Traffic fine fraud

I have owned two cars in my life. For each, I have received one speeding fine, and my husband was driving in both instances. I take pride in my blemish-free traffic offence record.

So imagine my shock when I receive not one, not two, but four fines in the post in the space of three weeks.

Not to mention the demerit points that would be allocated to motorists, if the system were active, for offences they did not commit.

Tarryn Giebelmann, VPO editorial manager and sub-editor

Suspicious. This can't be possible because I have driven the same route home from work for more than a year. I know there's a speed camera at the intersection outside Brightwater Commons on Republic Road, in Randburg. I make a concerted effort to cross the intersection at 60km/h or slower. I could live with one fine, writing it off to low concentration, for example. But four?

What was even stranger was that all four fines were issued in August.

It's tempting to just pay the money and forget about it, but I knew I was not in the wrong and dug deeper. What's more, when querying the fines at the licensing department, an officer said there had been “tons” of problems with that specific camera during August.

Justice Project South Africa (JPSA), on 3 October, submitted a formal letter of complaint to the Johannesburg Metro Police Department (JMPD) about this specific camera. In the letter, JPSA notes that it has received a “high volume” of complaints from motorists regarding this traffic light during the course of August.

National chairman Howard Dembovsky tells me that, of the complaints received, three recipients were located in the same office, and, in total, 34 infringement notices were incurred by five people - all during August.

While receiving unlawfully served infringement notices is one thing, Dembovsky points out that all notices were sent via ordinary mail, and not via registered mail, as prescribed by the Aarto Act.

So what can affected motorists do in such situations?

Dembovsky outlines three options (pretending the infringement notices are not unlawful and unenforceable). They can either pay the fine (and in the process, admit guilt in the eyes of the JMPD, which makes securing a refund difficult); make representation on an Aarto 08 representation form arguing why they should not be held accountable for the fine; or they can elect to be tried in court, which is a lengthy and cumbersome process.

The best option, according to Dembovsky, is to address the matter directly with the JMPD, as it has the power to effortlessly cancel infringement notices administratively on its end.

“The danger we see of them not doing so is that people who religiously pay their fines because they think they are doing the right thing by paying will effectively have their money stolen for infringements they have not even committed. In my books, that is called fraud and it is not good enough for the JMPD to then say, as they do on a regular basis, 'if you pay, then you have admitted guilt and will not be entitled to a refund',” says Dembovsky.

“As far as I'm concerned, the JMPD should do the honest and honourable thing and withdraw these notices so they cannot be paid, not sit and wait for people to read articles.”

Not to mention the demerit points that would be allocated to motorists, if the system were active, for offences they did not commit.

What concerns Dembovsky is that this camera has not been maintained in line with regulations. He refers to the Technical Committee for Standards and Procedures prosecution guidelines, which require that speed measuring equipment installations be checked for correct operation, correct camera alignment and damage at least every seven days and that these results be recorded.

“Since this problem prevailed through the entire month of August and maybe even longer, it is quite clear that the guideline above was not complied with,” he says.

It seems ridiculous that the onus now falls on the motorist to prove that he or she was not in the wrong and that JMPD is not maintaining its equipment as it should. If it were aware that the camera was faulty, it should recall and cancel all fines already issued, and send letters to affected motorists informing them of the allegedly faulty camera and that any received fines were invalid.

In the meantime, JMPD will continue to receive thousands in fines that were issued unlawfully - just R1 000 of that would be from me.