Bus Lane infringments Cambridge Terrace as revenue trap
D Dahya made this Official Information request to Wellington City Council
Currently waiting for a response from Wellington City Council, they must respond promptly and normally no later than (details and exceptions).
From: D Dahya
Dear Wellington City Council,
Earlier this year I received 2 infringement notices for the same offence (driving in a bus lane for more than 50m- Cambridge Terrace) on the 30/3 (480529634) and again on the 17/4/25(480567641) this year. The problem is that I was notified of the second offence before the first one ie I received the 4/4/25 infringement notice (for the 30/3/25 offence on the 7/5/25) a month after the incident and so knew of the second infringement(17/4) before it. Also, there is the matter of the amount of the infringement fee- $150 per infringement- how does WCC justify that?
On querying WCC on this, their response was 'There was no significant delay in issuing this infringement and posting it to you. Any delays you have experienced relate to New Zealand Post and are outside of Council’s control. ' Despite WCC's claims of timely notification- the news story mentioned below indicates otherwise.
With the cost of living, increased financial hardship, housing and job demand coupled with ongoing mass job cuts times are tough and the last thing we need is a government organisation trying to make money on the backs of the poor, not so rich, and the disadvantaged.
The WCC have since declined my request to waive the infringement on the basis that it does meet the criteria for waiver and that I have until 9/8/25 to pay up or request a court hearing.
Points:
1. I previously queried why I received 4/4/25 infringement notice more than a month after the date on it(about the 7/5/25) but then read the Stuff News story of very similar incidences by other drivers where they claimed not being notified in a reasonable timeframe and so same subsequent infringements were committed in a short timeframe resulting in one particular driver receiving multiple infringement notices amounting to several hundreds of dollars which definately smells of a 'revenue trap'.
Here is the link to the Post's News story on this (on the same stretch of road)-which indicates applications to the courts to challenge the infringements, multiple infringement notices issued due to poor notification processes by WCC.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/360731...
The story mentions Wgtn AA chair, Mr Cassin, who raises relevant points ie lack of signage,poor information, and then lack of prompt follow up.
The article also mentions another driver fined in December but notified in February receiving another infringement in between- a common theme throughout these issues.
These are clearly signs of a revenue trap giving no opportunity to correct driver behaviour -the whole point of infringement fees.
2. I clearly recall the second infringement on the Thursday but no recollection of the Sunday drive in in the city.
3. I have also raised the following point -that it is unusual for me to be in Wellington City on the Sunday at that time(as my usual weekend schedule prevents me from doing so) and that the driver in the photo doesn't appear to be me(yes, it is my vehicle). I know this sounds like a questionable claim to make but I base it on the fact that I am not in the city on a Sunday hence the request for a time stamped photo from WCC.
Also, I have asked on the 15/6/25 for a timestamped photo(timestamp via metadata not a stamp on the photo itself which can be created) of this infringement but have not yet received it.
4. I was not aware that drivers weren't allowed to use the bus lane and believed that it was allowed as long as it wasn't being used by a bus at the time-where are the signs informing drivers of this?
5. WCC have advised being unaware of the rules around bus lane usage is not one of the criteria for waiving the infringement notice. I didn't know because I didn't see any signs and I wasn't given the opportunity to learn from the first infringement.
6. I am a volunteer Advocate, on an unpaid basis, so spend a lot of time dealing with other financial hardship issues and government department processes and to be subjected to fines of this amount ($300) all because of poor notification processes is unfair and disappointing.
7. As per the Legislation guidelines
https://www.ldac.org.nz/guidelines/legis...
'The purpose of infringement offences is to deter conduct that is of relatively low seriousness and that does not justify the full imposition of the criminal law. Infringement offences prevent the courts from being overburdened with a high volume of relatively straightforward and low-level offences. Without them, the law may otherwise not be enforced because it is unlikely a prosecution would be in the public interest. The criminal courts will generally become involved only if the infringement fee is not paid or if the recipient of the infringement notice challenges it.'
In this case the courts will be overburdened because of Wellington City Council's poor notification processes which encourage court applications/challenging infringement notices.
Questions:
1.Infringement notices/fees/penalties are there to teach drivers not to breach driving laws/rules etc. In the case outlined above how have I(and the people in the news story) been given the opportunity to modify my driving behaviour or learn from my mistake if I received the first infringement notice after the second infringement and fined for both?
2. How visible are the signs(and where are they?) advising of the rules on driving in the bus lane because I didn't see any nor was there any reason to look for them ie I always understood that drivers are allowed to use the bus lane as along as they are not being used by buses at the time.
