Appealing €500 Travel fine?

arleitiss

I travelled abroad recently for dentist (yes I know, one of the most lame excuses these days) and got €500 fine on way out of Dublin.


I am flying over to Ukraine every few months for various dental procedures (including ongoing teeth straightening with braces).


I had no proof on way out - but I came back with a whole file of documents (receipts, letter of proof of attendance which is stamped and signed by clinic and print out from government revenue website confirming payment which was also stamped and signed by clinic).

I got Fixed Payment Notice recently and emailed fixed charge processing office to which I got email saying they see no grounds for appeal.


They suggested to either pay the fine or ignore it and wait for it to proceed to summons stage where I can outline my case before the presiding judge.



Is it fair to assume that I can just ignore notice - then head to court and present these documents I have as proof and the fine will/might get discarded?

Homer

You could have gone to a dentist in this country surely? Therefore, your trip was not essential. Thats the way I hope a judge would see it.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

Is it fair to assume that I can just ignore notice - then head to court and present these documents I have as proof and the fine will/might get discarded?

You can do this, no problem. No comment on what might happen though!

maestroamado

arleitiss wrote: »

I travelled abroad recently for dentist (yes I know, one of the most lame excuses these days) and got €500 fine on way out of Dublin.


I am flying over to Ukraine every few months for various dental procedures (including ongoing teeth straightening with braces).


I had no proof on way out - but I came back with a whole file of documents (receipts, letter of proof of attendance which is stamped and signed by clinic and print out from government revenue website confirming payment which was also stamped and signed by clinic).

I got Fixed Payment Notice recently and emailed fixed charge processing office to which I got email saying they see no grounds for appeal.


They suggested to either pay the fine or ignore it and wait for it to proceed to summons stage where I can outline my case before the presiding judge.



Is it fair to assume that I can just ignore notice - then head to court and present these documents I have as proof and the fine will/might get discarded?

I cannot advise but i am curious to know if you were given the option to go home or travel.
I am also inclined to think that if it is ongoing treatment it is essential travel.
Did you not have any document confirming your appointment on outward journey.
Personally i think i would challenge but only if the treatment had started before Jan 15...

arleitiss

Homer wrote: »

You could have gone to a dentist in this country surely? Therefore, your trip was not essential. Thats the way I hope a judge would see it.

I started my treatment there in late last year, before all the fines got introduced so I need to keep coming back therefore it is medical/essential.

Plumbthedepths

Homer wrote: »

You could have gone to a dentist in this country surely? Therefore, your trip was not essential. Thats the way I hope a judge would see it.

The Judge I expect will follow the law, which dental treatment is viewed as an essential reason to travel. Drew Harris views dental as not an reason to travel. His job is to enforce the law, not interpret it.

Renault 5

arleitiss wrote: »

I started my treatment there in late last year, before all the fines got introduced so I need to keep coming back therefore it is medical/essential.

If you have all documents up to date then appeal it.

Plumbthedepths

arleitiss wrote: »

I started my treatment there in late last year, before all the fines got introduced so I need to keep coming back therefore it is medical/essential.

Personally I would go to court, as travel for dentistry is an essential reason to travel. Only you can decide however. A consultation with a solicitor may be worth your while rather than the opinions of randomers on Board's.

arleitiss

Renault 5 wrote: »

If you have all documents up to date then appeal it.

Yeah I am just wondering how does appealing work.
I never appealed fine, is it just a matter of getting court summons and going there and proving it?

Atlantic Dawn

How long was the trip for?

Renault 5

Well if pay the fine or ignore it and wait for it to proceed to summons stage.

I would go with the second option.

arleitiss

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

How long was the trip for?

9 days, does that make any difference?

Go to court and it’ll be thrown out. How long the trip was for or all of that malarkey is utterly irrelevant.

sebdavis

A dentish take make half a day, max a full day. You stayed 9 days so not really just going to a dentist so I doubt you have a leg to stand on

Renault 5

sebdavis wrote: »

A dentish take make half a day, max a full day. You stayed 9 days so not really just going to a dentist so I doubt you have a leg to stand on

There is no mention on how long you can stay outside country.

It’s based on facts.

You could travel outside the country for medical appointments.

Op had a medial appointment outside the state and has documentation to prove this.

If it was me I would 100% go to court.

Who can travel abroad?
You should only travel abroad if it is essential to do so. The following are ”reasonable excuses” for travelling to a port or airport for the purposes of travelling abroad as set out in the Health Act 1947 (Section 31A – Temporary Restrictions) COVID-19) (No 10)(Amendment)(No 2) Regulations 2021:

To go to college or school if you have to be there in person
To go with a child or a vulnerable adult to school if they have to be there in person
To work or travel related to your business
To go to a medical or dental appointment, or to go to an appointment with someone you live with, or a vulnerable person
To seek essential medical, health or dental services, or to accompany someone you live with, or a vulnerable person who needs essential treatment
To care for a family member or for other vital family reasons
To go to a funeral
To meet a legal obligation (for example, to appear in court)
To give access to a child to the other parent of the child, or to access a child that you have a right of access to
To leave Ireland if you are not resident in Ireland
.

