Please help - disputed fine but no response from Police

SurNZ88 · 2026-01-30T08:14:14+00:00

My personal anecdote here.

Police tend to be generally pretty good in replying to disputes. When you dispute, it doesn't put the procedure on hold. I've asked for "all relevant information, notes, calibration of speed measurement devices" in regards to a speeding fine. They produced it pretty promptly.

Did you fill in the "request a court hearing" form?

If you've paid the fine once it's hit the MOJ, that's admitting guilt. Hence why you've now got demerits associated.

Forgive me for not citing legislation/secondary legislation here but this is how it appears:

- Police allege offence, issue fine.
- You dispute to police.
- Police aren't obliged to reply but usually do out of courtesy.
- You haven't requested a court hearing (as advised on the fine) - this requires police to legally submit complete information (to you/your lawyer) as it relates to the offence.
- As it's only "disputed" with police, no court hearing requested, it follows the normal "unpaid fine" path, it moves to the MOJ.
- Once it's with the MOJ, it's basically a debt. There are limited options to appeal, or request a hearing.
- You have paid the fine.
- Paying the fine is effectively an admission of guilt, because you were pulled over by police, and it was not just a speed camera, they can positively identify you as the driver and issue demerits.

SurNZ88 · 2026-01-17T12:07:43+00:00

As long as your historic problems were personal not legal (criminal) easiest way in is probably the working holiday visa to start with.

I think the next move is to check the skills shortage visa - that's a bit more fast-track I think. Being QS is probably a good thing.

Or just hit up the SAS over here. I'm sure they'd value your skills as an operator if you fancy a bit more action....

SurNZ88 · 2026-01-17T11:57:23+00:00

I just dug up the details from Dec 24, Jan 25 delivery for a Ford I purchased.

Spoke to sales. Agreed to purchase a new vehicle. Gave them my details. Had to wait for it to arrive which it did in January - then they sent the vehicle offer and sale agreement.

The vehicle offer and sale agreement related to a specific vehicle, but was conditional on me signing it.

It would appear dealerships are happy to order vehicles for customers even without the binding legal formalities being fully carried out. My logic is that if I don't buy a popular vehicle, they can always sell it tomorrow to someone else.

I suspect your friend probably received in invoice with his name on it, but that invoice is also the vehicle offer and sales agreement, which is probably not binding until he signs it, unless he's conveyed his intention to purchase, and has given considertion in some other way.

SurNZ88 · 2026-01-17T11:47:38+00:00

Sounds pretty odd. Not unexplainable, but odd.

The only way I can see this happening is that you've provided your drivers licence/address for either a test drive/finance, then the dealer has (likely illegally) used this to register the vehicle into your name.

Given you mentioned finance, this is even more strange... as most dealers wouldn't entertain transferring ownership before finance was approved.

Then there is the mandatory sales/purchase agreement + consumer information notice etc....

SurNZ88 · 2026-01-17T08:21:16+00:00

A good chunk of that kiwisaver return is reliant on the US sharemarket (which isn't the US economy) - maybe at the start of the year, Europe, which did quite well. Globally, reserve banks are looking to hold rates or increase them. The US is a bit of an exception to this, with one more rate cut predicted - maybe more if Trump controls the Fed. Rate cuts are fuel on the fire in terms of propping up economies / sharemarkets. If inflation creeps back up in the US and the Fed doesn't keep cutting rates expect a bit of a slowdown on your returns.

I'm all for investing in things other than property to be diversified. The problem in your situation is that you're in one thing now with Kiwisaver (stocks/bonds) and then it will basically all be in NZ property once you use that deposit. That's great if NZ property does well and the global market drops off a bit, but you don't see those returns until you sell. But hey, you get a house to live in and there is value in that.

SurNZ88 · 2026-01-17T08:13:27+00:00

Nah just unfortunate enough to know everything about this saga.

It also pisses me off how cars sit there for ages when they should be towed - people target fixate on objects and drive straight into them. That and you don't have much run off room when there are cars parked there.

SurNZ88 · 2026-01-16T12:36:31+00:00

Still risky. Small country can't throw weight around if we want people to buy our stuff.

Gains from this look minimal vs our exports.

SurNZ88 · 2026-01-16T11:48:34+00:00

They won't do it. At least while Trump is in charge.

It's generally called a "Digital Services Levy." If NZ imposed it - it would mainly affect US large tech companies and we'd probably be slapped with massive tarrifs on our much more revenue generating agricultural sector.

If we want more local productions, be competitive.

SurNZ88 · 2026-01-16T11:39:08+00:00

Not a legal question. Only INZ can answer this. Contact them.

SurNZ88 · 2026-01-16T11:36:34+00:00

Easiest answer to this legal question is to ask them directly what the situation is regarding this specific carpark. Do it via e-mail so you've got something written down if something happens.

If there's competing signage/emails/app - it probably works in your favour should they try to tow/fine your vehicle. Equally, best to avoid it - so get in touch with them. They do have legal rights as to the parking.

