the benefit of the doubt? He didn't kill anyone, he wasn't abusive, he didn't actively insult anyone or anything. He was just a bit of a dick. You ever been a bit of a dick? He may have given someone a mildly bad day, but sometimes that happens when you work a fucking job. What would you do in her situation? Was it really that bad? Tbh if I was in a job and THAT happened to me, it really wouldn't be all that bad compared to some other things I've encountered. As said, I'd simply flag it with my manager and take it from there. Not like I've done something wrong or failed a customer or something. So yeah, maybe he was a dick. Or maybe he was frustrated with a really shitty system and having a shitty time. I don't know either way, but I'm not intending to immediately vilify him on one side for it given I've seen how the london parking ticket system operates at least. If PATAS didn't even exist in the above case, it'd involve going to court. Which is running a much higher financial risk - to take a stand against a system designed to fine you and get you to pay with very little advice or advantage to you. Very little leniency. A system now exploited by the people who run it to make money. God forbid it actually considers people as people. I know of other personal parking injustices too - how a ticket is slapped on and people are scared into paying, or not fighting, because they simply just don't know better. Or they think they might as well pay up at the discount rate, that they won't win. Exactly because of that lack of fight, the councils carry on with it. Edited September 18, 2013 by Rummy
Recommended Posts