Challenge a safety camera notice in Hastings / Hawke's Bay

NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (Safety Cameras).

NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi, which states it has operated New Zealand's entire safety camera network since 1 July 2025. There is no council or regional layer — the same national team handles a camera notice wherever in the country it was issued.

NZTA publishes no dispute deadline in days — act well before the due date printed on the notice, and always before you pay (paying accepts responsibility). If nothing is paid or requested, a reminder notice can be served 28 days after the notice was served, and 28 days after that the fee can be filed with the court, which is then deemed to order the fee plus costs. NZTA states that once the fee transfers to the Ministry of Justice (which adds $55) NZTA can no longer deal with it. If you weren't the driver, tell NZTA before you pay and before the reminder due date.

Land Transport Act 1998, s 133 — owner liability, and the only way to shift it

For a moving-vehicle offence, proceedings may be taken against the registered person even if they weren't driving, and s 133(2) PRESUMES the defendant was the driver. That presumption is displaced only by the s 133(4) route: tell the enforcement authority IN WRITING immediately after becoming aware, AND give a statutory declaration either identifying the driver (full name, full address and other identifying particulars) or establishing you could not identify them after taking all reasonable steps. s 133(5) makes that declaration sufficient evidence in the absence of proof to the contrary. NZTA runs this as a SEPARATE process from a dispute, on its own witnessed statutory-declaration form, and states it does not accept electronic signatures. Frame it as this process transferring liability — never as an automatic transfer on sale or on saying 'I wasn't driving'.

Land Transport Act 1998, s 44 — a false statutory declaration is an offence

Knowingly giving false or misleading information in a statutory declaration under the Act is an offence carrying a maximum fine of $10,000. A nomination must be TRUE and the named driver must be the actual driver. Never guess, infer or 'best-guess' who was driving — naming a person to an enforcement authority is adverse to them and must come from the user's own knowledge.

Land Transport Act 1998, s 140 — what the notice must contain

An infringement notice must fairly inform the person of the time, place and nature of the alleged offence, and for a speeding offence must state BOTH the applicable speed limit AND the speed the driver is alleged to have been travelling (s 140(1)(b)), plus the fee, where and by when to pay, and the right to request a hearing. For an average-speed offence, s 140(1A) makes the 'place' the length of road between the two detection points, the 'time' the whole travel time between them, and the speed the calculated average. Useful for checking the notice on its face — but a missing or inconsistent particular is a point to RAISE, not a defect you may claim voids the notice.

Land Transport Act 1998, ss 145, 146 and 141A — the evidential presumptions run NZTA's way

Data from approved vehicle surveillance equipment is sufficient evidence in the absence of proof to the contrary (s 145). Testing/accuracy certificates for a speed-measuring device (s 146) and capability certificates for the automated infringement system (s 141A) are sufficient proof, and each must not be more than 12 months old at the date of the alleged offence (s 146(5); s 141A(2)(b)). Only a COURT can set such a certificate aside, on application made at least 14 days before the hearing (s 146(6); s 141A(3)). So ASKING for the certificate is legitimate, cheap and always available — NZTA publishes a request form for it — but never tell a user the camera was 'probably uncalibrated'. Argue only what the certificate actually shows.

Land Transport Act 1998, s 146E — average-speed cameras must be signed at the first detection point

Where the Agency operates a point-to-point average speed system it MUST ensure one or more traffic control devices are in place informing drivers passing the FIRST detection point that the system is there. NZTA restates this as a hard precondition to enforcing an average-speed offence. s 146E(2) lets NZTA prove the signs by certificate, rebuttable in the absence of proof to the contrary — a dated photo showing no sign at the first detection point is exactly that. CRITICAL LIMIT: this applies ONLY to average-speed systems. NZTA states there is no legal requirement to sign spot-speed or red-light cameras, and that mobile cameras are deliberately unsigned. Never argue 'there was no camera sign' for a spot, red-light or mobile camera.

Land Transport Act 1998, ss 146A–146D — how an average speed is computed and published

Average speed between two detection points is treated as the actual speed, calculated as (surveyed distance in metres × 3.6) ÷ seconds between the points and rounded DOWN to the next whole km/h (s 146A), with a weighted average limit where more than one limit applies (s 146B). The Director must publish each system's elements and the distance-measurement method in the Gazette and on an NZTA website (s 146D). So it is fair to recompute from the published distance and the printed times, and to ask NZTA which published elements it relied on. A stop between the two points does NOT change the arithmetic — do not argue it as if it were a defence.

Land Transport Act 1998, s 137 — there is no 'only a few km/h over' defence

Complying with a speed limit is no defence to other driving offences, and there is no published tolerance below which speeding is not enforced — NZTA's own fee scale starts at '10 km/h or less'. Never argue a small margin isn't an offence, that the camera was hidden or unmarked (NZTA states mobile cameras are deliberately unmarked), or that enforcement is revenue-gathering (NZTA states its mobile-camera contract pays for camera operating HOURS, not tickets). Those arguments are wrong and refutable, and they cost the user credibility on the grounds that do work.