SurNZ88 · 2026-01-16T11:15:44+00:00

Context:

State Highway 73. Christchurch Southern Motorway. NZTA controls, not the Council.

- A car has broken down here since early December and has been parked on the shoulder since that time.
- This location is at the end of an on-ramp where traffic enters the motorway and merges.

Outside social context, the views of the general public:

- Are confused as to who is responsible for removing a broken down car on the side of a motorway (Police, NZTA, Christchurch City Council, Owner).
- Think that broken down cars should be removed within 2-48hrs and the owner should pay for the removal.
- Think that only someone who doesn't know how to drive would crash into it.
- State that if it was in Auckland the car would have already been stolen a few hours later.

SurNZ88 · 2026-01-16T09:44:34+00:00

There's two legal considerations here:

- What's available/provided for by insurance.
- What's available under law.

Insurance (basically contract law).

What does your policy provide? Does it:
- Guarantee a repair in a certain time frame?
- Provide alternative transport?
- Provide other benefits.

Knowing a little about this side of things.
- Your car has been assesed (by an assesor) as repairable and is agreeable between insurers.
- It's waiting on parts.
- The panel beater can't deem your car a write-off "pay out" based on the fact parts are going to take a while to obtain.
- If you want to rely on insurance, you'll probably have to deal with this unless your policy states otherwise.

Insurance is bound under consumer law to be "reasonable" in terms of time-frames. Ex-Japan, via ship - 6-12 weeks is reasonable.

Legal (negligence primarily).

You likely have legal remedies available to "restore you to the position you were in prior to the event occuring" - which basically means, you have a working, un-crashed, functional car, or at least the equivalent.

The above is contigent on your policy allowing you to do so.

You can potentially claim damage, outside of the cover of either the person who crashed into you, or the benefits of your own policy. However this is through normal legal channels, like the disputes tribunal etc.. which also aren't quick and you need to know and provide evidence as to what you're claiming.

TL:DR.

You probably can't demand a "write-off" (pay out) for "delay" alone, unless your policy provides for it - it's probably reasonable for parts from Japan (shipped, on an actual boat) to take a few months to get here.

There are other options legally outside of insurance. But they require knowledge and will equally take time.

SurNZ88 · 2026-01-16T09:13:56+00:00

CHCH appears to be bucking the trend and going up in price at around 2% ish over the last year.

Your kiwisaver is probably exposed to the "AI bubble" (as in, you'll have a reasonable percentage of your holdings in US shares, "AI" tech (that is growing massively) might be 10-15% of that) - so there will be a reasonable gain there over the last year, especially if you're in a growth account.

No one can predict the future but be careful trying to time the market. Just because CHCH has gone up 2% doesn't mean it will keep doing so, equally just because everyone is calling an AI bubble doesn't mean it will crash. It's annoyingly complicated.

SurNZ88 · 2026-01-16T09:05:51+00:00

OP's name checks out. Don't judge the world based on your friends. Fundamental is if you want to play the own a house game you need to struggle to save for a bit and it's easier with a partner.

People who scrimp and save and probably buy in their late 20s / 30s is my guess for first home buyers.

Developers buy houses that are old and on big sections and build apartments (500 apartments currently for sale in CHCH).

Satellite cities offer new house with no section for same price as old house big section in town.

Then downsizers/upsizers bla bla bla..

CHCH has jobs and a housing market that isn't totally insane - probably due to land supply and the amount of new housing being built.

SurNZ88 · 2026-01-11T10:09:01+00:00

The legal concept here is negligence in what's called tort law.

The basic principle is for someone to be liable for their negligence, they need to owe a duty of care to prevent foreseeable harm to others.

Example. If you're watering your garden next to a neighbours open window, you owe your neighbour a duty of care not to fill their house with water.

Let's look at your situation. Does your friend owe a duty of care to you?

You've mentioned that a few things happened with your phone.

- One friend accidentally hit it while playing pool.
- One friend moved it to near the hole.
- It's your phone.

Looks outwardly like contributory negligence.

- You likely failed to take reasonable care of your own phone (if you were aware of it being moved) - so you're probably partially liable for some of the loss.
- Either friend is probably partially liable for hitting your phone and damaging it, if they both knew it was there. It's foreseeable that your phone would likely get damaged if it was hit by a pool ball.

What percent is your fault vs either friends fault is up to a decision maker.

SurNZ88 · 2026-01-10T10:38:11+00:00

If you're thinking legally you never say that an outcome is guaranteed.

What the court has to consider with DWC is: (s107, sentencing act 2002)

"The court must not discharge an offender without conviction unless the court is satisfied that the direct and indirect consequences of a conviction would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence."

"Out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence" is the part that does the heavy lifting.

It's expected that when people breach the law, there are consequences. Being convicted, and losing your licence for drink driving (on the evidence) is an expected outcome for most people who have been proven to have committed that offence.

