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

[Albereth]

The new law exempts them from NCA if i read correctly

And that's unconstitutional.

 

[Heisenborg]

This transport bill?

So then, the whole argument is invalid with regards to complying with the NCA. How can they provide credit to motorists (Which is what they're doing) and not comply with the NCA? That's ridiculous!

I know, i was also dumbfounded, i read it somewhere on mybb, will try find it

 

[Albereth]

So, if SANRAL comply with NCA - then we could use that defence?

It's not really a defence. What it means is that SANRAL would have to determine how much each person who uses the road can afford as a credit limit before allowing them on the road.

The tag is a form of prepaid so isn't credit.

It's those people who don't want tags that would need to be assessed.

The could try and make tags compulsory but I think that we have already seen that government cannot force you to purchase something. And if they had to police who got onto the roads they wouldn't have free flowing traffic.

 

[LazyLion]

Okay, maybe I am missing the point here.

SANRAL need to comply with the NCA in order to collect toll fees. Also, they need to comply with the CPA, if they intend on using it to prosecute users who refuse to pay?

Now, let's say 600,000 (or more) motorists make it as difficult as possible for SANRAL to get money out of them - how will the courts cope with the cases - there will be queues for years?

Now you see the problem.

They are a credit provider and this is a commercial transaction.
SANRAL is also a private company (although the govt is the sole shareholder).
This new Transport Bill tries to exempt them from the NCA, but that is so problematic that it is just not funny.

Hauling people off to jail at roadblocks for a commercial transaction is going to cause such a legal backlash that SANRAL won't know what hit them for decades afterwards.

 

[Priapus]

I know, i was also dumbfounded, i read it somewhere on mybb, will try find it

Thanks - I will try find it too.

It's not really a defence. What it means is that SANRAL would have to determine how much each person who uses the road can afford as a credit limit before allowing them on the road.

The tag is a form of prepaid so isn't credit.

It's those people who don't want tags that would need to be assessed.

The could try and make tags compulsory but I think that we have already seen that government cannot force you to purchase something. And if they had to police who got onto the roads they wouldn't have free flowing traffic.

Right, got it. Hence why they're pushing for eTags so hard.

What stops people with cloned plates or people who decide to just have false plates on their cars?

 

[Priapus]

Now you see the problem.

They are a credit provider and this is a commercial transaction.
SANRAL is also a private company (although the govt is the sole shareholder).
This new Transport Bill tries to exempt them from the NCA, but that is so problematic that it is just not funny.

Hauling people off to jail at roadblocks for a commercial transaction is going to cause such a legal backlash that SANRAL won't know what hit them for decades afterwards.

So that's their plan do you think?
Check your etoll fees at roadblocks and then send you to jail, just like that? Holy crap sticks...

If the Transport bill is so flawed, then how on earth has it been signed and passed?
Even after the fact, it means, potentially, every. Single. Motorist, could fight that bill. Over and over again, per case?
How have SANRAL not seen the flaw in their plans?

 

[daveza]

Can't see anything more recent -

http://www.itweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=63939

The South African National Roads Agency (Sanral) has responded to accusations by the SA National Consumer Union (Sancu) that it applied for an exemption from the National Credit Act (NCA) in relation to the Gauteng Freeway Development Project.

In a statement, Sanral says that it does not qualify as a credit provider under the NCA.

Sanral spokesperson Vusi Mona says a clause within the Transport and Related Matters Amendment Bill exempts Sanral from the NCA and was drafted to clear up any possible confusion around Sanral and the NCA.

“It must be understood that the incidental credit accrued as part of the e-tolling system does not fit the definition of credit under the NCA. The amendment to the Bill is an attempt to clear up any legal ambiguity in terms of credit.”

He says reasons for the provision in the bill are as follows:

“E-tolling is a prepaid process, but a seven day grace period is given for payment. This is not a provision of credit.”

Mona says under the legislation a person who fails to pay e-tolls is committing an offence and has the opportunity to rectify it. “Sanral was concerned by this latest attempt by the Opposition Against Urban Tolling Alliance (Outa) and the SA National Consumer Union to discredit a perfectly legitimate enterprise through disinformation.”

