[May 2013..Dec 2013] The Gauteng E-tolling Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's fine, I like being irritating.

I'm not saying you're irritating..

I'm saying the non-corporate business is irritating, but it will be a necessary evil for them. They will do non-corporate business with the CEO's etc of the corporates they currently deal with.
 
I'm not saying you're irritating..

I'm saying the non-corporate business is irritating, but it will be a necessary evil for them. They will do non-corporate business with the CEO's etc of the corporates they currently deal with.

That's also fine, if non-corporates are so irritating they should stop doing business with us. Or us with them, in this case.
 
E-tolls will harm motorists : FF Plus

There will be irreparable harm to motorists if the e-toll regulations are not declared invalid, the FF Plus argued in the High Court in Pretoria on Monday.

"Motorists will be prejudiced," the Freedom Front Plus's legal counsel said.

"If tomorrow [e-tolling] commences, it will mean the members of the public will be criminally prosecuted.. and have judgments taken against them."

The court heard there were a lot of affidavits to process, and a special judge should have been requested. The party's counsel argued that if the application was delayed, it would cause harm.

He said it would be easier to delay e-tolling for two or three weeks, so that all the papers could be properly examined.

The party argues the State had made critical technical errors with the announcement of the implementation date of e-tolls. In terms of the Sanral Act, there has to be a 14-day delay between the date on which the commencement of the e-tolls is announced, and the date on which the system is implemented.

In effect, the system was only meant to start operating on December 4, not December 3, according to the party.

Transport Minister Dipuo Peters announced on November 20 that e-tolling of Gauteng's highways would begin on Tuesday.


Source : Sapa /mar/aa/th/jje
Date : 02 Dec 2013 11:15
 
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you "What Sanral Don't Want You To Know" - everything you should know about E-Tolling...

http://www63.zippyshare.com/v/9801202/file.html

Hi DJ, as you know I am a lay person when it comes to IT.

When I click your link, it says "ATTENTION! It is recommended that you download FLV MPlayer to continue". When I click on OK, my ESET Anti-virus programme gives me this message:

This page is identified as potentially unwanted. Show URL

This web page is on the list of websites with dubious reputation or websites with potentially unwanted content.


▪ Report an incorrectly blocked page

There is an option to proceed to the site. Is it safe? (And is this SANRAL thwarting your efforts? :D )
 
Hi DJ, as you know I am a lay person when it comes to IT.

When I click your link, it says "ATTENTION! It is recommended that you download FLV MPlayer to continue". When I click on OK, my ESET Anti-virus programme gives me this message:



There is an option to proceed to the site. Is it safe? (And is this SANRAL thwarting your efforts? :D )

Do you have AdBlock Plus installed? Is it a pop-up, the first one?

You should just be seeing the big 'Download Now' button.
 
E-toll application a ploy: Minister

A court application by the FF Plus is a deliberate ploy to delay e-tolling, legal counsel for Transport Minister Dipuo Peters said in the High Court in Pretoria on Monday.

"The creation of a vehicle for litigation... shows a deliberate strategy to get us to court," her lawyer Jeremy Gauntlett said.

"This is a deliberate strategy to delay it... What makes you so special?"

Gauntlett told the court the SA National Roads Agency Limited needed R270 million a month to repay its debt.

"Every R270 million not raised has to come from somewhere," he said.

Counsel for the Freedom Front Plus denied claims that the party's application to try and stop the implementation of e-tolling on Tuesday was political grandstanding.

"There is no political grandstanding of any nature in this case."

The party's counsel argued there would be irreparable harm to motorists if the e-toll regulations were not declared invalid.

"Motorists will be prejudiced... If tolling commences, it will mean the members of the public will be criminally prosecuted... and have judgments taken against them," the counsel argued.

The court heard there were a lot of affidavits to go through, and a special judge should have been requested. The party's counsel argued that if the application was delayed, it would cause harm.

The FF Plus's legal team said it would be easier to delay e-tolling for two or three weeks, so that all the papers could be properly examined.

Peters announced on November 20 that e-tolling of Gauteng's highways would start on Tuesday.


Source : Sapa /mar/hdw/th/jje
Date : 02 Dec 2013 12:11
 
"The creation of a vehicle for litigation... shows a deliberate strategy to get us to court," her lawyer Jeremy Gauntlett said.
... errrmmm ... yes well isn't that what a court application is intended to do? Not like it's some kind of hidden agenda or anything Jeremy
 
No harm will be caused by tolls: Court

No irreparable harm will be caused if e-tolling begins on Tuesday, the High Court in Pretoria heard on Monday.

