CityLink Infringements

FPV414 · 03-09-2012, 08:09 PM

I bought a car off a member off this forum earlier this year.

Unfortunately, I forgot to put the vehicle on my CityLink account for a period of 2 weeks. Once I realised my mistake, I contact CityLink who advised they had already invoiced the tolls to the previous owner, and it would be a breach of Privacy Laws if they were to disclose information in regards to the Tolls that I had incurred.

I believed that the previous owner would use common sense and fill out the back of the invoices to forward the fines back to CityLink who would send them to me. He didn't do this.

I eventually received $1098 worth of fines.

I disputed them with all of these facts, but unfortunately it was denied basically due to incorrect info provided to Civic Compliance by CityLink, and also them not reading my letters properly and misconstruing what I said.

My only option now is to go to court as "Under the Infringements Act 2006, you are not entitled to make any further application for internal review in relation to these infringements". This is absolute horse poo as the original review was conducted poorly / under false and misconstrued information!

These systems basically bully people in to going to court or paying them. I'm at my wits end and think I may just pay them.

I thought I'd just have a rant here in case anyone has a better idea, and share this horrible experience.

I believe it's an absolutely deplorable act by the previous owner to allow things to get this far before forwarding my details. Some may not agree as it all comes down to my "oversight".

Landau Stable · 03-09-2012, 08:12 PM

I agree that the system is pathetic. Question: When you contacted citylink about your oversight and were told they couldn't give you any details, did you then contact the previous owner as a heads up and to forward your name with any fines?

FPV414 · 03-09-2012, 08:13 PM

If anyone knows of a good outcome in court in a situation like this, I'd love hear it.

FPV414 · 03-09-2012, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Landau Stable

I agree that the system is pathetic. Question: When you contacted citylink about your oversight and were told they couldn't give you any details, did you then contact the previous owner as a heads up and to forward your name with any fines?

Yes, I sent an SMS to advise, and then contacted again when I received the first infringment. Low act.

Landau Stable · 03-09-2012, 08:19 PM

Well it sounds like you did the right thing. Keep copies of that when you go to court. Paying the fine simply lets them keep doing it. Fight it, and don't back down. That's a lot of coin to throw away. How much would you lose for taking the day off work? Unless you are on an obscenely high wage, then it's worth it.

xisled · 03-09-2012, 09:05 PM

Take it to court. Explain the situation, magistrate may reduce the cost or even wipe the whole thing.

FPV414 · 04-09-2012, 09:04 AM

Cheers guys. Really bummed. I'll try and get some legal advice. Problem is, from my research it sounds like getting good legal advice will cost more than the fines are anyway.

mcnews · 04-09-2012, 09:25 AM

It is diabolical the way they treat people. It is like Stalinist stuff and the government give them these powers and sell us down the road. It is pathetic. But the apathetic mindless masses just sit back and take it...

flappist · 04-09-2012, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FPV414

I bought a car off a member off this forum earlier this year.

Unfortunately, I forgot to put the vehicle on my CityLink account for a period of 2 weeks. Once I realised my mistake, I contact CityLink who advised they had already invoiced the tolls to the previous owner, and it would be a breach of Privacy Laws if they were to disclose information in regards to the Tolls that I had incurred.

I believed that the previous owner would use common sense and fill out the back of the invoices to forward the fines back to CityLink who would send them to me. He didn't do this.

I eventually received $1098 worth of fines.

I disputed them with all of these facts, but unfortunately it was denied basically due to incorrect info provided to Civic Compliance by CityLink, and also them not reading my letters properly and misconstruing what I said.

My only option now is to go to court as "Under the Infringements Act 2006, you are not entitled to make any further application for internal review in relation to these infringements". This is absolute horse poo as the original review was conducted poorly / under false and misconstrued information!

These systems basically bully people in to going to court or paying them. I'm at my wits end and think I may just pay them.

I thought I'd just have a rant here in case anyone has a better idea, and share this horrible experience.

I believe it's an absolutely deplorable act by the previous owner to allow things to get this far before forwarding my details. Some may not agree as it all comes down to my "oversight".

If you had a valid account but the car was not on it then I would just ATTACK.