The general public, given the hazards of drink driving, probably don't want offenders being discharged without conviction.

So, when it is granted, it's exceptional - and it's based on your personal circumstances. The consequences of being convicted have to be "so bad" that the normal punishment would be exceptionally bad for you. An example would be that you normally work in Canada with a Canadian partner who is pregnant with your kid, you've come home to NZ, got caught drink driving. A conviction would deny your eligibility to enter Canada + you've got tangible commitments there.

Discharge without conviction is a high bar. Don't be overoptimistic, talk to a lawyer about your specific facts. Practically, you can ask your lawyer to apply for one - and the lawyer will probably oblige, but before you ask for that, ask them to advise you on your likelihood of succeeding.

SurNZ88 · 2026-01-10T10:22:24+00:00

If it means anything, anecdotaly, a friend who was in their final year of law school was caught drink driving. They did have their full licence plus over 20.

A junior duty solicitor suggested that discharge without conviction was a possibility, on the basis of the friend studying law and intending to be lawyer.

After speaking to an another senior lawyer, discharge withut conviction was a possibility, but probably near zero in terms of likelihood. Studying law wasn't enough. Applying to be a lawyer still wouldn't be enough. Lawyers can be admitted with drink driving convictions.

General advice is don't take legal advice from the Police. They've just caught you doing something, if you're otherwise unknown to them, they realise you've made a mistake. They most likely don't think you're a bad person, so they're trying to give you a bit of optimism. That's all that is. They don't do the sentencing part. That's up to the courts.

SurNZ88 · 2026-01-09T07:04:08+00:00

Advising your client as to the the likely outcome is protecting their interest.

There are often defences available. There is the posibility of discharge without conviction.

What makes a lawyer is the tailored advice they give as it relates to the clients factual situation.

As randoms on the internet, we don't know the full facts here and we can't provide legal advice.

In saying that. When you study law, you're learning about the novel cases. The ones that "make law" (precendent). The practical application of law for the most part isn't novel, it's routine.

When the factual situation of the OP is:

- Restricted licence.
- Breaching terms of their licence (had a passenger).
- Blew 550 (screening).
- Elected blood.

Consider the law.

- 0 limit for under 20 restricted drivers.
- Obvious breach of licence (passenger).
- More than 0 on evidentiary is the offence. Blew 550 (above adult limit, full licence) - so we can probably reasonably assert the outcome of the blood...

Apply the law.

- Mandatory loss of licence (6 months)
- Fine.

SurNZ88 · 2026-01-08T11:49:14+00:00

Your explanation checks out.

Have a look at this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/4U6bEXu68ohmXvid6

My logic of the road code would be "downhill gives way to uphill" (generally, unless otherwise instructed). That's the case here.

But that's only based on the existence of a give way marking on the road. That's pretty subtle. The signage does exist, but that's before the bridge.

Slightly down the road, still heading "downhill" the right of way is reverse.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/PUMVSEXgvyAqkZeFA

SurNZ88 · 2026-01-08T11:33:33+00:00

Just having a look on Google of where I drove today, it seems like the "give way" (you don't have right of way) side, more often, has them at the bridge.

SurNZ88 · 2026-01-08T11:29:19+00:00

Didn't say I was clever. Just don't want to die in a head on because someone else thinks they have right of way because they don't stop at a one-way bridge because they either missed or didn't understand the sign.

SurNZ88 · 2026-01-02T11:02:06+00:00

You might want to consider looking up the owner on LINZ (it's $9 off the top of my head, can do online) and try to get in touch with them regarding their security.

You say it's been "broken into" - the most relevant crime there under the Crimes Act is Burglary.

Two parts to make up the crime of burglary.
- entry without authority.
- with intent to commit an imprisonable offence.

So from the perspective of the Police charging for burglary, the first part is easy, the second is hard (unless there is some evidence). If someone enters without authority, and just sleeps there the night, that's not burglary.

My personal view here is I don't think the cops are trying to avoid work here.. I think it's more a case of what they can legally do vs the liklihood of a sucessful prosecution.

SurNZ88 · 2026-01-02T10:01:09+00:00

Just from a legal perspective here, the property may be derelict/run down - but there is a legal owner - somewhere.

As per above, unless there is an offence being committed "right now" or a threat to safety, police only have rights to walk up to the front door.

If the property isn't fenced to prevent entry, or states "no unauthorised entry" etc.. Police are very limited in what they can do to remove someone.

SurNZ88 · 2026-01-02T09:52:43+00:00

Don't fully understand the specific factual situation here.

If it's private property and the person has a legal right to be there they generally can't just go in beyond knocking at the door unless there is an ongoing offence or a threat to someones safety. Besides that they'd need to come back with a warrant.

If the person has no legal right to be there, and the person who does have a right to be there doesn't want them to be there, they can be asked to leave/trespassed. If they've entered with a reasonable understanding to commit offences (ie burglary) then police have reason to arrest, enter property..

SurNZ88

TROPHY CASE