Wednesday, 4 November 2015
City of ____________
__________, Vic, 3_____.
Attn : ________________
Program Manager, Permits and Review.
On-Street Compliance Services.
Service Request : _____________
Your Ref : _______.
My Ref : _____________.
Infringement Notice : __________
Vehicle Registration : ______
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Thank you for your prompt response to my request for review.
I accept your statement that the sign may have indicated 7.00pm till Midnight, and the vehicle was found parked at 11.48pm, some 12minutes beforehand.
I acknowledge your comments that a vehicle may not stop there before Midnight and the driver may have erred in thinking it was ok with only 12 minutes to go.
I appreciate the reason you indicate the signs are necessary to avoid chaos etc..
However, as I indicated in my original request for review, I do not know who was driving at the time.
Despite my request for CCTV footage to help me identify the driver, you say your “Safe City Cameras Program” operating protocols do not permit the use of camera material in relation to parking offences. That is very unfortunate as if not for your protocol we could easily identify the driver.
Although you suggest that responsibility for the infringement remains with the registered owner of the vehicle unless a driver can be identified and nominated AND how you “carefully considered” the information I provided and found “no grounds” to withdraw the infringement, I beg to differ and seek your kind reconsideration of the matter.
I acknowledge that you state the Infringements Act 2006 entitles me only one opportunity to apply for review, however I do dispute your statement that “based on the grounds presented, you have now exhausted all avenues for review by the City of Melbourne. In fact your very next line states “no further consideration will be given unless new supporting evidence is provided.
In line with your last words “unless new supporting evidence is provided” I put forward the following:
- Contrary to your assertion that there are “no grounds” to withdraw the infringement, I direct you to Section 10 (K) of the Infringements Act 2006 ‘Infringements Act’ titled “Official warning does not affect other powers” which implies you have the authority to issue an official warning rather than choose to prosecute this matter, I would like to apply for that official warning;
- In line with the aforementioned official warning I draw your attention to Section 19 of the Infringements Act, where it states a withdrawal notice must be in writing and contain the prescribed details; and state that the enforcement agency intends to proceed in respect of the infringement offence by taking no further action;
- I am making this application pursuant to Section 22 of the Infringements Act where it states a person who has been served with an infringement notice may apply to the relevant enforcement agency for review of the decision to serve the infringement notice if the person believes the decision was contrary to law; or involved a mistake of identity; or that special circumstances apply to the person; or the conduct for which the infringement notice was served should be excused having regard to any exceptional circumstances relating to the infringement offence.
- Further to the above I have made it clear I was requesting review based on all the issues available under S.22 of the Infringements Act.
- Furthermore given the special circumstances outlined there may be scope for you to cancel the infringement notice pursuant to S.37 since I was not aware;
- I understand you rely on ROAD SAFETY ACT 1986 ‘Roads Act’– Section 84BC titled Operator onus offences, however pursuant to S.84BC(1) and S.84BH titled Defences to operator onus offences where I have made an unknown user statement within the prescribed period and that the statement is, or ought to have been accepted by an enforcement official as, an effective statement for the purposes of this Part;
- As you in your response letter to me dated 29th August, 2015 took personal responsibility to deny my original request for review, and you are the person granted the authority to either approve this reconsideration request or deny it. How you choose to wield your power is of course up to your best judgment. I have sought preliminary legal advice on this matter myself and we are of the belief if you choose to pursue this in malice it would amount to malicious prosecution for which you will be held personally liable.
- Furthermore I suggest you consider your position wisely as clearly if this went to Court there would be no case to answer with the Magistrate determining the exceptional circumstance and absent probable cause would satisfying the second limb of malicious prosecution.
- This would also bring into question the issue of your position at the Council as a collateral abuse of process in your initiating proceedings which would also lead to additional causes of action against you for misfeasance in public office.
- Furthermore as the Council is initiating this action in a corporate capacity I have been informed that your actions could also result in additional causes of action of undue influence and unconscionable conduct, which I am hope is not the intent of Mayor ______________, perhaps you may want to run it by him before this goes further.
In conclusion Mr ________, I hope you can see from my motion for reconsideration that this matter I have taken seriously, although you may have thought with your initial reply that you would intimidate me into payment of a fine I am not liable for sometimes it seems there are people willing to help me with god’s grace, so I pray you reconsider your position on this matter. I hope you can find it in your good heart and authority to allow this motion.
 INFRINGEMENTS ACT 2006 – SECT 10 Official warning does not affect other powers
 Ibid S.19
 Ibid S.19(a)
 Ibid S.19(b)(iii)
 Ibid S.22 (a)
 Ibid S.22 (a)(i)
 Ibid S.22 (a)(ii)
 Ibid S.22 (b)
 Ibid S.22 (c)
 Road Safety Act S.84BH(a)
 A v State of New South Wales  HCA 10
 Grainger v Hill (1838) 132 ER 769 at 773.
 Pitman Training Ltd v Nominet UK  EWHC Ch 367.
 Northern Territory v Mengel (1995) 185 CLR 307.