Eflow fines - Sheriff took car.

kirving

ED E wrote: »

You won't convince the SJW brigade no matter how accurate and precise you are.

Believe me when I say I'm about as far from a Social Justice Warrior as you can get. Even at €200 an hour, there is no way 30 man hours were spent persuing this.

jamesbondings

dresden8 wrote: »

Same here. Didn't pay a couple of trips because I was in my new car. Set up an account and they just deducted the original charges, no penalties or fees. Found them very efficient and friendly to deal with. Absolutely no problems.

Same. Got a new car the week before our son arrived. Over and back to the hospital 4 times a day for a week forgetting the new car wasn't registered. I rang them on day 2 of the little lads life..... No problems debited the amounts from the account no hassle. In fact sent us out a new tag for the new car as we only had the old tag. Honestly bill in once a month on time are regular. As someone else said something more to this story.

As an aside eflows customer service is one of the best I have ever dealt with. (I have nothing to do with them just stating a personal view)

Alun

Wanderer78 wrote: »

an account in one sense does make sense but as ive said above, ive only used the toll a couple of times in the few years ive been driving. eflow said it wasnt even worth it.

A video account costs nothing to maintain, zero, nada, zilch. You only get charged when you use it even if it's once a year. Plus when you do pay it costs 50c less than if you pay in a payzone outlet. It's difficult to see what possible reason you would have not to use it to be honest.

Wanderer78

Alun wrote: »

A video account costs nothing to maintain, zero, nada, zilch. You only get charged when you use it even if it's once a year. Plus when you do pay it costs 50c less than if you pay in a payzone outlet. It's difficult to see what possible reason you would have not to use it to be honest.

dont want any direct debits but thanks anyway.

zarquon

Intesresting that she bought a new car in tge interim period since billing. It sound like she bhilt up at least hundreds of tolls without paying, ignored numourous legal letters and a court sumnons and sold the car that the debt pertained to thinking she would get away scott free but tbmhey chased her directly for the fees. Absolutely no sympathy here and only a fool would believe a believe a sheriff was court appointed for "12" tolls. There is at least a zero missing from that figure. If you can afford a ""new" car worth 6k you can afford to pay your tolls. The company have forgiven me fines in the past for forgotten late payment due to international travel so the story just doesn't add up

kippy

Wanderer78 wrote: »

an account in one sense does make sense but as ive said above, ive only used the toll a couple of times in the few years ive been driving. eflow said it wasnt even worth it. i had no problem paying the toll, but to be charged a fine for being a couple of days late is a bit ridiculous.

A fine for being a couple of days late is a stick to try persuade persuade not to be late at all.
As mentioned there are a number of options available to ensure you dont end yo up in that position.
You only have yourself to blame when you get in a situation where you are a few days late or where you end up in a position that the OP's friend gets into.

punisher5112

Op any update or maybe the full true story?????

end of the road

kippy wrote: »

A fine for being a couple of days late is a stick to try persuade persuade not to be late at all.

in the case of the state.

kippy wrote: »

You only have yourself to blame when you get in a situation where you are a few days late or where you end up in a position that the OP's friend gets into.

not always.

kippy

end of the road wrote: »

if we were talking about the state itself then you would have a point. only the state should be able to implement fines and the state receive that money.



not always.

Why?
If you wish to use a resource (no matter what the resource) you must accept whatever terms and conditions are attached to using that resource.
If you are not happy with the terms and conditions of using the resource you should not use the resource.
That is as simple as that.

If you end up in the position that the OP's friend has ended up in you only have yourself to blame. That is as simple as that. Plenty folks on here have already said engagement with eflow on such issues has resulted in positive experiences. Who else is to blame if the OP hasn't engaged with the service provider?

wonski

Wanderer78 wrote: »

dont want any direct debits but thanks anyway.

You can use a credit card or prepay.

Seriously, if someone is using m50 only few times a year this payment won't be huge.

If you prefer to stand in the queue to pay it - go ahead. Just remember to pay it on time

end of the road

kippy wrote: »

If you end up in the position that the OP's friend has ended up in you only have yourself to blame. That is as simple as that.

that is not as simple as that at all. things can happen beyond ones control, it's not always ones fault things happen. whether the op's case fits into that i don't know, never will, nor particularly care, but i have to point out the world isn't black and white as per my duty.

kippy

end of the road wrote: »

not always. that is as simple as that. sometimes things happen beyond one's control. whether this particular case fits that or not i don't know and probably never will.

