A $50 parking fine escalated to almost $10,000

[Prismatic]

(My apologies, didn't the article link halfway down the thread)
Isn't that picture like taken just for the article? The article makes no mention if that's the usual way he parks. Who will park his car with the gates wide open like that? Especially if he's got dogs that are free to run around and bite on his license park. I may be wrong, but maybe his usual way of parking is closer to his gate?

But if he parks like the way in the picture, then yes, I agree he's obstructing the traffic. From the arrow in the ground, he's taking up half the lane already.

 

[waileong]

Obviously you didn't watch Money No Enough. Spending $8,000 on legal fees (+ the resultant fine) gets him nothing, at best $50 composition fine waived. If he had spent $9,400 on Toto, at least he would have several thousand chances to win $5M.

I have had lawyers too, who were pragmatic enough to tell me not to commence litigation because it would be too costly. Perhaps this guy's lawyer was not too pragmatic.

Fighting for principles appears only in the movies. In legal cases, many people settle out of court simply because they want to avoid unnecessary costs, risks and uncertainties, it's not about the principle. If I may say so, it's never about the principle, it's almost always about getting a result that one can accept, whether it's an acceptable sentence (for criminal plea bargaining cases) or an acceptable settlement (for civil cases). If people go to trial, it's because they think they can get a better result in court than out of court.

Beyond the fees which are gone win or lose, he now has a criminal record due to the $1,400 fine. Granted, it is just a misdemeanour, a traffic offence. But if he had paid the composition fine of $50, he would not even have a record.

You can have your own definition of stupid if you want. And we can definitely disagree.

I disagree with you about how you preceive fighting for his right is stupid. Even though he might be really wrong about his rights, he did took the necessary steps to seek consultations first. He probably already knows that he wouldn't get cost, his lawyer is bound to have informed him. He wants to prove a point, one which is not clearly defined. It's just plain unfortunate, that he was proven wrong.

If there are already well-documented cases with similar situations, and he went into the lawsuit hoping to get an exception, then that's less intelligent.

 

[kenele]

Pity he did not ask our advice, or he would have a $9 500 camera in his hand now :bsmilie:

 

[s598719]

Pity he did not ask our advice, or he would have a $9 500 camera in his hand now :bsmilie:

yeah :bsmilie:

 

[BBTM]

Firstly, this guy is rich.
Secondly, he got nothing much better things to do.
Thirdly, he is committing a sin by wasting $.
Lastly, he want to show off! :thumbsd:

 

[paradigm]

He is not paying ADT or CISCO or ... to look after his house, but uses his dogs, so he can't chain or leash them neither can he lets the dogs outside and his car inside.

The dog can warn the occupants in the house when unauthorised ppl enters the house even on a leash.

If the dog cannot even warn, then better off as a hot dog ..

 

[Sniper ShutterBug]

Just park at those lots that are meant for parking, and don't just any how park lor... Even parked in front of your own landed property and house also kena now...

If he had parked inside his own house then it's nothing will happen lah, but because he didn't want to let his dogs bite off his car plate (why not just train the dogs and buffled their mouth up?) so he decided to park just outside his house. But sway sway the road is a one way road, with his car parked there, it causes obstruction to other cars already, that's why he kena lor.

Next time park inside your own house will also kena booked!

 

[Sniper ShutterBug]

the highway code states that such parking is allright unless it causes obstruction to other people.

Ya I would agree with the judge if this guy insist on parking his car OUTSIDE his house, 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, it causes obstruction to other people. Would you rather the judge rule in that guys favour? common that guy has a parking lot EMPTY in his house and he insist on parking outside.

And DON'T worry unecessary. I have been parking outside people houses for like dunno how many years. NEVER EVER had a single fine. I don't think ANY motorist will become "confused" I am still going to park my car outside people houses. The day I see someone like me (visitor with the owner's lot FULL) get fined, then I will get confused.

Like that win liao lo, everything parking offence can be booked under 'obstruction to traffic' then argue what, what justice?

 

[slaam]

TNP reported a Mr Seow being fined $50 by URA for parking on the road outside his landed home. No yellow lines on road; just a normal broken white line dividing the lanes. He took URA to court over the $50 fine; ended being fined by the court by $1400. His legal bills was $8000 [can buy many DSLR :bsmilie:].

Personally, having gone thru the local driving test system, I thot it was ok to park on a road without any lines on the side.

