Brian parked his car in a supermarket car park in NSW. He paid for a 2 hour ticket from the ticket machine and displayed the ticket on his dashboard. When he returned to his car one hour later he found a fine from Australian National Car Parks on his dashboard. The fine was for "parking in a disabled bay". Brian looked out of his car from the driver's seat and couldn't see any signs saying it was a disabled bay. He got out and walked right around his car and still couldn't see any signs indicating his space was a disabled bay. On the contrary there were signs at eye height saying that he was parking in a casual parking area. On the way out of the car park, he decided to have a drive around which is when he noticed disabled bays at the other end of the car park. He noticed that these spaces had signs at eye level saying they were disabled bays and well painted marks on the ground on each spot with a painted wheelchair. Now that he knew what to look for, he drove back to the spot where he had been fined. Again he found no signs at eye level. However, on this approach side (the opposite to how he drove into the car park earlier in the morning) and knowing what to look for on the ground he could see a very, very faded paint on the ground of a wheelchair. Walking over to the other side of the spot (to the side he would of approached from in the morning) the paint was not visible as it was so worn, and the sun was shining in his eyes. He also noticed on the post next to his spot that there was some faded and grubby glue spots still there at eye level, and it seemed there used to be a sign there but it must have been removed many years ago.
When Brian got home he wrote to ANCP explaining the situation, how there was no sign at eye height, and the paint on the ground had faded, and asking them to withdraw the fine. Brian received this letter back from ANCP. It seemed that that ANCP not even bothered to read his letter. So he wrote back again, explaining the situation again and asking them to withdraw his fine. ANCP wrote back with this letter. Brian was totally distraught and upset. He didn't know what to do next, but he decided he wouldn't pay it as he hadn't broken any rules and had paid for a ticket.About a year passed, when out of the blue, he got a demand from Australian Recoveries and Collection's solicitor Michael G Roper. Brian immediately wrote to both ANCP and Michael Roper to remind them the matter was in dispute and to leave him alone. A few weeks later he received a letter of demand from Australian Recoveries and Collections. He then wrote to ARC and explained the whole thing again to them, and reminding them the matter was in dispute. He heard nothing from ANCP and Michael Roper, but a short time later he got a further demand from ARC that said if he did not pay within 14 days, he would end up paying more, that they would take him to court, and that the debt would go against Brian's credit rating. Brian was wondering if ARC was aware that the debt was in dispute and that ARC should not have been writing to him with these demands. Brian contacted Australia Post to find out who had been signing for the letters he had sent to ANCP, Michael Roper and ARC. Australia Post told Brian where to go on their website to see who was signing for the mail. This is where he found this Australia Post document. That document, along with two others, showed that all mail Brian had sent on this matter was signed a the post office by Paul Gyles who was, at the time, a director and owner of both ANCP and ARC. So it was clear that ANCP and ARC knew about the matter being in dispute.
By now Brian was totally exhausted by the whole thing and gave up and paid the demand.