If you end up in a situation like the OP's friend it is ALWAYS your own fault.
I am not sure what could have happened beyond ones control in that example.

If you find yourself late with a single payment when there are methods available to ensure this doesn't happen, it is your own fault. It is not the fault of the service provider however we have seen from examples here that the service provider will waive fees and fines if you engage with them.

Some people don't seem to have heard of personal responsibility and make any excuse to place the blame elsewhere.

L1011

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Believe me when I say I'm about as far from a Social Justice Warrior as you can get. Even at €200 an hour, there is no way 30 man hours were spent persuing this.

No - probably quite a bit more were. It went to court, remember

Seth Brundle

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Believe me when I say I'm about as far from a Social Justice Warrior as you can get. Even at €200 an hour, there is no way 30 man hours were spent persuing this.

So what?
It's a fine, a deterrent. If you disagree with the manner by which the fine's value escalates, then don't accrue it!

magicbastarder

kbannon wrote: »

So what?
It's a fine, a deterrent. If you disagree with the manner by which the fine's value escalates, then don't accrue it!

so at what point can you end up with your car seized? i.e. how many transgressions does it take?
e.g. can a single unpaid journey result in a car being seized if you don't pay up and ignore the interest and charges?

Peregrinus

magicbastarder wrote: »

so at what point can you end up with your car seized? i.e. how many transgressions does it take?
e.g. can a single unpaid journey result in a car being seized if you don't pay up and ignore the interest and charges?

It's not the number of unpaid journeys that matters; it's the size of the debt and the willingness of the creditor to pursue judgment and enforcement. In theory if you owe me a fiver and fail to pay it or to engage with the court processes I can sue you, get judgment, and put the judgment in the hands of the sheriff for execution. He's unlikely to seize a car for a small judgment if he can conveniently seize a smaller object which is still sufficiently valuable to cover the judgment debt plus enforcement costs.

Carlos Orange

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not the number of unpaid journeys that matters; it's the size of the debt and the willingness of the creditor to pursue judgment and enforcement. In theory if you owe me a fiver and fail to pay it or to engage with the court processes I can sue you, get judgment, and put the judgment in the hands of the sheriff for execution. He's unlikely to seize a car for a small judgment if he can conveniently seize a smaller object which is still sufficiently valuable to cover the judgment debt plus enforcement costs.

Sounds like the key is to have a variety of easily seizable assets over a scale of monetary values OR to pay your bills.

Peregrinus

psinno wrote: »

Sounds like the key is to have a variety of easily seizable assets over a scale of monetary values OR to pay your bills.

Or just keep a big wodge of cash in the house so that, when the sheriff turns up, you can pay him there and then.

But, yeah, pay your bills on time is generally the cheapest solution to this problem.

Seth Brundle

magicbastarder wrote: »

so at what point can you end up with your car seized? i.e. how many transgressions does it take?
e.g. can a single unpaid journey result in a car being seized if you don't pay up and ignore the interest and charges?

If you are informed of the toll amount and ignore paying it.
If you are then reminded multiple times of the outstanding toll amount and the increases due to subsequent fines and continue to ignore it.
If you are then notified multiple times of legal action and continue to ignore it.
if the legal action subsequently deems that you own x and needs the sheriff to obtain it because you still continue to ignore it.
Then.

It may not sound fair but is unlikely to happen if you engage in a meaningful way!
Should it matter how many transgressions you make - no. Ity had little to do with the transgressions and more to do with engagement. This could have been solved but the OP said how their friend challenged them to their day in court.
Do I have any sympathy for the OP's friend? Absolutely not!

Eflow are very good if you engage with them.

magicbastarder

i was wondering what was the threshold at which eflow would act. do they operate a total zero-tolerance scheme?

there's a lot of 'she got what was coming to her' in the thread above, which is leaving a bad taste in the mouth. we don't know what else she might have been juggling with. i understand there are and always will be consequences to ignoring such letters, but maybe she didn't actually 'deserve' it.

Sleeper12

She cancelled the eflow account & didn't set up an eflow account where they charge you €2.50 each time you use the toll bridge. It's paid by DD or SO. She still used the bridge & ran up a bill. I don't see where she wasn't at fault here. They she says she'll only pay part of what she owed. She could have paid it then & looked for a refund after if she felt it wasn't owed. Then she decides to take her chances in court. That's 5 or 6 fatale mistakes up to this point alone.
I see she is a single mum with a mortgage but she had "a new car". She had the finance to sort this a long time ago. I can only assume she has a judgement against her as the Sheriff is involved.
Only thing left to do is offer 2 or 3k & hope for the best.

