Driver Lien Pham facing $992 penalty for dodgy parking shown some mercy

AFTER realising her park was dodgy, My Lien Pham, of Berala, was willing to pay the first fine, but her total penalty amounted to an incredible $992.

Lien Pham with her car which received three parking fines in one day / Picture: Tim Hunter

AFTER realising her park was dodgy, this woman was willing to pay the first fine, but not the second and third. Total penalty: $992.

Today in Public Defender we explain how we got the extra fines waived and why the State Debt Recovery ­Office (SDRO) may be wrong when it tells motorists duplicate infringements can be ­issued and enforced.

On March 11, My Lien Pham, of Berala, parked in a Fairfield school zone from 7.50am until 5pm while she went to work in the nearby shopping centre.

Do you have a legal question you want answered for FREE? Click on this link, post it in the Expert Q&A section and our gurus will reply from 1-2pm

SEE MORE FROM THE PUBLIC DEFENDER

Follow John Rolfe on Twitter or Facebook.

At 8.36am Mrs Pham was pinged for stopping near a children’s crossing. At the time she didn’t know she wasn’t allowed to park close to a crossing.

She was fined $425 and two demerits.

At 2.55pm she was slugged for disobeying a no stopping sign in a school zone. The penalty: $319 and a further two demerits. At 4.18pm she was fined for disobeying a no stopping sign ($248, no ­demerits).

An appeal to the SDRO was rejected. It said “leniency is inappropriate for a school zone” despite one of the ­alleged offences occurring outside school-zone hours.

Whether the SDRO’s ­response was reasonable is now in question. “It seems the fines are indeed duplicitous,” Brydens Lawyers principal Lee Hagipantelis said.

Lien Pham’s appeal to the SDRO was rejected / Picture: Tim Hunter

“The common law provides that a person cannot be convicted of different offences in respect of the same or substantially the same set of facts. Here we have three fines being imposed arising out of a single episode. That is the parking of the vehicle.” However, as Mr Hagipantelis noted, the cost of legal representation is greater than the fines. So the average person can’t win.

Public Defender brought Mr Hagipantelis’s opinion to the attention of NSW Police, which said Mrs Pham should write to the Commissioner.

The opinion was also raised with the SDRO. ­Initially it stood by the penalties, citing its review guidelines which say a “vehicle detected for repeat offences” can be given penalty notices for each separate offence.  However, it then emerged the 2.55pm fine had been ­issued by a NSW Police ­officer who had no knowledge of the 8.36am penalty because the morning infringement had been dispensed by a Fairfield Council ranger. The council sends its fines in the mail rather than sticking them under windscreen wipers.

So late yesterday the SDRO agreed to waive the $319 attached to that fine and the later police fine was changed to a caution.