E Toll

<< < (58/66) > >>

Mefiante (March 23, 2016, 10:27:21 AM):
The cases will be handled by judges in the High Court, not magistrates, at least initially because they are high-value claims. Nonetheless, the issue of partiality prompted by the use of GPF moneys to construct e-diddle is bound to be raised. If the judges recuse themselves on these grounds, that will spell the end of any and all e-grubby claims for lack of any credible platform upon which they might be heard.

Meanwhile, OUTA soothes public fears.

'Luthon64
st0nes (March 23, 2016, 10:37:25 AM):
I'm confused by this whole e-toll fiasco. I don't live where e-tolls are levied and have never driven on an e-tolled road, so I haven't really tried to get to the bottom of it, but:--

1. Is there a contract in existence between the motorist and the e-toller?

2. If not, what recourse does the e-toller have to pursue the motorist in civil court?

I ask becouse an analogous situation exists in TV licences--the SABC cannot take civil action against non-payers of the TV licence because no contract exists, and if they go the criminal route they have to prove you have a TV and how long you've had it, so they just try bullying tactics to get the fearful to pay.
BoogieMonster (March 23, 2016, 11:03:49 AM):
1. Is there a contract in existence between the motorist and the e-toller?

No.

Quote
2. If not, what recourse does the e-toller have to pursue the motorist in civil court?

Special legislation that was passed just for e-tolls. Their basic claim is that the motorist, knowing that the road was tolled (clearly indicated as such on all signage) still used the road, and I guess thus they think we've thus accepted the toll (and/or contract).

However your objection may well demonstrate exactly why people who willingly signed up for e-tolls are basically screwed.

Quote
I ask becouse an analogous situation exists in TV licences--the SABC cannot take civil action against non-payers of the TV licence because no contract exists, and if they go the criminal route they have to prove you have a TV and how long you've had it, so they just try bullying tactics to get the fearful to pay.

Well actually they "get" you when you walk into a shop to buy any display device. Even computer monitors have now been classified as TV's (and are now suddenly taxed as such, notice a sharp rise in monitor prices lately?). And since the shop will refuse to sell you a "TV" without you producing a TV license.... the enforcement is pragmatic rather than legal in nature.

EDIT: I guess much like erecting tolling plazas never results in non-payment. But in the case of gauteng's freeways would lead to chaos.
Mefiante (March 23, 2016, 11:14:00 AM):
1. If a motorist has registered an e-toll account with SCAMRAL, s/he must agree to their T&Cs and in that case there’s a contract. The upside to registering was a much lower per-km rate and easier payment via e-tag. Only about 40% of Gauteng motorists fell for this gimmick, probably because it was coupled to the profoundly buggy eNATIS system. With unregistered users (“alternate” or “VLN” users) there’s no contract. Still, registered users can argue that they entered into the contract under duress, namely the threat of criminal prosecution.

2. Originally, SCAMRAL threatened criminal prosecution for defaulters (as is the case with TV licences). However, the appropriate legislative framework doesn’t yet exist in the case of e-leech, and that’s why there’s a rush to push legislation through parliament to criminalise non-payment of e-sponge on the basis of “ignoring a road traffic sign.” (Some reach, that, eh?) While that’s in the pipeline, the only recourse SCAMRAL has is civil action and empty threats. (And of course such legislation, once ratified, cannot work retroactively.) What SCAMRAL wants is to prevent legal prescription (three years) of the alleged debt by scaring people into acknowledging their debt or preferably by making payments. Civil action is usually long and tortuous, besides all of the potentially damning legal hurdles that already lie in wait for SCAMRAL along this route. In short, it’s as you rightly call it: bluster and bullying of the timid.

'Luthon64
Tweefo (April 27, 2016, 19:49:38 PM):
So, are the sheriffs handing out the stuff yet? My gate intercom is out of order so don't know if he came calling.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page