Air-conditioning Technician Blames ‘Misleading’ Signage for Costly Parking Fine at Farrer Road Condominium

SINGAPORE – An air-conditioning technician is disputing a $272 parking fine he received at a Farrer Road condominium, claiming that “misleading” signage led him to believe he could park in the lot. Mr. Ahmad Mujtaba, 31, parked his van outside the condominium on January 18 while servicing an air-conditioning unit in the building. After returning to his vehicle, he found a notice requiring him to pay the fine. According to Mujtaba, the signage at the entrance of the condominium indicated that only residents and visitors were allowed to park there. However, he argues that there was no clear indication that commercial vehicles were prohibited. “It’s very misleading,” he said. “I’m a service provider, and I’m not a resident or a visitor. But there was no signage specifically stating that commercial vehicles couldn’t park there.” Mujtaba said he contacted the condominium management company to appeal the fine, but his request was rejected. The management company maintained that the signage was clear and that all non-resident vehicles needed to obtain a visitor’s pass before parking. However, Mujtaba believes that the signage should have been more specific to avoid confusion. “There should be a separate sign that says ‘No commercial vehicles allowed,'” he said. “That way, I would have known right away that I can’t park there.” Mujtaba has filed a complaint with the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) and is considering legal options. He hopes that the condominium management will reconsider their decision and waive the fine. “It’s unfair to penalize me for something that I didn’t realize I was doing wrong,” he said. “I’m just trying to do my job, and I shouldn’t be punished for it.” The condominium management declined to comment on the incident.Zimbabwe Seeks Public Feedback on Crypto Asset Trading Regulation

Zimbabwe Seeks Public Feedback on Crypto Asset Trading Regulation

Zimbabwean authorities are actively seeking public input as they develop regulatory policies for the burgeoning crypto asset sector within the country. The government has established a committee to engage with stakeholders in the virtual asset ecosystem and gather feedback before June 26, 2023.

Government’s Perspective

In a statement published in the state-run Herald newspaper, the government emphasized its commitment to understanding and evaluating the crypto asset landscape in line with international best practices. It invited all cryptocurrency service providers operating within or outside Zimbabwe to share their perspectives.

Economic Context

Zimbabwe has been excluded from international capital markets since defaulting on its debts in 1999. The country is attempting to restructure the approximately $19.2 billion it owes to creditors, including $13 billion owed to international investors.

Cryptocurrency Initiatives

Last year, Zimbabwe introduced a gold-backed virtual token as part of its efforts to stabilize the country’s financial system. In April 2023, the southern African nation also launched a new currency, the ZiG (short for Zimbabwe Gold), in an attempt to establish a functional local currency after 15 years.An air-conditioning technician was fined $272 for parking in a lot at a Farrer Road condominium. He claims that he was misled by the signage. The technician, Mr. Tan, had parked his van in the lot on July 13. He was there to service an air-conditioning unit in the condominium. Mr. Tan said that there was a sign that said “Visitor Parking Only.” He assumed that this meant that he could park there as he was a visitor to the condominium. However, when he returned to his van, he found a parking fine on his windshield. The fine was for $272. Mr. Tan appealed the fine, but his appeal was rejected. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) said that the sign “Visitor Parking Only” was not meant to allow visitors to park there for free. The LTA said that there were other signs in the area that clearly stated that parking was only for residents. Mr. Tan said that he was “very disappointed” with the LTA’s decision. He said that he felt that the signage was “misleading.” “I’m not the only one who’s been fined for parking here,” Mr. Tan said. “I’ve spoken to other people who’ve been fined, and they’ve all said that they were misled by the signage.” Mr. Tan said that he will not be paying the fine. He said that he is going to take the matter to court.