Case closed

C3PO

In my experience judges tend to be sympathetic to people who appear in court to appeal fines as long as they have a well prepared case.

Spook_ie

Probably be grilling you more over whether you quarantined for the 2 weeks after returning

arleitiss

Spook_ie wrote: »

Probably be grilling you more over whether you quarantined for the 2 weeks after returning

I have.

It's the only reason I haven't gone to garda station to ask what to do and instead - emailed them (Although I suspect they would've suggested the same - email)

arleitiss

arleitiss wrote: »

I came back with a whole file of documents

It'll be thrown out straight away. Loads of people heading off to the sunny countries to 'see their dentist', and will rightfully be nailed to the wall. You've actually seen a dentist, so you're laughing.

maestroamado

arleitiss wrote: »

I have.

It's the only reason I haven't gone to garda station to ask what to do and instead - emailed them (Although I suspect they would've suggested the same - email)

keep the sent email to Gardai...

AndrewJRenko

Seeing as these cases are only starting to emerge, I don't think that even the legal experts will have much to go on to advise you as to whether to stick or twist. There are no real precedents. It's your gamble.

Do you feel lucky?

Plumbthedepths

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Seeing as these cases are only starting to emerge, I don't think that even the legal experts will have much to go on to advise you as to whether to stick or twist. There are no real precedents. It's your gamble.

Do you feel lucky?

Why would they need to feel lucky? when dentistry is clearly outlined in law as an essential reason to travel.
Got to love the Boards legal eagle team. Sorry lads if I never seek your consul.

ratracer

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It'll be thrown out straight away. Loads of people heading off to the sunny countries to 'see their dentist', and will rightfully be nailed to the wall. You've actually seen a dentist, so you're laughing.

Laughing...... and with a beautiful smile

PunkIPA

OP, I am a lawyer and my advice in the strongest possible terms is to please go to a solicitor - the law is clear that travelling for the purpose of attending a dental appointment is permissible.

kirving

Homer wrote: »

You could have gone to a dentist in this country surely? Therefore, your trip was not essential. Thats the way I hope a judge would see it.

Me leaving my 5km to meet a dental surgeon I've been seeing since early 2019, is absolutely essential. If I was doing the same abroad, that would also be essential. You can't just hand treatment over easily.

sebdavis wrote: »

A dentish take make half a day, max a full day. You stayed 9 days so not really just going to a dentist so I doubt you have a leg to stand on

I seriously doubt they've been travelling for the odd filling. I've had multiple dental surgeries in the past 2 years, and more follow up checks than I can count. After a big procedure, you need to be physically close in case something goes wrong.

Much of the risk with traveling is not lack of skills or quality, it's that in order to make it cost effective for say medium level procedures, people fly back home too quickly.

I've been lucky in that most of mine had been on my health insurance, but I can completely understand people going to Eastern Europe for big treatment.

AndrewJRenko

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Why would they need to feel lucky? when dentistry is clearly outlined in law as an essential reason to travel.
Got to love the Boards legal eagle team. Sorry lads if I never seek your consul.

Because you've no idea how a judge will respond. The judge might question the length of the trip, or whether it could have been done at a local dentist.

We don't know how those cases are going to play out.

BTW, you seem to be positioning yourself as having expert knowledge of how these cases will play out, when none of us really know.

Plumbthedepths

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Because you've no idea how a judge will respond. The judge might question the length of the trip, or whether it could have been done at a local dentist.

We don't know how those cases are going to play out.

BTW, you seem to be positioning yourself as having expert knowledge of how these cases will play out, when none of us really know.

The judge is bound by the law, I'm quite happy to position myself based on the existing law not what some Boards expert hopes will happen.

twowheelsonly

As per PunkIPA, seek legal advice.

Personally I'd be trying to get it sorted before it went anywhere near a court.

Chances are that a lot of these cases are going to turn up in court around the same time and all you need is a grumpy Judge fed up of listening to excuse after excuse to find yourself getting hammered. Court is a PITA anyway, in particular at the moment, and you could find the case being put back time and again so it could drag on for the next 12 months.

GM228

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Because you've no idea how a judge will respond. The judge might question the length of the trip, or whether it could have been done at a local dentist.

It is not for the judiciary to question alternatives, they simply deal with weather or not you broke the law.

