#1 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: L.a. Lawyer - La Canada (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, February 05, 2009
POSTED: Thursday, February 05, 2009
Don't feel as if you are alone. Under the best possible scenario, the people that staff Los Angeles' Parking Violations Bureau ("PVB) are lazy, ignorant jerks. For the most part, their answer is "just pay," or "it doesn't make any difference that you sold the car (or turrned it in, or whatever other legal excuse you may have) you are still responsible for paying the parking violation.
The PVB refuses to abide by California law with respect to the nonliability of a former owner. The PVB requires that a party provide a copy of one of the following: (1) a copy of the notice of transfer and release of liability that was filed at the time of the sale/transfer of the vehicle, or (2) a copy of the bill of sale/trade in agreement from a licensed car dealer, or a copy of an IRS approved
vehicle donation document from a charity.
Assuming for the sake of discussion that a notice of transfer and release of liability (Cal. DMV Form 138) was completed, the face of the form does not indicate that one should keep a complete copy. So, most people who submit the form likely do not keep a complete copy, but keep the bottom half of the form instead. Moreover, the form states:
5602. An owner who has made a bona fide sale or transfer of a vehicle and has delivered possession of the vehicle to a purchaser is not, by reason of any of the provisions of this code, the owner of the vehicle so as to be subject to civil liability or criminal liability for the parking, abandoning, or operation of the vehicle thereafter by another when the selling or transferring owner, in addition to that delivery and that bona fide sale or transfer, has fulfilled either of the following requirements: (a) He or she has made proper endorsement and delivery of the certificate of ownership as provided in this code. (b) He or she has delivered to the department or has placed in the United States mail, addressed to the department, either of the following documents: (1) The notice as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 4456 or Section 5900 or 5901. (2) The appropriate documents and fees for registration of the vehicle to the new owner pursuant to the sale or transfer.
On the face of the DMV form, there is a warning that the information contained in the form shall not be recorded if the writing is illegible or there is a lack of complete information, etc. Moreover, form indicates that the information will not be updated unless the buyer completes the transfer.
Having said all that, the Vehicle Code provides for nonliability on the part of a transferring seller as set forth in Vehicle Code section 5602 which provides:
"An owner who has made a bona fide sale or transfer of a vehicle and has delivered possession of the vehicle to a purchaser is NOT, by reason of any of the provisions of this code, THE OWNER of the vehicle so as to be subject to CIVIL LIABILITY or CRIMINAL LIABILITY for the PARKING, abandoning, or operation of the vehicle thereafter by another when the selling or transferring owner, IN ADDITION to that DELIVERY and that BONA FIDE SALE or TRANSFER, has fulfilled EITHER of the following requirements: (a) He or she has made PROPER ENDORSEMENT and DELIVERY of the CERTIFICATE of OWNERSHIP as provided in this code. (b) He or she has delivered to the department or has placed in the United States mail, addressed to the department, either of the following documents: (1) The notice as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 4456 or Section 5900 or 5901. (2) The appropriate documents and fees for registration of the vehicle to the new owner pursuant to the sale or transfer. (Emphasis in CAPITALS.)
In other words, the proper endorsement and delivery of the title together with the delivery of the vehicle in a bona fide transaction (sale or transfer) is sufficient by itself to relieve a transferor from any liability, civil or criminal.
As of this writing, the PVB has refused to acknowledge VC section 5602. It is my understanding that the PVB performs the admisinstrative services pursuant ot a contract with the City of Los Angeles. As of this writing, a public records request pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code section 6250, et seq. is being sent to the City of Los Angeles. The City is required to respond within ten days, although they may elect to take a 14 day extension. This report will be updated when the information has been received.
#2 Consumer Suggestion
AUTHOR: Jordan60 - Los Angeles (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, March 10, 2009
POSTED: Tuesday, March 10, 2009
In researching traffic violations I came across this case on findlaw.com.....free to use. The case supports your argument.
Maybe you should write a letter to the Mayor Villaraigosa to address your claim. The Mayor's office oversees all city organizations, right? Worth a try.
Good luck!
People v. Levinson (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th Supp. 6 , 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 657
Appellate Department, Superior Court, Los Angeles
[Crim. A. Nos. BR31105, BR31222.
Feb 18, 1993.]
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD LEVINSON, Defendant and Appellant.
(Municipal Court for the Los Angeles Judicial District of Los Angeles County, Nos. 275493422 and 275522041, Douglas W. Weitzman, Temporary Judge. fn. * )
(Opinion by Soven, J., with Johnson, Acting P. J., and Watai, J., concurring.)
COUNSEL
Tom Stanley and Darold Shirwo for Defendant and Appellant.
James K. Hahn, City Attorney, Debbie Lew and Candice I. Ochi, Deputy City Attorneys, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
SOVEN, J.
This case involves the present system of issuing parking citations. [1a] Defendant, apparently the owner of vehicles on which [14 Cal.App.4th Supp. 8] parking citations were posted, contends that the evidence is insufficient to show that he was the registered owner of the vehicles and that no complaints were filed as required by law.
Bail was posted and trials held at which the citations were contested.