Go for ACA/talk back radio/whatever and embarrassess the hell out of them.

**supershifty** · 04-09-2012, 09:39 AM

I got into a spot of bother with Govia a while back with toll passes. My fault - I was being sneaky. Received a stack of individual infringement notices. I noticed on closer inspection of the dates and times that I had received up to four notices for the same offence - that adds up to a wad of cash. This may apply to you, costs nothing to check. Sorry to hear about your situation, that just plain sucks!

Good luck mate!

b0son · 04-09-2012, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FPV414

I believe it's an absolutely deplorable act by the previous owner to allow things to get this far before forwarding my details. Some may not agree as it all comes down to my "oversight".

At the end of the day, the court will consider it your oversight. Its nothing to do with the previous owner.

The only thing in your favour would be if you already have a toll account, gives your story of forgetting some credibility.

$1100 in fines is absurd though ... fines need to reflect what it costs them (and on that basis, you'd think the agistrate would reduce them substantially), though I'm unsure whether this requirement applies to government.

mcnews · 04-09-2012, 10:22 AM

Wouldn't be surprised if when the govt sold their ring to this mob that they put in a clause where the fines are mandatory and you can't get out of them. Too stupid to comprehend really, but still they would just over ride our rights with a stroke of a pen.

FPV414 · 04-09-2012, 10:46 AM

Cheers for your input guys. I have emailed the Tolling Ombudsman and the Minister for Roads and Transport, Terry Mulder.

I will see what they have to say.

poppa smurf · 04-09-2012, 10:49 AM

far out brussel sprout.......them's is pretty hefty fines

RedHotGT · 04-09-2012, 10:50 AM

Citylink are a bunch of jerks.

xisled · 04-09-2012, 11:06 AM

Here is my story, not to do with Citylink but it was to do with Melbourne city council and a parking fine.

I got booked for not displaying my parking permit. I took it to court because I thought I had the permit displayed. Turn up on the day to go to court and the council had a picture of my car with no permit. So I spoke to the council guy before the court and he said, it is up to you how you please buit the magistrate may do this and that.

Pleaded guilty to the offence, but the magistrate removed all cost. So at the end the fine that was around $250 cost me nothing and a day at court.

I did go through all the reviews and things first.

It might be worth going to court and seeing if the magistrate can reduce the cost. Worst case is, you lose and have to pay some court costs on top.

The day I went to court there was 4 others before me that go the parking fine costs removed.

At the moment with Citylink, I am fighting a fine that I paid. It was sent to the infringements court which I am not happy about. I called Citylink and they told me they have no record of sending it across because I paid.

**PridenJoy** · 04-09-2012, 11:37 AM

I know of at least two people that went to court for citylink fines and all fines were completely wiped off for both. I don't think Magistrates like Citylink.

Go to court and stick it up'm. I hate citylink.

FPV414 · 04-09-2012, 12:43 PM

I have heard that the court "costs" that may be applied if things don't go in my favor are around $40 per infringement. Is this correct? That would be another $360 insult to add to the previous injuries.

The other problem is that if I go to court it will be recorded against my VicRoads records as a "discloseable outcome" on my driving history, I think.

xisled · 04-09-2012, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FPV414

I have heard that the court "costs" that may be applied if things don't go in my favor are around $40 per infringement. Is this correct? That would be another $360 insult to add to the previous injuries.

The other problem is that if I go to court it will be recorded against my VicRoads records as a "discloseable outcome" on my driving history, I think.

It will be already on your record. once you pay you are found guilty. Only way to get it off is go to court and be found not guilty. but you have already said you drove on Citylink.

Dusty1 · 04-09-2012, 02:03 PM

Why didn't you contact the member and ask him to send the invoices over to you?

I would have thought you would have known who he was, where he lived and had contact details as you purchased his car. Might be time to name and shame him.

I agree the fines are ripe.How often were you using the CityLink? I reckon if you went to court, you're still going to have to pay up.

Vesper Martini · 04-09-2012, 03:50 PM

Did your tag beep? if so they should be able to match. the car to you at the time.
If you didnt have one at all then I dont think you have a case

Either way the fine seems excessive how many times did you use it?