"When they go under the gantries tomorrow, the world is not going to end... they will just pay tolls," said David Unterhalter SC, for the SA National Roads Agency Limited.

He said there was no urgency for the application, and that it should be struck from the roll.

The Freedom Front Plus has made a last minute application to try and stop the implementation of e-tolling, which is due to start on Tuesday.

Jeremy Gauntlett SC, for Transport Minister Dipuo Peters, said the application was irregular.

He said information contained in the affidavit by the FFPlus suggested that the minister rigged the e-toll implementation date to December 3.

"It is a dangerous allegation... and an abuse," said Gauntlett, asking that the application be struck from the roll.


Source : Sapa /mar/jje/cls
Date : 02 Dec 2013 12:41
 
No need to buy an e-tag: OUTA

There is no need for motorists to buy e-tags to use Gauteng's freeways, the Opposition To Urban Tolling Alliance (Outa) said on Monday.

"There is no law that requires road users to buy an e-tag or register with Sanral [the SA National Roads Agency Limited] in order to use Gauteng's freeways," said chairman Wayne Duvenage.

He said getting an e-tag had nothing to do with being law abiding.

"[But] while getting e-tagged and registering with Sanral has nothing to do with being law abiding, what it does is to make Sanral's task of enforcing e-tolling easier."

He said road users should be aware that getting an e-tag and registering with Sanral placed road users on Sanral's system and bound them to a contract to pay e-tolls.

"Getting e-tagged also limits the right of road users to object to paying tolls and to resist an unjust system."

He alleged that e-tolling was unlawful because, among others, Sanral had failed to comply with the law when it was supposed to properly inform the public of the intent to toll Gauteng's freeways at the outset.

Also, because it allegedly failed to conduct the legally required public participation procedure in October 2007 for the N1, N3, N4 and N12 and April 2008 for the R21.

Outa has unsuccessfully tried to stop the introduction of e-tolling through court action.

Transport Minister Dipuo Peters announced on November 20 that e-tolling of Gauteng's highways will begin on Tuesday.

The High Court in Pretoria is hearing a case brought by the Freedom Front Plus on the grounds that Peters made a technical error and got the start date wrong. FFPlus argued the e-tolling should have started only on December 4.


Source : Sapa /mm/jje/cls
Date : 02 Dec 2013 12:37
 
"This is a deliberate strategy to delay it... What makes you so special?"

Gauntlett told the court the SA National Roads Agency Limited needed R270 million a month to repay its debt.

"Every R270 million not raised has to come from somewhere," he said.
Maybe you fskers should have thought about that before you got all excited about how much money you would be able to screw the general public over for.
In any case , last I looked, everyone is allowed to bring a court application. Doesn't make one special.. doesn't mean it will succeed.
 
... errrmmm ... yes well isn't that what a court application is intended to do? Not like it's some kind of hidden agenda or anything Jeremy
he is trying to allege a little bit more
getting litigation between parties and closing up pleadings allows quite a bit of scope to compel SANRAL to do things that it doesn't want to - discovery for example (which is not ordinarily available in motion proceedings but there is precedent - which paradoxically I am having to look up at the moment)

SANRAL does not want full suit against it by various opposition political parties during the elections.


My personal view and IANAL is that the application cannot be granted on the relief sought because the occurence of irrepairable harm which would fall to the respondent if the relief is granted is not matched by irrepairable harm on the part of the applicants
what I would grant if I was the unfortunate judge to hear this matter I would propose to make an order directing that the matter be postponed sine die and directing that SANRAL keep a proper account of all charges advanced and moneys collected until the matter is finalized by the court. The parties must return to court to address the question of the legality of the tolls on the grounds advanced as a challenge by the applicants.

If SANRAL commences proceedings for the recovery of tolls then an interdict can be sought but the exercise of simply charging can be reversed if the court finds it unlawful.
 
he is trying to allege a little bit more
getting litigation between parties and closing up pleadings allows quite a bit of scope to compel SANRAL to do things that it doesn't want to - discovery for example (which is not ordinarily available in motion proceedings but there is precedent - which paradoxically I am having to look up at the moment)

SANRAL does not want full suit against it by various opposition political parties during the elections.


