Avioding M50 Toll

LarryV

Just a quick question about the M50 barrier free tolling, would I be right that going through and not paying would be a civil matter and not a criminal one, and that it is governed by contract law (you let me cross your bridge and I will pay you money)
If this is the case what about the following scenario
Go through M50 and don't pay
Get letter for payment in post
Send following letter
I refer to the above Letter which was sent to me as the Registered owner of this vehicle. As you are aware this incident is covered by Contract Law which can only be agreed by the parties that entered in to the contract. In this case the driver of the vehicle .
As I was NOT driving the vehicle I am NOT responsible for the payment of this Toll and owe you NOTHING..

This vehicle is used by several drivers so please supply your photographic evidence. These should be a clear and concise picture of the driver of the vehicle so I can attempt to identify which driver entered in to this contract.
Unless you can supply ALL this information within 7 days I am afraid I can help you no further and ask that you cancel this fee forthwith.


Some people might say that you have to name the driver but I think that that is the case in driving offenses like speeding etc. which is criminal law.
Also I don't think that they can chase the car owner simply because his car went through as the contract was with the driver not the car( as a car is an inanimate object which cannot enter into a contract)
What do you think guys any hope:D

is_that_so

I suspect you are confusing this with penalty points here, where they do need to be assigned to an actual driver. But if you want to play silly buggers with it for the sake of a couple of euros, good luck. Might just be easier to avoid the M50 completely.

GerardKeating

The gov aint stupid. They made it a criminal offence and made the OWNER of the car liable.

Johnny Utah

GerardKeating wrote: »

The gov aint stupid. They made it a criminal offence and made the OWNER of the car liable.

The only thing that's criminal is the fact that the Irish people have paid for this bridge something like 27-times over, and yet we are still paying to cross the bridge. This is the sort of governance you'd expect to see in an African tinpot dictatorship.

impr0v

LarryV wrote: »

Just a quick question about the M50 barrier free tolling, would I be right that going through and not paying would be a civil matter and not a criminal one, and that it is governed by contract law (you let me cross your bridge and I will pay you money)

You'd be half right:

Toll-Scheme Bye Laws wrote:

18. FAILURE TO PAY TOLL
18.1 A person who is liable to pay the Toll and who fails, neglects or refuses to pay the Toll
shall be guilty of an offence in accordance with Section 64 of the Act.
18.2 The amount of any Toll due under these Bye-Laws and unpaid in respect of the use by a
Vehicle of a Toll Road may be recovered from a responsible Accountable Person by
whom it is payable as a simple contract debt.

It's a contract debt and it's a criminal offence. It was already an offence under Section 64 of the Roads Act 1993 to try to evade a toll, but the section has been revamped and made much stronger by the Roads Act 2007. The Relevant Sections:

Section 64 of the Roads Act 1993 wrote:

(8) A person who is liable to pay a toll and who fails, neglects or refuses to pay the toll is guilty of an offence.


(9) A person who on a toll road, fails, neglects or refuses to obey a lawful instruction or direction of a person authorised by a road undertaking to provide, operate or manage a toll road or collect or charge tolls on the road is guilty of an offence.


(10) A person who by his or her actions does any thing to avoid being charged or paying a toll while on a toll road is guilty of an offence.


(11) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or both.

Again, it covers both bases in terms of civil and criminal:

Section 64 of the Roads Act 1993 wrote:

(4) The amount of any toll due and payable by a person under this Part and unpaid may be recovered from the person as a simple contract debt by the road undertaking concerned in any court of competent jurisdiction.

LarryV wrote: »

If this is the case what about the following scenario
Go through M50 and don't pay
Get letter for payment in post
Send following letter
I refer to the above Letter which was sent to me as the Registered owner of this vehicle. As you are aware this incident is covered by Contract Law which can only be agreed by the parties that entered in to the contract. In this case the driver of the vehicle .
As I was NOT driving the vehicle I am NOT responsible for the payment of this Toll and owe you NOTHING..

This vehicle is used by several drivers so please supply your photographic evidence. These should be a clear and concise picture of the driver of the vehicle so I can attempt to identify which driver entered in to this contract.
Unless you can supply ALL this information within 7 days I am afraid I can help you no further and ask that you cancel this fee forthwith.


Some people might say that you have to name the driver but I think that that is the case in driving offenses like speeding etc. which is criminal law.
Also I don't think that they can chase the car owner simply because his car went through as the contract was with the driver not the car( as a car is an inanimate object which cannot enter into a contract)
What do you think guys any hope:D

Unsurprisingly, they've thought about this...

Section 64 of the Roads Act 1993 wrote:

(3) Where a toll is payable in respect of a mechanically propelled vehicle where—


(a) the vehicle is registered in the State (other than in the circumstances referred to in paragraph (c)) — the registered owner of the vehicle,


(b) the vehicle is not registered in the State — the person, whom the road undertaking concerned can reasonably ascertain, owns or keeps or has possession or charge of the vehicle in the State,


(c) the registered owner or a person referred to in paragraph (b) or (d), as the case may be, on the occasion in question, was not driving or in the vehicle and had not given permission for or required another to use the vehicle and the Garda Síochána were aware or were informed of this — the person who was driving the vehicle on the occasion, or


(d) a person has entered into an agreement with the road undertaking concerned in respect of the payment of tolls in respect of the vehicle — that person,


and the driver of the vehicle, if he or she is not a person mentioned above, are jointly and severally liable to pay the toll.

As you can see, not much wriggle room. If your car is stolen during the night to drag race along the M50, you're technically liable for every toll that's clocked up until you call the Gardaí.

And the proof needed to bring home a conviction/enforce the debt?

Section 64 of the Roads Act 1993 wrote:

(6) A document signed by an officer of the road undertaking concerned (authorised in that behalf by the road undertaking) stating that a mechanically propelled vehicle in respect of which the proceedings are taken for the non-payment of a toll incurred the liability to pay the toll together with any photographic or other evidence taken from a camera or other apparatus referred to in subsection (7) of the identification mark of the vehicle taken at the material time may, without proof of the signature of the officer or that the photographic or other evidence is from a camera or other apparatus referred to in that subsection, be produced in any court and in all legal proceedings and is, until the contrary is shown, evidence that a toll was incurred in respect of the vehicle. It shall not be necessary to show that the camera or other apparatus was accurate or in good working order.

Lessons have been learned with intoxilyser machines, etc.