3. I have been told that both officers(who issued the infringements) are warranted parking officers under section 128E of the Land Transport Act 1998 and are responsible for assessing bus lane footage and issuing special vehicle lane infringements.
4. What is the process for verifying or manually reviewing footage before a fine is issued?
5. Were the breaches of bus lane usage monitored via video footage only or by Parking Officers present on Cambridge Terrace?
6. How many staff members monitor the bus lane infringements on Cambridge terrace and are these newly created roles, if so, when?
7. Are the cameras newly installed on Cambridge Terrace, if so, when were they installed?
8. Because the cameras are in fixed positions how is the 50m distance breach determined by Parking Officers?
9. How frequently are these enforcement cameras in this location tested or calibrated and when were they last tested?
10. Is the camera system vulnerable/accessible to ANY AI technology at all?
11. Road marking may clearly indicate bus lanes but not the 50m threshold so how does the WCC inform drivers of the 50 metre distance/threshold?
12. How can the WCC justify $150 per infringement of this nature ie how did they come to this particular amount?
Any infringement fee payable in respect of an infringement offence should be the appropriate
infringement fee in respect of the relevant offence.
13. How many multiple identical bus lane infringements (per driver) have been issued since the cameras on Cambridge Terrace were installed -please note the date period?
14. Will WCC improve their notification processes to avoid multiple identical infringements being issued to the same driver prior to the driver being made aware of the first infringement despite advising me it is a NZ Post problem?
15. Can WCC confirm that in all such cases the infringement notices were sent within 4 days of the offence occurring and, if so, how will WCC ensure timely delivery of the notices to the recipients in future if they believe NZ Post are at fault?
16. Would such circumstances not warrant a warning instead ie with consideration to the fact that the driver had no control over whether he would receive the first infringement notice prior to any further identical infringements simply because the driver was not aware of the first infringement?
17. If the high amount is to deter future infringements- shouldn't WCC ensure we receive the first infringement notice prior to any subsequent identical ones of the same nature?
I believe WCC should do the right thing and, for each driver, waive all multiple infringements that occurred up until the notification of the first infringement is received.
By WCC not notifying the public of illegal driving behaviour in a timely manner hence denying the opportunity to correct the driving behaviour, resulting in multiple infringements(& penalties) before the driver is made aware of the first infringement appears to be nothing short of a 'revenue trap'. I ask the Wellington City Council to explain the delayed notifications as myself and those in the news story can't be all wrong.
Lastly, I dispute the amount I have been fined on the basis of; poor processes around notification, lack of 50 metre signage/markings, answers to my questions and the resolution of these issues.
This request is made in good faith and with an interest in ensuring both compliance and clarity around the use of bus lanes for safe navigation to local destinations.
Yours faithfully,
D Dahya
From: BUS: Official Information
Wellington City Council
Kia ora D Dahya
Thank you for your email dated 29 July requesting information.
Our team will manage your request under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 which requires us to provide a decision as soon as possible, but no later than 26 August, being 20 working days of receipt.
The reference number for your request is IRC-8815
Please contact us if you have any further questions.
Kind regards
Official Information & Privacy Team
Email: [Wellington City Council request email]
Wellington City Council | W Wellington.govt.nz | |
The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents.
If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.
show quoted sections
From: BUS: Official Information
Wellington City Council
Kia ora D Dahya,
I'm just reaching out regarding your below request for information which is currently processed. In particular question 13 below:
13. How many multiple identical bus lane infringements (per driver) have been issued since the cameras on Cambridge Terrace were installed -please note the date period?
I'd like to clarify exactly what information you are seeking here please as it's not explicitly clear.
Confirmation on this part of your request would be helpful in order for a response to be provided.
Kind regards
Ollie Marchant
Senior Advisor | Official Information Team | Wellington City Council
E [email address] | W Wellington.govt.nz | |
The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents.
If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.
show quoted sections
From: D Dahya
Dear BUS: Official Information,
As per request to clarify question 13.
I'm asking how many instances of drivers who have received multiple infringement notices for driving in the bus lane (as in the case of the person mentioned in the news article link provided) before knowing of the first infringement notice?
Yours sincerely,
D Dahya
From: BUS: Official Information
Wellington City Council
Kia ora
Thank you for contacting the Wellington City Council Official Information
& Privacy Team. This is an automated acknowledgement of your email.
If you have submitted a new request, you will hear from us as soon as
practicable.
