Sanral issues summonses, final demands for e-tolls

LCBXX

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 11, 2006
Messages
15,256
Great, I need more paper for kindling in my fireplace. Gonna be a coooold winter.
 

Albereth

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
15,860
I don't know if I agree. The problem is trying to use the analogy that the etoll bill is like a fine, which is not correct. A fine is imposed by enforcing body, which if paid, would result in that body not pursuing criminal charges. You are not obliged to pay the fine, and you can't be convicted for failing to pay the fine. You can have your day in court arguing the underlying speeding offence, at the risk of a criminal record and the imposition of a fine (that is, issued by court) (including jail time, if warranted). [Note I am not dealing with admission of guilt fines.]

SANRAL have done the opposite: At all stages you owe SANRAL the etoll fees. But if you fail to pay your etoll fees, you commit a criminal offence. So you can be guilty of failing to pay the etoll fees, and SANRAL can issue civil summons against you ensuring that you pay your etoll fees. Essentially a double punishment.

This is, at least, how I see it.

In order for SANRAL to claim that a 'civil' amount is due means that there is a debt. And in order for there to be a debt it means that SANRAL would have had to have extended credit. Which isn't part of their process.

Their process is, as I have said, to bully people into paying with reminders, phone calls etc. There is no process for civil pursuit of money. If they don't get it the whole case file with photos, copies of invoices etc etc gets handed over to the CPA process and the amount is written off. SANRAL are then out of the picture. The prosecutor who go the case now issues summons and pursues the case as a criminal matter. Any proceeds arising from this are paid to the state, not SANRAL.

Of course SANRAL will probably realise that the write off of money leaves them empty handed and they will have to apply to government for funds. Which goes against all the other rubbish that they have been sprouting. So a process will have to be created and any new process is going to have an impact on them as they now become credit providers.

Nope. Scare tactics.
 

IzZzy

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2004
Messages
5,909
In order for SANRAL to claim that a 'civil' amount is due means that there is a debt. And in order for there to be a debt it means that SANRAL would have had to have extended credit. Which isn't part of their process.

Sorry this I don't agree this post either. Your starting premise that all debt is credit is fatally incorrect, and therefore your reliance on this premise by then deducing that because SANRAL did not follow a credit process means that the only other avenue available is a criminal one, does not follow.

The thread that runs through the whole of the Transport Laws and Related Matters Amendment Act is that etoll highways are structured on the basis of requiring prepayment from users precisely to avoid any credit analogy.
 

RichardG

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
11,687
I heard it was work camps where you will have to pay off your bill earning only R2 a week.

As long as we get free electricity, free clothing, free food and free internet :p No complaints :p and there will be lady entertainment ::p
 

JustinB

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
956
The thread that runs through the whole of the Transport Laws and Related Matters Amendment Act is that etoll highways are structured on the basis of requiring prepayment from users precisely to avoid any credit analogy.

I find this logic bizarre... The NCA defines:
"credit"

when used as a noun, means-
a)a deferral of payment of money owed to a person, or a promise to defer such a payment; or
b)a promise to advance or pay money to or at the direction of another person;

While I understand they would like prepayment of tolls, the reality is they allow the deferral of payment, which logically deems it as credit. It defies rationality...
 

Albereth

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
15,860
I find this logic bizarre... The NCA defines:


While I understand they would like prepayment of tolls, the reality is they allow the deferral of payment, which logically deems it as credit. It defies rationality...

I think sanral like to refer to it as incremental creidt, or some such.
 

JustinB

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
956
I think sanral like to refer to it as incremental creidt, or some such.

They use a much more blunt method - the NCA is excluded from toll collection.

What I find interesting - and i'm skim-reading the Act + amendments - is what the process is to declare a road a "toll road". It appears a socio-economic study is required - what happens if that socio-economic study is proven to be incorrect after the fact?
 

Albereth

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
15,860
Sorry this I don't agree this post either. Your starting premise that all debt is credit is fatally incorrect, and therefore your reliance on this premise by then deducing that because SANRAL did not follow a credit process means that the only other avenue available is a criminal one, does not follow.

The thread that runs through the whole of the Transport Laws and Related Matters Amendment Act is that etoll highways are structured on the basis of requiring prepayment from users precisely to avoid any credit analogy.

I appreciate that - like a tv licence - there is a debt but credit wasn't extended. There is point that this has not been tested in a court. As much as sanral may want to avoid falling within the ambit of the NCR they may have no choice. In fact, that they do everything in their power to try and avoid it points directly to the constitutionality of it all.