 

[blunomore]

If taxpayers agree not to get registered and not to pay e-tolls, someone (OUTA?) should furnish taxpayers with clear guidelines on how to deal with any bills/statements/invoices they will receive - or whatever legal repercussions may come their way for not abiding by the law.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

If taxpayers agree not to get registered and not to pay e-tolls, someone (OUTA?) should furnish taxpayers with clear guidelines on how to deal with any bills/statements/invoices they will receive - or whatever legal repercussions may come their way for not abiding by the law.

OUTA hasn't said you shouldn't pay tolls, just to take as long as possible, and not to get e-Tags. Don't think they want to open themselves up to litigation...

 

[Wyzak]

So, are they wanting to use the same CPA that's in place now, for eTolls - meaning no amendments to it?

Yes, for the most part. Might need some small amendments.

Okay, from that point of view I agree. However, SANRAL could turn around and say I was well aware of the costs before using the road - therefor this is my problem. Not so?

Not knowing about a law can not be used as a defence for breaking a law.

Don't think that'll fly. Banks can't use that line when they recklessly lend to people.

The government doesn't own banks, that's why they have to comply.

So that's their plan do you think?
Check your etoll fees at roadblocks and then send you to jail, just like that? Holy crap sticks...

If the Transport bill is so flawed, then how on earth has it been signed and passed?
Even after the fact, it means, potentially, every. Single. Motorist, could fight that bill. Over and over again, per case?
How have SANRAL not seen the flaw in their plans?

They will pull over some cars and do spot checks yes, but first I'll make damn sure they are legally allowed to do so. Or I'll exercise my right to drive to the nearest police station with them in tow.

They can't just pull you over and jail you, it would have had to have gone to court already where a judge issues an arrest warrant for you etc etc etc. Many procedures that have to be followed before you end up there. Just like they can't force you to pay outstanding fines on the spot, but they still try...

The courts simply don't have the ability. They aren't even doing 1 million cases a year, now they might potentially have to do another million cases per month.

 

[DJ...]

My objection/comments letter:

Part 1)

Dear Mr T.H.M Mphahlele,

Please find below my official comments relating to the Gauteng e-tolling project and the associated pricing.

1) Your price points do not make sense in terms of the value of the Sanral bond issuances, and the specific events of default clauses in the associated prospectuses for the medium term note programme. Based on your existing price points, your cashflow would not be sufficient to repay the outstanding debt and interest component within the time-frames demanded of the bond issuances, as agreed with your creditors. I have attached various calculations that show, using various scenarios based on the information released by Sanral, the challenges associated with meeting your debt obligations.

2) As per the attached calculations, Sanral will need to charge in the region of R1800 per month per vehicle, working on 6 years of income until debt maturity and operating on the assumption that the full amount is paid to creditors and not reinvested into maintenance and further infrastructure development. Anything short of this number will result in a serious shortfall and will over the course of the bond term, trigger a default, which would be a precarious situation considering that the bonds are not only government guaranteed, which would impact negatively on our credit rating and have significant impact on the economy as a whole, but also that they were mostly subscribed to by the GEPF, effectively using the pensions of government employees to fund this project. This is unacceptable on all counts, and requires a complete re-think of the income streams, price-points, and collection agencies. In any business, if a cashflow issue arises, the first thing to look at is minimising costs. In Sanral’s case, a large proportion of the cost component is made up of collection fees, most of which do not remain in the country. This relationship needs re-evaluation in order to minimise costs to South Africans, which should be a priority.

3) The cost of the construction has been officially deemed to be inflated due to collusion from Sanral’s construction partners. Price points have been set without factoring in allocations from the fines paid by the construction industry.

4) There is no transparency into GFIP’s financials, yet you are asking us to comment on the fairness of the proposed tariffs. It is nigh on impossible for a person to properly apply their mind to the pricing issue if Sanral (a government agency) refuses to disclose its financials to the public. It is disingenuous to ask for comment on an issue with so many moving parts while Sanral and government refuse to provide the information relating to those parts, especially the single most important parts.