My personal view and IANAL is that the application cannot be granted on the relief sought because the occurence of irrepairable harm which would fall to the respondent if the relief is granted is not matched by irrepairable harm on the part of the applicants
what I would grant if I was the unfortunate judge to hear this matter I would propose to make an order directing that the matter be postponed sine die and directing that SANRAL keep a proper account of all charges advanced and moneys collected until the matter is finalized by the court. The parties must return to court to address the question of the legality of the tolls on the grounds advanced as a challenge by the applicants.

If SANRAL commences proceedings for the recovery of tolls then an interdict can be sought but the exercise of simply charging can be reversed if the court finds it unlawful.

14 days notice required by law, 13 days notice given. Open and shut case. They have to reissue their notice and this time give 14 days notice.
 
If it is that simple it would be a monumental cock up by those involved.

They wrote the damn laws not too long ago, and couldn't even read them properly themselves.
 
Its like the second coming at menlyn's etollie tag shop. A lot of sheep getting tagged...
 
14 days notice required by law, 13 days notice given. Open and shut case. They have to reissue their notice and this time give 14 days notice.
which is why an motion brought in terms of Rule 6 should in my view succeed in getting the notice set aside but the case for urgency is a little different. The harm is not immanent in my view. I am not saying that the FF+ was wrong to bring the application as they framed it precisely to avoid a situation where the horse has bolted.
 
http://www.iol.co.za/motoring/indus...ut-your-e-toll-options-1.1615447#.UpxsccQW18E

There is no need for motorists to buy e-tags to use Gauteng's freeways, the Opposition To Urban Tolling Alliance (Outa) asserted on Monday ahead of the scheduled e-tolling implementation on Tuesday December 3.

“There is no law that requires road users to buy an e-tag or register with Sanral in order to use Gauteng’s freeways,” said chairman Wayne Duvenage.

He said getting an e-tag had nothing to do with being law abiding.

“But while getting e-tagged and registering with Sanral has nothing to do with being law abiding, what it does is to make Sanral’s task of enforcing e-tolling easier.”

AN E-TAG BINDS YOU

He said road users should be aware that getting an e-tag and registering with Sanral placed road users on Sanral's system and bound them to a contract to pay e-tolls.

“Getting e-tagged also limits the right of road users to object to paying tolls and to resist an unjust system.”

Ultimately, the choice whether to get e-tagged or not is up to each individual road user.

Non-tagged road users will, according to statements by Sanral and the e-Toll regulations, have seven days grace in which to pay for driving under a gantry. After the expiry of the week-long grace period, motorists will be sent an invoice by Sanral within 32 days.

TWO WAYS TO RESIST THE SYSTEM

Non-tagged road users can do one of the following, according to Outa:

1. To pay at a higher tariff, but after putting Sanral through its paces of invoicing and sending notices for payment and making it difficult for SANRAL to enforce e-tolling;

2. To refuse to pay e-tolls at all. In this case, further notices and demands for payment will be made by Sanral over time until finally Sanral may sue for payment in court and/or prosecute the road user for non-payment of toll. This may result in the road-user(s) having to defend their action in court.

TEST THE LAW

As regards the second option, Outa asserts that every individual citizen has the right to resist the enforcement of unlawful action by Government against him or her. In this regard, the courts have not finally ruled on whether e-tolling is lawful or unlawful and the Supreme Court of Appeal judgment has made it clear that it is still open to individuals to challenge the enforcement of e-tolling on the basis that it is unlawful.

Wayne Duvenage alleged that e-tolling was unlawful because, among others, Sanral had failed to comply with the law when it was supposed to properly inform the public of the intent to toll Gauteng’s freeways at the outset.

Also, because it allegedly failed to conduct the legally required public participation procedure in October 2007 for the N1, N3, N4 and N12 and April 2008 for the R21.

Outa has unsuccessfully tried to stop the introduction of e-tolling through court action.

Transport Minister Dipuo Peters announced on November 20 that e-tolling of Gauteng's highways will begin on Tuesday.

The High Court in Pretoria is hearing a case brought by the Freedom Front Plus on the grounds that Peters made a technical error and got the start date wrong. FFPlus argued the e-tolling should have started only on December 4.

Sources: Sapa & Outa
 
A bunch of companies went out and bought their staff that are on the roads etags.
( sales People)

Can't put them in the name and shame thread since I have no form of back up. But I have friends that has been told to go pick up their tags. So it seems like the public is still holding out
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X