If your request is more a general enquiry, or for anything urgent, please
contact our Contact Centre on 04 499 4444 or email [1][email address]
For CCTV requests, please send directly to [2][email address]
Many thanks
Official Information & Privacy Team
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[email address]
From: D Dahya
Dear Wellington City Council,
I received today(8/8/25 Friday) a debt collection letter from Baycorp (infringement480529634) dated 30/7/25 advising me that I have until the 10/8/25(Sunday) to pay the debt.
Firstly, this account/infringement with WCC is still in dispute as well as via this information request.
Secondly, the last update I received for this notice (which is in dispute) was on the 15/7/25 advising it is still in appeal status.
Thirdly, I received no written notification/warning of the intention to send the debt to Baycorp by a certain date.
The letter states to pay by 10/8/25.
1. It is obvious that WCC/parking services are aware of the impractical time delay in mail delivery by NZ Post so I ask what action has WCC taken to address this to ensure timely delivery of infringement notices?
2. Refer to link news link ..
https://www.pressreader.com/new-zealand/...
"But council spokesperson Richard MacLean said there had been no significant delays in the processing of infringements, and tickets took on average no more than four to six business days."
What the council is saying is that if the problem isn't the Council's processing times then it lies with NZ Post's delivery time of the infringement notices and because they have encountered many instances of delayed delivery of the notices(they have been publicised) they must be aware of the problem. So, the question is 'what action have they taken to remedy this with NZ Post or to ensure timely delivery of infringement notices because the delayed notification of the notices is not the drivers fault?'
3. Refer to news link
https://www.pressreader.com/new-zealand/...
Wellington AA branch chair Geordie Cassin is right in saying there is lack of signage, poor information and lack of prompt follow up and that it appears that WCC are more interested in catching drivers out rather than supporting them to do the right thing.
I believe that WCC need to do the right thing and cancel any repeated infringement notices (due to not knowing of them).
Relevant links to similar incidents:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Wellington/comm...
https://www.pressreader.com/new-zealand/...
Yours faithfully,
D Dahya
From: BUS: Official Information
Wellington City Council
Kia ora D Dahya,
Thank you for your email below dated 8 August 2025.
We are currently in receipt of a similar request from yourself raised on 29 July 2025, reference number IRC-8815.
Where you have raised any questions within your email below these will be lifted and included within the response to IRC-8815. As a reminder the decision date for this request is as soon as possible, by no later than 26 August, being 20 working days of receipt.
Within your previous request, referred to above, you had referenced the parking infringements and the steps you took to appeal these, which included confirmation form yourself that Parking Services had "since declined my request to waive the infringement on the basis that it does meet the criteria for waiver and that I have until 9/8/25 to pay up or request a court hearing."
I have checked with our Parking Services team who had confirmed that they had provided you with the outcome of your appeals relating to these infringements, which included the dates of payment and the due date in which you can have this matter heard in Court. Below is a summary of this:
480567641 - letter sent to by Parking Services you on 7 July 2025 confirming the ticket will not be waived and a due date for payment and a court hearing of 9 August 2025.
480529634 - letter sent to by Parking Services you on 17 June 2025 confirming the ticket will not be waived and a due date for payment and a court hearing of 19 July 2025/
Making a request for information does not necessarily mean an infringement is still in dispute, your options were provided to within the correspondences sent by the Parking Services' team above.
Your request for information against IRC-8815 is still in progress, please note if any further similar questions are raised or amended about this matter your request may be treated as a new request, with the time frame restarting as per section 13(7) of the LGOIMA.
Kind regards
Ollie Marchant
Senior Advisor | Official Information Team | Wellington City Council
E [email address] | W Wellington.govt.nz | |
The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents.
If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.
show quoted sections
From: D Dahya
Dear BUS: Official Information,
To respond to the one point above regarding notice 480529634
I received a 30/7/25 BayCorp letter on the 8th giving me until the 10th to pay the $150 amount.
Why has the account 480529634 been passed to BayCorp?
The last email communication I received from Parking Services was on the 15/7/25 advising it was still under appeal. I received no further notification of their intention to send it to BayCorp by a certain date -as they have done with infringement notice 480567641?.
I have received no such letter in the post and want the matter addressed in court.
Why would they change modes of communication(from email to mail/post) on the matter especially when the delivery times of mail has already been raised with Parking Services?
I have asked Parking Services to recall it from BayCorp and allow the matter to be addressed in court.
Also, the matter is still in dispute as the point of this information request was to seek clarification on the matter and so remains in dispute.
Yours sincerely,
D Dahya
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence