Originally Posted by
Kelonguni
Katong man loses fight to park in front of own house. Court tells him:
You must use PARKING LOT
He's fined $1,400, pays $8,000 legal fees
HE was surprised to receive a parking summons - after all, he had parked his car in front of his own house.
By Celine Lim
19 September 2007
HE was surprised to receive a parking summons - after all, he had parked his car in front of his own house.
The first fine was $50, but Mr Seow Hock Hin, 36, felt it was unfair.
So, instead of paying up, he took his case to the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA).
And, in the midst of his appeal, he received another $50 summons for the same offence.
When the URA rejected his appeal, he decided to take his fight to court. He lost.
Last Tuesday, Mr Seow was fined $700 each for two charges of not parking his car in a parking lot.
For each charge, he could have been fined up to $2,000 or jailed up to three months, or both.
On top of that, he chalked up about $8,000 in legal fees and had to take leave for the one-day trial last Monday.
Mr Seow, who works in the finance industry, also estimated that the time he spent fighting his case cost him about $10,000 in lost earnings.
So why not just pay the fines?
Well, he thought there was nothing wrong with parking in front of his own gate along Marshall Road, near Haig Road in Katong.
When he was first issued a parking summons on 23 May last year, he thought it was a mistake.
'I wrote to the URA thinking that if I told them I was the owner of the house which had its entrance blocked by my car, they'd waive the fine.'
His letter explained that he had parked in front of his own gate along the one-way stretch of Marshall Road.
He noted that he had parked his car in the same spot without incident since moving into the house in 2003.
He added that it was 'common' for his neighbours to park in front of their gates, where there are no double yellow lines drawn.
He sent about eight letters while corresponding with the URA.
Then, on 5 Aug last year, Mr Seow was again fined $50 for the same parking offence.
Again, he found it hard to believe that he was at fault.
He said: 'I thought it was another mistake made by another parking warden.
'My car was obstructing only the entrance to my house. It was obstructing only me.'
He said he used to park his car within the compound of his house. But his three dogs kept biting off his licence plates so he decided to park in front of his gate.
He also believed he was obeying the road markings by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) in parking his car by avoiding the yellow double lines on the road.
He said that when he called the LTA to check, he was told he could park where there were no yellow lines.
But the URA maintained that no parking is allowed outside of a parking lot along Marshall Road and rejected his appeal.
It offered to settle both parking summons if he paid a fine of 'a few hundred dollars'.
Mr Seow rejected the settlement offer and saw his Member of Parliament for help.
He was told to 'seek redress in court', and did just that in April this year.
He said: 'I claimed trial because I didn't think I was wrong, and it's against my principles to just pay the fines like that.'
Mr Seow said the cost of hiring a lawyer was 'nothing' compared to the time he spent on the case.
He said: 'The opportunity cost of the time is worth more than $10,000. Instead of working, I had to meet my lawyer a few times and go to court for the trial.'
During the trial, the court heard that since 30 Sep 2000, Marshall Road had been gazetted as a parking place, which means cars are allowed to park only within the designated parking lots.
But defence counsel Eric Liew, of Gabriel Law Corporation, noted that 'there are no signboards' informing the public or residents of this rule.
CONFUSING MARKINGS
Mr Liew said this rule is 'confusing... given the existing road markings' by LTA.
He noted that instead of a continuous white line, a broken white line runs down the middle of Marshall Road.
He said the broken white line indicated that motorists can park along the road where there are no double yellow lines.
Mr Liew noted that there are no double yellow lines drawn in front of Mr Seow's house gate.
He said: 'The manner of markings on the road by the authority is thus contradictory to the fact that the road had been gazetted (as a parking place).'
Witness Phang Li Bin, an engineer from LTA's traffic management department, told the court she recalled getting a call from a member of the public, asking if parking was permitted along Marshall Road.
She said: 'I informed him (Mr Seow) that he can park his car on the side of the road with no double yellow lines.'
When asked by the defence if she knew that Marshall Road was gazetted, Ms Phang said it 'doesn't come under LTA, so I'll not be able to comment'.
However, she admitted that she did not know what 'gazetted' means.
The prosecution then asked her if MrSeow had asked if he could park in front of his house.
Ms Phang said he didn't and if he had, she would have 'definitely advised him not to do so'.
She was not asked to elaborate why.
The defence noted in its closing submission that Mr Seow was 'not obstructing any traffic', having parked along a one-way road.
A letter from Mr Seow's immediate neighbour saying he did not mind the car parked in their shared driveway was also submitted to the court.
But the prosecution stated: 'It is immaterial whether the vehicle is parked against or not against any lines drawn by LTA. So long as the vehicle is not parked in a designated parking lot, it is an offence.'
Despite having to pay almost 10 times more than the original fines, Mr Seow felt it was 'a good investment' if it raises awareness.
He said: 'It is only responsible and professional that URA reconciles any conflict between their regulations and other government bodies.
'It has been a year since I appealed to the URA, but nothing has been done.'
Reply With Quote