The law is not qualified by being an essential appointment, rather it is simply one of a attending a medical or dental appointment, how long you stay for that visit or if it is an essential or routine appointment is inconsequential once you show you were at the airport for the purposes of attending a medical or dental appointment.

markpb

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Because you've no idea how a judge will respond. The judge might question the length of the trip, or whether it could have been done at a local dentist.

Those things are easily explained. Switching from one dentist (or any healthcare consultant) to another in the middle of a series of planned surgeries would be a bad idea. Going to a foreign dentist can save a fortune and, if it started before restrictions were in place, is hardly the OPs fault. And lastly the 9 day stay is presumably for post-op review to ensure the surgical site is healing properly and any temporary fittings have been adjusted after the swelling has gone away.

I can only hope the judge takes more than 30 seconds to reach a decision, unlike some of the posters here.

AndrewJRenko

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

The judge is bound by the law, I'm quite happy to position myself based on the existing law not what some Boards expert hopes will happen.

If things were that simple, we wouldn't need lawyers. For the record, I'm the absolute opposite of a Boards expert. I'm pointing out that none of the Boards expert know how this will play out either way.

A judge could take a view that a dental appointment followed by an eight day holiday isn't a reasonable excuse.

We don't know how this will play out.

GM228

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If things were that simple, we wouldn't need lawyers. For the record, I'm the absolute opposite of a Boards expert. I'm pointing out that none of the Boards expert know how this will play out either way.

A judge could take a view that a dental appointment followed by an eight day holiday isn't a reasonable excuse.

We don't know how this will play out.

Judges have a lot of freedom when it comes to statutory interpretation, but one thing they can not do is say something is not the case when the law is very specific it is, a court can not add to or delete from express statutory provisions so as to achieve objectives which to the courts appear desirable.

Plumbthedepths

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If things were that simple, we wouldn't need lawyers. For the record, I'm the absolute opposite of a Boards expert. I'm pointing out that none of the Boards expert know how this will play out either way.

A judge could take a view that a dental appointment followed by an eight day holiday isn't a reasonable excuse.

We don't know how this will play out.

The judge is bound by the law, I don't understand your difficulty with this concept. The law allows travel based on essential reasons dentistry is one of them. The OP has documentary evidence to prove the validity of their travel. Anyway I'm done.
I hope the OP ignores most of the ill informed nonsense here.

2012paddy2012

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Personally I would go to court, as travel for dentistry is an essential reason to travel. Only you can decide however. A consultation with a solicitor may be worth your while rather than the opinions of randomers on Board's.

How much is a solicitor going to cost if your going down that road just pay it -or , you can just hand in documentation to the judge and give direct evidence to dispute the fine - He will make the decision - your a day hanging round courts - parking - grub - travel there and back -

BENDYBINN

You had no proof going out.....now you have...you’ll be fine

Time

Homer wrote: »

You could have gone to a dentist in this country surely? Therefore, your trip was not essential. Thats the way I hope a judge would see it.

To be fair, continuing treatment in line with a schedule is essential for orthodontic treatment to be successful.

timeToLive

Homer wrote: »

You could have gone to a dentist in this country surely? Therefore, your trip was not essential. Thats the way I hope a judge would see it.

Why are incorrect non-facts allowed to be posted in a legal forum :D

drunkmonkey

2012paddy2012 wrote: »

How much is a solicitor going to cost if your going down that road just pay it -or , you can just hand in documentation to the judge and give direct evidence to dispute the fine - He will make the decision - your a day hanging round courts - parking - grub - travel there and back -

If you find one that's in court that day anyway it won't be much, this is easily one where you can represent yourself, just bring along the paperwork showing proof of dentistry work.

poisonated

Maybe I’m missing something but I would think it would be better to just pay the fine than paying (what would presumably be around the same) for a solicitor. I know some people have principles haha but if it was me I don’t think id be arsed to go to court. Then again, if you are continuously going over, it might be worth your while rather than get fines lots of times.

the_syco

sebdavis wrote: »

A dentish take make half a day, max a full day. You stayed 9 days so not really just going to a dentist so I doubt you have a leg to stand on

If you get teeth pulled, it's recommended that you don't fly for at least 48 hours. Depending on the tooth location, OP may have been advised to wait longer before flying again.

Renault 5

IMO don’t pay the fine

And if it was me I wouldn’t go an get a solicitor.