Defendant's argument assumes that only the registered owner or his or her attorney can post bail and can appear to contest the citation. As we explain, the parking-citation system is two-tiered. After the parking citation is issued, any person can post bail and appear in court to contest the citation. Only if the citation remains unpaid is the registered owner cited to appear in court. We conclude that no error of substance occurred, and we affirm.
First, the Vehicle Code does not require that the registered owner be proved, where, as here, a person posted bail on the citation and appeared in court to contest the citation. Vehicle Code fn. 1 section 40202 authorizes the issuance of parking citations by attaching the citation to some part of the vehicle. That section also specifies the information to be included in the citation: approximate time; location; license number; registration; expiration date; last four digits of the vehicle identification number, if visible; color of the vehicle and, if possible, make of the vehicle. A person can then either pay the citation or post bail and contest the citation. (§§ 40203, 40205.) If the citation remains unpaid, only then must the registered owner be notified about the delinquent citation. (§ 40206.)
The procedures described in section 41102, fn. 2 relied on by defendant, do not apply unless the citation remains unpaid and the prosecution must prove the case against the registered owner. In this case, a person chose to appear, pay the fine, and contest the citation. No one forced defendant to appear; he was entitled to wait until the People initiated proceedings under section 40206.
[2] Defendant contends that a violation of a parking ordinance cannot be proved unless the citation contains all the information required under section 40202. The contention is without merit. A fully completed citation is not a [14 Cal.App.4th Supp. 9] jurisdictional requirement in proving a parking violation. The obvious purpose of the information requirements under section 40202 is to permit identification of the vehicle and sufficient information to prove that a violation has been committed. Defendant does not contend that the vehicle was incorrectly identified or that the information contained in the citation was inadequate to prove the violation.
[1b] Defendant's constitutional arguments are without merit. He was not forced to incriminate himself; he was not denied equal protection; and he was not denied due process. Defendant chose the simplified system for paying and/or contesting parking citations.
Second, although we agree with defendant that under section 40230, subdivision (a) a complaint must be filed within 15 days after the defendant requests a court hearing, defendant does not contend that the court was without jurisdiction to proceed, absent a complaint, or that the citation did not provide him with adequate notice of the illegal parking that led to the citation. fn. 3 In short, defendant can show no prejudice by the People's failure to file a complaint.
The judgments are affirmed.
Johnson, Acting P. J., and Watai, J., concurred.
FN *. Pursuant to California Constitution, article VI, section 21.
FN 1. All further statutory references shall be to the Vehicle Code unless otherwise noted.
FN 2. Section 41102, in part, provides that "[i]n any prosecution against the registered owner of a motor vehicle charging a violation of any regulation governing ... the parking of a vehicle under ... any ordinance enacted by local authorities, proof that the particular vehicle described in the complaint was parked in violation of any provision of ... that ordinance, together with proof that the defendant named in the notice of delinquent parking violation issued under Section 40206 or the complaint was at the time of parking the registered owner of the vehicle, is prima facie evidence that the registered owner of the vehicle was the person who parked ... the vehicle at the point where, and for the time during which, the violation occurred ...."
FN 3. Section 40205 provides that when a person appears to contest a parking violation, the processing agency "shall proceed in accordance with Section 40215." That section describes the duties of the processing agency as to persons who appear to contest a notice of parking violation or notice of delinquent parking violation. Section 40230, subdivision (a) provides that a criminal complaint pursuant to various sections, including section 40215, "shall be filed with the court within 15 days after the defendant requests a court hearing or fails to appear." However, section 40230, subdivision (b) specifically authorizes the processing agency to "file a copy of the notice of delinquent parking violation ... and a copy of the affidavit of service or of the promise to appear," and further states: "That notice shall serve as a complaint on which a warrant may issue." Thus, the reason for requiring a complaint is to permit the issuance of a warrant, and, under the parking violation system, no warrant is ever issued based on the initial notice of parking violation.
[End of Volume 14 Cal.App.4th]
#3 Consumer Suggestion
AUTHOR: Lost Angeles - Los Angeles (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, June 05, 2009
POSTED: Friday, June 05, 2009
A class action lawsuit would most certainly hold SOMEONE accountable. The objective would be to develop a clear and trustworthy department that has some oversight. At present the individuals issuing citations are their own "bosses" they do as they please. Case in point, I just received a "Notice of Delinquent Parking Violation" for a citation I never originally received. After checking the address, it is near the area where I reside and frequently travel THROUGH. It is in an impossibly absurd location that would block traffic horrendously as the street narrows there... the alleged citation.... RED ZONE....
My wife and I were on a local road trip that day miles away.... the questions are WHO issued the citation and HOW. I have a personal theory as to how this might be possible.. the point is that yes one spoiled apple may not rot the whole barrel but it certainly casts doubt on the WHOLE system. I am pursuing this matter further.... I will take it to wherever it needs to be taken. There is almost no point in bringing public shame to the City of Los Angeles' Parking Violation Bureau it is such a big conglomerate that it may have little effect... this if it were exposed via an Local Television Investigation and subsequent Exposè... the problem is that ONE unethical, uncognitive, retrograde, dishonest, untruthful son of his/her mother who needs to be held accountable. Who ever this person may be, who falsely issued this citation to us will most certainly be loosing his/her job.
Why file a report here? Ripoff Report is a permanent record! Other complaint sites copy our content then remove reports for money.