Now confused over our parking rules....where can park? Where cannot? :think:

huh?
the central white line also dictates whether you can park on the sides..
i rem this as the confusing thing in basic theory why have two ways to say the same thing

 

[slaam]

Like that win liao lo, everything parking offence can be booked under 'obstruction to traffic' then argue what, what justice?

yah if u meet road bully park on the side to argue also can be counted under the rule. its like a catchall rule

 

[mattlock]

I disagree with you about how you preceive fighting for his right is stupid. Even though he might be really wrong about his rights, he did took the necessary steps to seek consultations first. He probably already knows that he wouldn't get cost, his lawyer is bound to have informed him. He wants to prove a point, one which is not clearly defined. It's just plain unfortunate, that he was proven wrong.

If there are already well-documented cases with similar situations, and he went into the lawsuit hoping to get an exception, then that's less intelligent.

I agree.
He's probably already aware of the legal costs and whatnots. To some of you he may be stupid but at least I can respect this man even though I feel that the issue may be slightly petty.

If he can stand up for his principles on such small matters then at least maybe he can stand up for his principles in bigger matters too. Better than people who only think of the end result.

 

[Morphis]

Hmm.. A Peaceful Appeal to the Stat Board would have been a cheaper and better choice

Amen.

I've only resided in landed locations, more than 7 of them all around da country and I've been issued parking fines but never paid for any.
Just a simple apologetic humble appeal was all it needed to waive it off as Lovells has commented.
I have to agree tat some of these landed home owner's brains is in his thick fat wallet.
Serves him well, I hope he appeals against the court ruling too and make it a six figure issue. :devil: :thumbsup:

 

[rvxing]

10k is very cheap for all the ad given to him, now so many know Mr Seow liao. This thread already 50+ post, other forums, new paper coverage, may next TV coverage cheap cheap

 

[mattlock]

Amen.

I've only resided in landed locations, more than 7 of them all around da country and I've been issued parking fines but never paid for any.
Just a simple apologetic humble appeal was all it needed to waive it off as Lovells has commented.
I have to agree tat some of these landed home owner's brains is in his thick fat wallet.
Serves him well, I hope he appeals against the court ruling too and make it a six figure issue. :devil: :thumbsup:

I don't understand why people have such ill will towards this guy?
He stood up for his principles. He resorted to legal action only after consultation even with his MP.
The court has given some sort of confusing statement that is debate-able.
And yet you think it's better to kowtow even when this guy may actually be in the right?

It's a sad day when people don't feel that standing up for principles have any value anymore....

 

[satay16]

I don't understand why people have such ill will towards this guy?
He stood up for his principles. He resorted to legal action only after consultation even with his MP.
The court has given some sort of confusing statement that is debate-able.
And yet you think it's better to kowtow even when this guy may actually be in the right?

It's a sad day when people don't feel that standing up for principles have any value anymore....

cos people discriminate against the elites,eg. rich people. they love to do that, for very obvious reasons.......... and i hate that.

 

[s598719]

I don't understand why people have such ill will towards this guy?
He stood up for his principles. He resorted to legal action only after consultation even with his MP.
The court has given some sort of confusing statement that is debate-able.
And yet you think it's better to kowtow even when this guy may actually be in the right?

It's a sad day when people don't feel that standing up for principles have any value anymore....

It depends on whether one has 'gu qi' [backbone]. Those who have will sympathize. BTW, he does not need free publicity....he is quite often on TV [CNBC] talking about stockmarket.

 

[s598719]

cos people discriminate against the elites,eg. rich people. they love to do that, for very obvious reasons.......... and i hate that.

BTW, he became rich because he took bank loans [max out] to buy his house.....now sitting on paper profit of > $1m based on current price. He was not born rich nor was he from any elite group.

 

[satay16]

BTW, he became rich because he took bank loans [max out] to buy his house.....now sitting on paper profit of > $1m based on current price. He was not born rich nor was he from any elite group.

dang. you should have said that earlier.

ok, now i dun like him too.

 

[Morphis]

I don't understand why people have such ill will towards this guy?
He stood up for his principles. He resorted to legal action only after consultation even with his MP.
The court has given some sort of confusing statement that is debate-able.
And yet you think it's better to kowtow even when this guy may actually be in the right?

It's a sad day when people don't feel that standing up for principles have any value anymore....

thatz da value of his lack of humility.
It takes a stronger root to bend with with da wind to survive and victorious in an onslaught.

 

[CSlye]

Moral of the story … try not to own a car here to avoid troubles … and also the law and the authority behind it always win … u think is a jury system here or wat? Kekeke