Previous owner is at no fault he probably didnt get the fines for a couple of weeks anyway

Yellow_Festiva · 04-09-2012, 04:06 PM

Good 'ol privacy laws...... great excuse when common sense isn't applied to a problem.....

I would bloody fight the mongrels tooth and tail. If you didn't have a script reading muppet on the phone this could have been fixed after 1 phone call...

cobramania · 04-09-2012, 04:34 PM

Don't know how things work in Vic, but in NSW when you purchase a vehicle, the previous owner has to notify RMS (Vic Roads equivalent), of disposal & the new owner has to transfer the registration within 14 days of the sale.

Once the RMS has received the notice of disposal from the previous owner, they are no longer legally liable for traffic infringements or offences committed by the new owner, even if the new owner hasn't yet transferred the registration. Until the previous owner notifies the RMS of disposal (or the new owner transfers the rego), the previous owner is legally liable for any fines incurred, by the new owner.

That means if you hadn't already transferred registration over to you & they hadn't notified the RMS of disposal, those fines incurred by you, would be legally theirs, & they would have to pay them, or fight them in court, not you.

Do you have a similar thing in Vic. & had you already transferred the registration to you. If you had, Citylink should've contacted Vic Roads to get your details, & found that you have a Toll tag/account & just applied the tolls to your account.

If you travel on a NSW toll road without a tag or registered tag, but have a tolling account. Before a fine is issued, your vehicle details will be checked with the RMS & cross referenced with all toll account companies, & if it's found you hold a tolling account, (toll account details match registration details), the tolls will be added/deducted from your account with no fines imposed.

joolz · 04-09-2012, 04:54 PM

Should be renamed...

$HITYLINK....

Could be worse, in the early days if a toll wasnt paid within 72hrs it was an automatic fine of $100.
But now a daily trip may consist of say 4 tolls totalling around $15.00. If not paid that will end up costing 4 x $117.

Dr Smith · 04-09-2012, 05:12 PM

Did you have a working e-tag in your name in the new car?

I can't stand Citylink. I once received an "Account Suspension" letter before the "Low Balance" letter and in both cases they were dated 10 days ahead of when they arrived in my Post Office post box.

FPV414 · 04-09-2012, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dusty1

Why didn't you contact the member and ask him to send the invoices over to you?

I would have thought you would have known who he was, where he lived and had contact details as you purchased his car. Might be time to name and shame him.

I agree the fines are ripe.How often were you using the CityLink? I reckon if you went to court, you're still going to have to pay up.

Yes I did initially, but he didn't reply. Next thing I got was a fine.

Basically, you get a Late Toll Invoice from CityLink as a first notice, then a month later you get a final notice, then after that you get a $122 fine. All of these notices / fines have the option to transfer them on the back of the notice if you have sold the vehicle. The previous owner ignored the first 2 completely, then once he got the $122 fine he decided he'd do the right thing and pass them over.

So, he turned about $100 in LTI's in to $1098 in fines for me.

I've already had a slanging match with him and don't wish to make things worse on here. I bought the car in good faith pretty much untested because it was interstate. Along with these dramas, the car ended up needing new brakes all round and a wheel bearing. This was after passing a safety inspection by the RTA.

Also, he claimed to have transferred the vehicle within that 14 days, but alas for whatever reason NEVDIS (National Register) did not update to my details and hence he received the fines. I doubt he put the paperwork in.

The account I had was tag-less. You can have 4 cars on the account without a tag, it's a little dearer than having a tag because of reg lookup fee's. I forgot to add this car to the account, when I did I could only backdate by 3 days.

The Ombudsman has said that they cannot intervene on cases that have gone to the Civic Compliance, citing this is due to the Infringements Act 2006. So there's another retarded initiative . CityLink are the cause of the Civic Compliance headache!

Hopefully the Minister can do something. I have a feeling I'll get stonewalled again. I'll just keep writing letters until it's absolutely necessary to decide whether I am going to pay or go to court.

xisled · 04-09-2012, 06:53 PM

IMO sending letters will not do anyhthing. Save yourself time and stress and take it to court and move on with life