Contrary to law
The agency’s decision was inconsistent with law—for example, the officer lacked authority or the notice did not meet legal requirements.
Start with the heading on your most recent notice. Your available pathway changes as a fine moves from the issuing agency to Fines Victoria and enforcement.
Choose the ground that matches the facts and supply evidence directed to its legal test. A sympathetic story by itself may not fit a ground.
The agency’s decision was inconsistent with law—for example, the officer lacked authority or the notice did not meet legal requirements.
You were wrongly identified. This is not the pathway simply because somebody else drove your registered vehicle.
Out-of-the-ordinary, unavoidable or exceptional circumstances caused the offence, such as a documented medical emergency or breakdown.
Specific vulnerability criteria apply and generally require evidence from a qualified practitioner or agency.
Strict conditions and a 14-day application period apply. This ground excludes traffic and tolling offences.
Select a ground, then tick only the documents you already have. Missing evidence does not automatically decide the outcome, but it shows where your application needs work.
Nothing is uploaded or savedBuild your review letter →Tick each relevant item. Keep originals unchanged.
The right procedure matters as much as the explanation.
For a camera-detected fine issued to the registered owner, use the nomination pathway rather than “mistake of identity.” Do not pay first if you intend to nominate.
Fines Victoria says that, in most cases, only one review application can be made for each fine. Make the first application complete.
Internal review is not available for excessive-speed, drink-driving, drug-driving and specified alcohol or drug boating offences, or for court-issued fines.
A court can impose a different result, including a higher penalty or conviction. Seek legal advice before electing court.
These real Victorian Ombudsman case studies show how evidence, personal circumstances and escalation changed an outcome.
Helene bought an all-day ticket but received a fine after a five-minute restriction began. She paid, then challenged the fairness of the signage through the Ombudsman.
Ron, an elderly pensioner with disabilities and serious health issues, had an expired disability parking permit. The Council initially refused to withdraw the fine.
Postal delays meant Des, a disabled pensioner, discovered a speeding fine and late fees together. He explained that the offered repayment would force cuts to food or medication.
What these cases do—and do not—show: a clear timeline, documents and the right escalation can matter. They are examples, not precedents or promises. Outcomes vary with the facts, the type and stage of the fine, and the decision-maker’s powers. Plan your next step after a decision →
Checked against Fines Victoria on 18 September 2026. Always recheck the official page before acting because forms, eligibility and time limits can change.