It also gives them the problem in trying to deal with a debt both as a civil matter and as a criminal matter. Debt as a criminal matter was removed from the statutes some time back. Refusing to pay a debt has a consequence but it isn't jail or even a criminal record. Your assets are seized and sold to settle if possible. Refusing to pay a fine (or in this case) toll is a crime, which doesn't allow for a civil process.

Of course you could have a split into a civil portion and a criminal portion. So on the example given of the R34000ish bill. The civil amount may be for that R34000 and there may be a fine for refusing to have paid at R10 a trip. Using silly numbers. You travel under a gantry and got a bill for R100 which you have not paid. Sanral decide to pursue. Do they issue civil summons for the R100 and ask the criminal court to pursue the R10? Or do they hand the R110 claim over to the criminal court?

The problem that sanral face is that they assumed that people would comply and that payments would be deducted from a credit card. The trouble is that they don't know how to deal with it and are due a few shocks when they do try to take it to court.
 

Albereth

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
15,860
They use a much more blunt method - the NCA is excluded from toll collection.

What I find interesting - and i'm skim-reading the Act + amendments - is what the process is to declare a road a "toll road". It appears a socio-economic study is required - what happens if that socio-economic study is proven to be incorrect after the fact?

I think the bigger question there would be 'what socio-economic study'?

Back to the bluntness of demanding that something is excluded doesn't mean that it's true until that has been tested.
 

Skerminkel

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
3,713
I got a speeding fine in Stellenbosch. I was doing a whopping 71km/h in a 60 zone. I am so ashamed of myself.

That being said, is there any way I can get out of paying it?

No. Just pay. You broke the law. Otherwise stop complaining about Zuma.
 

IzZzy

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2004
Messages
5,909
I appreciate that - like a tv licence - there is a debt but credit wasn't extended. There is point that this has not been tested in a court. As much as sanral may want to avoid falling within the ambit of the NCR they may have no choice. In fact, that they do everything in their power to try and avoid it points directly to the constitutionality of it all.

It also gives them the problem in trying to deal with a debt both as a civil matter and as a criminal matter. Debt as a criminal matter was removed from the statutes some time back. Refusing to pay a debt has a consequence but it isn't jail or even a criminal record. Your assets are seized and sold to settle if possible. Refusing to pay a fine (or in this case) toll is a crime, which doesn't allow for a civil process.

Of course you could have a split into a civil portion and a criminal portion. So on the example given of the R34000ish bill. The civil amount may be for that R34000 and there may be a fine for refusing to have paid at R10 a trip. Using silly numbers. You travel under a gantry and got a bill for R100 which you have not paid. Sanral decide to pursue. Do they issue civil summons for the R100 and ask the criminal court to pursue the R10? Or do they hand the R110 claim over to the criminal court?

The problem that sanral face is that they assumed that people would comply and that payments would be deducted from a credit card. The trouble is that they don't know how to deal with it and are due a few shocks when they do try to take it to court.

Agree with you fully. This is the argument I raised a few months ago in the etolls thread and represents the only true reason why the etolling legislation is fatally flawed - if the debt is truly a debt, one cannot be imprisoned as a result thereof. If it is not a true debt, then the only reason that one can be imprisoned for failing to pay is if it is a tax.
 

entrepr

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
2,208
LOL!
I suppose I was exceeding the speed limit, and should man up and face the consequences.

If you live there and have the time, it's worth paying a visit. I have twice followed up (not in Stellies) and got off without an argument (or any talk of a bribe) - the officer saw a mistake somewhere and just cancelled there and then.
 

krycor

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
18,430
If you live there and have the time, it's worth paying a visit. I have twice followed up (not in Stellies) and got off without an argument (or any talk of a bribe) - the officer saw a mistake somewhere and just cancelled there and then.

I did similar once, 70km in the 60km zone.. 1st time & last so far i ever seen a flash.. no fine ever came by mail. So i dunno.. maybe it was squashed? this was like 4 yrs ago
 

ISP cash cow

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
6,225
LOL how can it be a summons.

A summons is a an order to appear in court before a judge and nowhere on that document does it give a time, place or courthouse where to attend.

It is a final demand letter with the words summons written on it.

SARS should really take them to task for using the wrong wording on their accounting documents.
 

Daniedj

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2006
Messages
929
Seems SANRAL is picking on small businesses first...
Cause if that R35k is for an individual...
 
Last edited:
Top