Wanderer78

kippy wrote:

A fine for being a couple of days late is a stick to try persuade persuade not to be late at all. As mentioned there are a number of options available to ensure you dont end yo up in that position. You only have yourself to blame when you get in a situation where you are a few days late or where you end up in a position that the OP's friend gets into.

Yea yea thanks

Peregrinus

I think she was very unfortunate. For whatever reason, she didn't engage with e-flow over her liabilities while, apparently, continuing to use the toll bridge. She probably had no idea that it would escalate to this point and, yes, she seems to have paid a very high price for neglecting what was originally a minor matter.

But there's plenty of testimony on the thread to the effect that e-flow are reasonable if you deal with them. I suspect the position is not so much that e-flow have a "total zero tolerance" policy, but they may have a zero tolerance policy towards people who (a) refuse to engage with them, but (b) continue to incur new liabilities. Because, really, that can only end one way.

I'm somebody who from time to time has taken his eye off the ball and made a small problem into a large one, if perhaps not quite on this scale. But I recognise that that's my responsibility, and I have to wear the consequences. I'll hope for your sympathy in that situation, but I won't ask you to regard me as a victim of injustice. Because, really, what else could e-flow do? Abandon the arrears, and give her an effective licence to cross the bridge for free forever? Or pursue the arrears with increasing vigour until she stops ignoring them? They chose the latter course.

magicbastarder

Sleeper12 wrote: »

she had "a new car".

a new used car, possibly.

Peregrinus, i would concur - i don't think she's been a victim of injustice or has been treated unfairly, on the assumption that she neglected to engage with the options to remedy the situation.
but as mentioned, it was the 'she got what was coming to her' attitude from others which grated.

Peregrinus

If I had to summarise, I'd say she got what was coming to her, but I'm sympathetic, because she genuinely had no idea what was coming to her.

Seth Brundle

Peregrinus wrote: »

If I had to summarise, I'd say she got what was coming to her, but I'm sympathetic, because she genuinely had no idea what was coming to her.

Nonsense, the information would have been explained to her in the conversations with eflow and in the letters we're supposed to believe didn't arrive.
Furthermore, we're also expected to believe that she was unaware that no payment had been made for 12 journeys across the bridge.

When discussing the fines with eflow, she even allegedly said how she "happily" would see them in court.
Based on the story, the sheriff arrived and took the car indicating that the court hearing had happened but we're led to understand that she was unaware of it. Again, more letters going AWOL? I don't buy it.

In addition, the lady in question appears to believe that she has done no wrong. She was unwilling to pay the fines and still does not want to pay the sheriff as she believes that it is eflow's fault that she closed her account (which is nonsense!).

We also get the sob story about how she's a single mother, aaw, bless her.

People make mistakes. Many people nowadays refuse to accept responsibility for their mistakes though, which I for one am tired of.

Shop40

Just wondering (as I know someone in this position), what will Eflow do if the person ignores the letters, summonses etc but has no collateral to seize? The car is an old banger!

GM228

Shop40 wrote: »

Just wondering (as I know someone in this position), what will Eflow do if the person ignores the letters, summonses etc but has no collateral to seize? The car is an old banger!

The sheriff will simply file a "nulla bona" return to the court.

Tombo2001

keno-daytrader wrote: »

12 journeys to add up to 6k, does anyone on this thread that is bashing the lady think that 12 trips should add up to 6k?

Set aside the fact that she probably ignored most of the communications, the fact that eflow can rack up these INSANE charges should be illegal.

Have we lost all common sense?

Like in the old days when you could get deported to Australia for stealing a loaf of bread.

All legally kosher at the time.

Dodge

kbannon wrote: »

People make mistakes. Many people nowadays refuse to accept responsibility for their mistakes though, which I for one am tired of.

It's very much not a "nowadays" thing, nor is it "many people". The amount of cars seized for non payments of tolls is miniscule. As it should be.

Rather than paint this as a symptom of society, it should be pointed out that this woman is absolutely an outlier, and her heavy punishment is indicative of this.

Vast majority of people pay on time. Even more pay when they're prompted the first time. Others pay further down the line. This woman has been caught out at the end, but she's one of a tiny amount to take it that far