A Redland Bay family has accused Redland City Council of “very poor customer service” over what they believed was an unanswered appeal against a $166 parking fine — but council says it did respond and had already placed the infringement on hold.
MacKenzie Stoker, 19, an apprentice electrician, was fined on October 31 for parking within 10 metres of an intersection on Auster Street, a quiet residential road where he starts work at 5am.
His father, David Stoker, said the fine amounted to more than 30 per cent of his son’s weekly disposable income and claimed the teen had been unaware of the 10-metre rule.
In an email sent to council on November 10, Mr Stoker argued the street was not a busy thoroughfare and that there was “no accident risk” where his son had parked.
“Mackenzie has been only driving for a year and was unaware of the 10m rule,” he wrote.
“I understand that ignorance of the rules should not excuse the offence.
“The $166 fine represents over 30 per cent of his weekly disposable income.
“Auster Street is not a busy thoroughfare and there would be no accident risk where he has parked.”
Mr Stoker said his son had deliberately avoided parking across residents’ driveways and questioned why council issued an immediate fine rather than a warning.
“In the absence of a restricted parking notice or yellow lines I would request that this fine be cancelled,” he wrote, adding that in more than 20 years living in the Redlands he had never known council to enforce the intersection rule in quiet housing estates.
Believing his appeal had gone unanswered — and with the infringement due for payment on December 5 — Mr Stoker followed up on December 2, telling council: “I presume in the absence of a reply that the fine still stands? I did expect at least a reply.”
He later contacted the newspaper, saying he hoped to warn other locals about what he described as an “obscure” rule.
However, Redland City Council says it did contact Mr Stoker and had advised him that no action was required while the appeal was reviewed.
The council said it received the appeal on November 11 and emailed the customer the next day confirming the infringement had been placed on hold pending the outcome.
A council spokesperson said payment for the infringement was later received on December 2 while the appeal process was still underway.
