Sign up with Google
Criminal acts have jail time attached. Still waiting on a lit of criminal infringements that don't carry jail sentences...
-
Join the MyBroadband community
Ask a question and get free supportUnlock new privileges and see hidden discussionsWin prizes and earn reputationReduced ads -
Question of the Day: Will your next car be new or pre-owned?
Pay e-toll or face jail time says Sanral
- Thread starter jes
- Start date
Criminal acts have jail time attached. Still waiting on a lit of criminal infringements that don't carry jail sentences...
It's not a debt. It's not a tax. It's not a toll in the true definition. It's not anything according to them. Just pay!
I know, its not me saying its not a debt, SANRAL said that toll fees were not a debt as there was no credit extended to create such debt. They said that the 7 day grace period was just there to assist consumers and give them time to settle the amounts due. Sanral said the amount should be seen exactly the same as for any other toll gate where you stop and pay but in this case they just give you 7 days to pay.
RazedInBlack
RazedInBlack
Doesn't that imply some sort of initial contract. I'm sure no one has signed anything to say they owe SCAMRAL.
Nope! Not debt.
F
Fudzy
Guest
All criminal acts? Thought we had established speeding as one of them? What about city by-laws? Isn't a fine the alternative to a jail sentence?
You contractually obligate yourself to pay by the simple act of driving on the road, according to The Sanral Act. It's an obligation, and I honestly believe that they're also an incidental credit provider on this basis...
In principle, they all carry sentences. This isn't difficult...
Perhaps driving on a toll road is an agreement to create a contract?
That's a stupid argument on SANRAL's part. They're providing a credit facility, whether they admit it or not. Any other company could use the same reasoning to only offer 7 day credit facilities.
OrbitalDawn
Ulysses Everett McGill
What service do they want people to sign on for?
More lies. They're recognising revenue without impairment charges and at 100% debtors book recovery within 30 days, it seems. Such utter crap. It is contrary to IFRS standards...
Last edited:
F
Fudzy
Guest
http://www.jp-sa.org/Join.asp
Good service to have behind you if you're going to have frequent brushes with the law.
F
Fudzy
Guest
Not all jail sentences though.
Oh ffs. Name one crime that in principle carries no possible jail sentence.
This is ridiculous. We're arguing a point here for the sake of you digging a minor pedantic point from the article that has very little relevance to anything at all...
F
Fudzy
Guest
Meh, over this. Bottom line, SANRAL never said "Pay eToll or face jailtime" and that it's very unlikely you would go to jail for not paying your eTolls.
Bizkit87
Executive Member
Is it just me or does that press realease smell like a "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" press release ?
cozinsky
Expert Member
Let's look at the relevant legislation. In terms of section 27(5) of the National Roads Agency Limited and National Roads Act 7 of 1998: "Any person liable for toll who, at a toll plaza or other place for the payment of toll determined and made known in terms of subsection (1), refuses or fails to pay the amount of toll that is due—
(a) is guilty of an offence and punishable on conviction with imprisonment for a period not longer than six months or a fine, or with both the term of imprisonment and the fine; and
(b) is liable, in addition, to pay to the Agency a civil fine of R1 000. This amount may be increased in 1999 and annually thereafter in accordance with the increase in the official consumer price index for the relevant year as published in the Gazette."
So the article is correct.
(a) is guilty of an offence and punishable on conviction with imprisonment for a period not longer than six months or a fine, or with both the term of imprisonment and the fine; and
(b) is liable, in addition, to pay to the Agency a civil fine of R1 000. This amount may be increased in 1999 and annually thereafter in accordance with the increase in the official consumer price index for the relevant year as published in the Gazette."
So the article is correct.
Which is great. But I doubt they fixed the Gazetted tariffs that differed in the Afrikaans and English versions. How can be someone prosecute when the amount to pay is incorrect?
90% compliant