Summary Proceedings Act 1957, s 21 — disputing it, the clock, and the court route

28 days after service of the infringement notice a reminder notice may be served (s 21(2)(b)); 28 days after service of THAT the particulars may be filed and the court is DEEMED to order the fee plus prescribed costs (ss 21(3)(b), 21(5)). A hearing request must be IN WRITING AND SIGNED by the person served and delivered before or within 28 days after service of the reminder notice, or within such further time as the informant allows (s 21(6)). A person requesting a hearing may ADMIT liability and make submissions as to penalty (s 21(7)); where liability is admitted the defendant 'is not required or entitled to appear' (s 21(8)(d)(iv)(B)) — the decided-on-the-papers route, which NZTA offers as an explicit option on its own court-hearing form. Costs are mandatory on a finding or plea of guilt (s 21(9)), so electing court has a real downside. NZTA's own review of a notice is a DISCRETIONARY administrative process, not a statutory right — ask for discretion, never claim an entitlement.

NZTA's published mobile safety camera deployment guide — one binding rule, the rest operational

NZTA publishes a deployment guide for mobile cameras (visibility, distance from other cameras and from speed-limit drops, overtaking lanes, operator safety, legal parking) and states expressly that, EXCEPT FOR THE PARKING POINT, none of it is a legal requirement. The parking point is real and has bitten: in 2026 NZTA cancelled and refunded 122 tickets after a mobile camera was found partly parked on a footpath. So: a camera vehicle parked unlawfully is a strong, evidenced ground. For every OTHER bullet in the guide, ask NZTA to check its own deployment record for that site and time and to exercise its discretion — do NOT assert that breaching a non-binding bullet invalidates a notice.

Who may lodge, and what Refund can never do (NZTA's published position)

NZTA states a request may be made by the person named on the notice, a person they have given specific authority to act on their behalf, or an authorised representative of a company or organisation — and it publishes an authority-to-act form the USER lodges, which then covers requesting photos, payment enquiries, telling NZTA it was someone else driving, infringement history, and requesting a dispute or court hearing. NZTA states the authority takes effect only once it updates its records, so allow for that lag inside the 28-day clock. Two hard limits: (1) authority to act is NOT authority to SIGN — the statutory declaration must carry the declarant's own wet-ink signature, witnessed by a Justice of the Peace, solicitor, court Registrar or Deputy Registrar, or another person authorised to take a statutory declaration under the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957, and NZTA states it does not accept electronic signatures; (2) NZTA states that when an authorised person requests a court hearing, the process includes releasing the person's traffic offence history — the user must be told that before electing court.

Scope — what this case type does and does NOT cover

NZTA describes three safety camera notices. A Safety Camera Activation Notice (issued in the first weeks after a new camera or a lowered limit) carries no fee and no demerits — there is nothing to challenge, so tell the user that and stop. A Safety Camera INFRINGEMENT Notice is this case type: NZTA's published fee scale runs $30 (10 km/h or less over) to $630 (46–50 km/h over), $150 for a red light, and NZTA states it does NOT issue demerit points for a safety camera infringement notice. A Safety Camera Traffic Offence Notice — more than 50 km/h over — is NZTA filing CHARGES IN COURT, not an infringement: that is a criminal matter with its own short transfer deadline, and Refund must hand it over rather than run it. Because the fee is set by regulation, NZTA cannot simply reduce it; the only reduction route is a plea in mitigation to the court under s 21 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957.

• You weren't the driver — liability shifts only via a witnessed statutory declaration naming the driver (Land Transport Act 1998, s 133)
• You'd sold the vehicle before the offence — the same statutory declaration route, naming the buyer
• The vehicle or its plates were stolen or cloned (a police report reference goes in the declaration)
• Wrong plate, wrong vehicle, or a misread character routing the notice to the wrong registered owner
• A duplicate notice for the same event
• The speed limit that applied to your vehicle type differed from the one on the notice (e.g. a light vehicle towing a trailer)
• The fee charged doesn't match the recorded margin over the limit on NZTA's published fee scale
• Speed-limit signage on the approach was contradictory, obscured or genuinely unclear
• An average-speed camera area with no sign at the first detection point (Land Transport Act 1998, s 146E)
• A mobile camera vehicle that was not parked legally — the one deployment rule NZTA accepts as binding
• The testing/accuracy or system-capability certificate was out of date or can't be produced (request it first, then argue only what it shows)
• A genuine emergency or breakdown, with documentary proof

Only raise what genuinely happened — a well-evidenced, honest request works best. Useful evidence: The notice itself (both sides), including the recorded speed and the speed limit printed on it; The name, address and contact details of the person who was driving — only if you actually know them; A police report or reference number, if the vehicle or its plates were stolen; Proof of sale / change of ownership, if you'd sold the vehicle; Photos of EVERY speed-limit sign on the approach, in order, showing your direction of travel; A photo of the camera vehicle and where it was parked, if it was a mobile camera; A dated photo at the first detection point, for an average-speed camera area; Documentary proof of an emergency (e.g. a hospital discharge summary); The camera photo, red-light video or camera certificate — NZTA will release these on request, and it's worth asking before we draft.

If the authority won't budge, the dispute can be put to the District Court on the papers under section 21 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 — decided in writing, with no hearing to attend.