5) It is clear based on the lack of public uptake of etags, public revolt, political revolt, and union revolt, that Sanral will face massive challenges in managing their debtors book. Once this is finally accepted by management and government, we can move towards a solution. Refusing to acknowledge such a problem means that it has not been properly taken into account when attempting to price the system as a whole. Considering the requirement of a steady cash flow in order to prevent a bond default, it is imperative that Sanral come up with solutions to the problems, that are in the best interests of all stakeholders. The public being the largest stakeholder. To date, all proposed solutions centre around punitive measures which only aggravates the public further, and solidifies their disenchantment with e-tolling. If measures are not put in place to address these issues outside of PR and marketing efforts, Sanral will not be in a position to meet their extensive debt obligations as the public further turn against the system. The public are in a position to legally delay payment through objections, and by not purchasing e-tags. Sanral however are not in a position to further delay income streams. This must, as a matter of utmost importance, be addressed. Punitive measures will not buy the goodwill or support of the public

6) Enforcement of the new Sanral act will requires Gauteng motorists to be subjected to different laws to the rest of the country. It also privatises policing, both of which are unconstitutional. To avoid legal challenges and further unnecessary costs to the general public as the public will inevitably pay for defence of both parties), this needs to be urgently addressed and rectified with appropriate amendments.

 

[DJ...]

Part 2

7) By adding R2,90 per kilometre to heavy vehicles, you are adding close to a 20% total cost increase to the logistics industry, which in turn adds further inflationary pressures through simple economic principles. The further cost burden to every citizen in Gauteng will result in lower levels of disposable income, not only hampering growth, but for many SMEs, resulting frozen employment and/or retrenchments. In addition, all increases to motorists are an effective 100% increase, while we have seen zero reduction in other levies and taxes specifically intended for road infrastructure development and maintenance. Questions remain as to where the money intended for maintenance was spent, as it wasn’t for a long time spent on the Gauteng freeway road infrastructure. One also has to question why Alex Van Niekerk’s original presentation to government, where he suggested a combined MBUF and fuel levy collection system, was ignored?

8) I also object in principle to the vast majority of payments forming the profits of an international company, for which we derive very little value apart from taxation. Taxation that I may add, is reduced in order to secure so-called investment in the country. This is the exact opposite of investment. Investment for the sake of tax income is to the detriment of the tax payer. It is a value dilution agent, as only a percentage of the spend remains in the country. Kapsch have no vested interest in further investment in infrastructure in the country, nor have they ever. Their involvement in traffic camera systems is not an investment in infrastructure. Kapsch is effectively acting as an agent of government, using the tax payer as a forced client through legislation. This is not good governance.

9) E-tolling has been implemented in the most inefficient manner possible, driving up costs for no apparent rhyme or reason. When compared to similar projects in France, for example, where the country bought the hardware and utilised the platform as a proper job creation tool, the entire CAPEX spend was EUR10m. Their operational costs were also minimised and the system was widely accepted by the public. To force exorbitant pricing points on to tax payers in order to recover the cost of an inefficient implementation is just poor governance and should not be tolerated, either by government, or tax payers. Alex Van Niekerk has stated that the cost of toll operations is R12.5bn until 2020 and the CAPEX expenditure was. That is R2.2bn per annum spent to simply collect money from motorists. Working with the maximum possible cap, for 2million motorists subjected to paying e-tolls, that equates to 20% of total income. 20c of every rand paid by motorists goes to the costs required simply to collect the money in the first place. This doesn’t include the debt repayment and interest components. Eventually we land up in a system where about 60c-70c of every Rand paid for e-tolling goes to costs, and only 30c-40c actually goes towards the upgrades and maintenance. That is not acceptable, and the solution is not to increase price-points. The solution is to identify cheaper recovery methods.

10) While Sbu Ndebele was still minister of transport, he made two critical statements that are pertinent to this issue:

o “Furthermore, it is noted that the costs of the ORT [open road tolling] system and COC are not only applicable to the GFIP, but are potentially applicable to the national road network since it fulfils a national function.”
 Government is refusing to acknowledge the possibility of adopting a fuel levy, on the basis that it is unfair to other provinces to have to pay for Gauteng’s roads. What’s important to take into consideration is that the reasons clearly stated for construction in the first place, are that they are of national importance. Government’s change of heart now plays little role in anything after the fact. It informed the decisions at the time, which is the important aspect.
o “There is not enough money available to fix roads, so more toll gates will probably have to be built on national roads, Transport Minister Sbu Ndebele said in a report on Thursday. More than 4 100 km of roads - or 32 percent of the national road network - are in such a bad state that they only have a "structural life span" of five years left. It would cost more than R35-billion to fix these roads before 2014, Ndebele said in Parliament, according to Beeld newspaper. But his department has only R16,8-billion available to do this “
 Sbu Ndebele stated outright that fixing 4100km of road would cost R35bn. the GFIP in fixing only a fraction of this stretch of road, has spent that same amount, excluding interest. Clearly we either had an incredibly incompetent transport minister at the time, for which the tax payers should not have to pay for now, or we have further evidence that the costs of the project were inflated beyond comprehension. Another outcome that the tax payers should not have to pay for.

11) In conclusion, the tolls’ pricing does not make sense from the get-go, and the tax payers will be funding a project that will not survive the duration of its bond issuances. That much is abundantly clear, so one can only assume that the government is hoping that GFIP can survive until after the elections. It is a reasonable conclusion to draw. Furthermore, all points above indicate that the processes, costs, procedures, and entire business model need to be completely redesigned, from the ground-up, in order to protect the country from further economic issues and civil unrest.

 

[Priapus]

The courts simply don't have the ability. They aren't even doing 1 million cases a year, now they might potentially have to do another million cases per month.

Even 100,000 cases a month will be too much.

I noticed that SANRAL says we must pay within 7 days.

So, are they telling us that they will invoice me and have the bill delivered to me, before 7 days in order for me to pay it on time?

What happens if I only receive the bill a month later... ?

 

[OrbitalDawn]

My objection/comments letter:

Which will be subsequently ignored by Mr. Mphahlele.

 

[Paul_S]

I noticed that SANRAL says we must pay within 7 days.
So, are they telling us that they will invoice me and have the bill delivered to me, before 7 days in order for me to pay it on time?

No, the onus is on you to pay within 7 days of passing under a gantry.
No invoice is required.
If you fail to pay within 7 days you are handed over to the VPC (Violations Processing Center) and you pay the alternative user tariff (highest tariff).
It's all here: http://www.sanral.co.za/e-toll/

 

[Priapus]

Which will be subsequently ignored by Mr. Mphahlele.

Exactly. SANRAL are only doing this to comply... they won't take anything out of all the letters.

 

[Priapus]

Which will be subsequently ignored by Mr. Mphahlele.

Exactly. SANRAL are only doing this to comply... they won't take anything out of all the letters.

 

[Priapus]

No, the onus is on you to pay within 7 days of passing under a gantry.
No invoice is required.
If you fail to pay within 7 days you are handed over to the VPC (Violations Processing Center) and you pay the alternative user tariff (highest tariff).
It's all here: http://www.sanral.co.za/e-toll/

Without an invoice, how do I know how much to pay?

 

[LazyLion]

So that's their plan do you think?
Check your etoll fees at roadblocks and then send you to jail, just like that? Holy crap sticks...

Yes, that is exactly what they are threatening us with.
See here for a possible scenario made up by one commentator...
http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/E-Tolls-Be-Under-No-Illusions-20131010
But we hope and pray it will never come to that, sounds like a police state!

If the Transport bill is so flawed, then how on earth has it been signed and passed?
Even after the fact, it means, potentially, every. Single. Motorist, could fight that bill. Over and over again, per case?
How have SANRAL not seen the flaw in their plans?

The Freedom Front (who had an MP on the committee to debate the bill) has long maintained that the Bill fails on several fronts and they made the President aware of the problems. The president even acknowledged the problems and at first stated that was why he was delaying signing.
We even quoted the article earlier in this thread...

E.g...

It was unwise of President Jacob Zuma to sign the e-tolling bill into law, the Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance (Outa) said on Thursday.
"Outa is surprised at this decision, bearing in mind that recent reports indicate the presidency was going to take some time to consider the questions relating to the correct tagging of the bill before signing it into law," chairman Wayne Duvenage said in a statement.

And especially this article...
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...ing-Thread?p=11061289&viewfull=1#post11061289

 

[daveza]

My objection/comments letter:

Your email didn't bounce ?

So, are they telling us that they will invoice me and have the bill delivered to me, before 7 days in order for me to pay it on time?

For once the Post Office will be our friend and go on strike again for a few months.