Sometimes it’s because of a clash with motorists.
Occasionally, people who feel wronged make their grievance public. Such cases were reported in the Otago Daily Times last month and again last week, in separate Dunedin incidents.
Those involved might have been less vocal if the fines were smaller.
However, both cases concerned stopping in disabled parking spaces. The penalty for that offence jumped last year from $150 to $750.
The 400% increase was widely welcomed. Few things provoke more indignation than seeing young people stride from a vehicle parked in a space reserved for the disabled. They deserve the penalty.
Fundamentally, the law should be enforced, and fines should stay hefty. They are a strong deterrent.
Undeniably, those fined in Dunedin were guilty under the letter of the law.
But should leniency be allowed in borderline instances?
That means the fines and threat of fines help ensure parking spaces are vacant when required by those entitled to them.
That also means motorists are discouraged from hogging other valuable parking spots where and when demand is high.
Restricted-time parking around the central city, hospital and university exists for good reasons. Those P10s outside businesses are valuable.
In both incidents, good arguments were made: the cars were "stopping" briefly rather than "parking", with drivers inside and the engines running.
They could have moved immediately if a vehicle with a mobility sticker had arrived.
In one case, parking officers were accused of "lurking" outside Dunedin Hospital ready to pounce in the early morning. A man got into a heated argument with a parking officer, who he says jubilantly confronted him after he dropped his wife at work using a disabled carpark.
The man claimed the "sting" was a blatant attempt at revenue gathering.
He said he had since seen officers issuing tickets at 7am to people briefly using disabled parking spaces when dropping off workers.
The rules require anyone stopping in a mobility parking space to display a valid permit.
But would the man, whose wife he says has limited mobility, really have prevented a disabled person from using the park, especially at 7am?
Issuing a ticket for a brief "kiss and fly" seems unreasonable at an hour when patient or visitor drop-offs are unlikely.
The other incident occurred on a cold, wet day when a motorist couldn’t use the P5 at Moana Pool because a bus was in the way.
He was collecting his 78-year-old wife, recovering from a traumatic fall, from a physio appointment at the Moana gym. She had previously held a mobility card but not a current one.
The car occupied the mobility park for less than a minute. Hopefully, the couple’s appeal to the council succeeded.
The parking nightmare around the hospital was again in the spotlight in the ODT this week. A system is needed to allow staff drop-offs without risking fines from waiting officers.
In response to last week’s incident, the council rejected "any suggestion" that healthcare workers are being targeted or that officers are engaging in "revenue gathering".
However, it is suspicious that the number of infringements for this offence has more than doubled since the disabled park penalties rose by $600.
One might expect the deterrent effect of large fines to reduce such offences, not increase them.
While the rules are in place for good reasons, they should still be enforced with consideration, mercy and a little flexibility.
Officers need not patrol the hospital at 7am, and perhaps the Moana Pool officer could have allowed a minute’s leeway.