It’s printed in black and white from the Government which you can bring with you as well as your documents

https://assets.gov.ie/121419/b269f1ec-6f97-47d8-aeb0-769429d4a4ff.pdf

HEALTH ACT 1947 (SECTION 31A - TEMPORARY RESTRICTIONS) (COVID-19) (NO. 10) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) REGULATIONS 2021

Page 4

(e) attend a medical or dental appointment, or accompany, to such an appointment, any other person residing with the person, or a vulnerable person.

bilbot79

Not like you went to lanzarote

Go to summons. It'll take ages and by the time you're in court Covid will be gone and the judge won't care

One thing to consider if you don’t pay the fine, is if your name would appear in the paper if you went to court, and if that would influence you either way, but especially if the judge decision went against you?
Could your work or future employment be affected by this? To some people, it won’t matter about how “right” you were- even if the case is thrown out- they may think negatively of you-you’ll have no power over their opinion of you.

Just another factor to consider- that and, if you take legal advice, assistance, the costs may equate to similar to 500 euro, maybe more.

MarkY91

Surely you cpidl have provided proof when flying out? There just be some form of proof in your emails.

Not important now but it's just a thought I had when reading the thread.

PunkIPA

Deleted User wrote: »

One thing to consider if you don’t pay the fine, is if your name would appear in the paper if you went to court

The OP's name might appear in the paper, but I think it's safe to say that it almost certainly won't.

The gardaí have issued around 15,000 fines so far and I'd imagine a lot of those will have gone unpaid, and as such will end up in Court.

The OP would have to be extremely unlucky to be one of the named and shamed (not that they have anything remotely to be ashamed of if what they have posted is correct).

In any event, as has been pointed out here already, travel for the purpose of dental treatment is permitted. If the OP has evidence of this that's the end of the matter and he will be done within minutes.

Deep Thought

Travel for dentist is essential but I would assume that “travel” is not jumping on an aircraft, flying 4500 miles, staying for nine days and then flying 4500 miles back

PunkIPA

Deep Thought wrote: »

Travel for dentist is essential but I would assume that “travel” is not jumping on an aircraft, flying 4500 miles, staying for nine days and then flying 4500 miles back

Your assumption would be incorrect. The "travel" for the purpose of the Act is travel within Ireland. The State has no power to control your movements within another jurisdiction.

The OP travelled to the airport for the purpose of attending a dental appointment outside of the jurisdiction. This is specifically allowed.

What he did thereafter in the Ukraine is entirely irrelevant. He could have travelled onwards to Disneyland for all it matters.

PunkIPA

PunkIPA wrote: »

The OP's name might appear in the paper, but I think it's safe to say that it almost certainly won't.

The gardaí have issued around 15,000 fines so far and I'd imagine a lot of those will have gone unpaid, and as such will end up in Court.

The OP would have to be extremely unlucky to be one of the named and shamed (not that they have anything remotely to be ashamed of if what they have posted is correct).

In any event, as has been pointed out here already, travel for the purpose of dental treatment is permitted. If the OP has evidence of this that's the end of the matter and he will be done within minutes.

A “COVID dentist story” where the person shows it was legitimate travel may very well be the story to print- in the local paper at least - I’ve no idea of likelihood or otherwise but something to stir into the mix when deciding how to approach this

Deep Thought

PunkIPA wrote: »

Your assumption would be incorrect. The "travel" for the purpose of the Act is travel within Ireland. The State has no power to control your movements within another jurisdiction.

The OP travelled to the airport for the purpose of attending a dental appointment outside of the jurisdiction. This is specifically allowed.

What he did thereafter in the Ukraine is entirely irrelevant. He could have travelled onwards to Disneyland for all it matters.

So the travel is within Ireland.. ? So not 4500 miles away? Unless you travel many many times around Ireland?

PunkIPA

Deep Thought wrote: »

So the travel is within Ireland.. ? So not 4500 miles away? Unless you travel many many times around Ireland?

4A. (1) Without prejudice to the generality of Regulation 4, and subject to paragraph (2), an applicable person shall not leave his or her place of residence to go to an airport or port for the purpose of leaving the State without reasonable excuse. (emphasis added)

This is the relevant regulation. The OP is being charged with leaving his place of residence to travel to an airport for the purpose of leaving the State. The few miles between the OP's house and the airport are the only relevant miles to consider in respect of this whole problem.

The question is therefore whether the OP had a reasonable excuse to leave the State. The OP left the State to attend a dental appointment. A dental appointment is definitionally considered a reasonable excuse in the regulations themselves without qualification.

The regulations don't state that the reasonable excuse must be the sole or even the dominant reason for leaving the State.

With respect to the dental appointment itself, the regulations don't even say that it must be an essential or even a reasonable one. You can chalk this down to an oversight, but the fact remains that so long as the OP traveled for the purpose of attending a dental appointment, he is perfectly entitled to take an extended holiday over there. All those chancers who booked dental appointments on the Costa del Sol were also perfectly entitled to do so, whatever Drew Harris might say (provided they actually attended).

PunkIPA

FAO the Mods - I am a new poster here and don't want to break the Charter, since the OP has posed a direct question based on his/her personal circumstances I feel like going into much more detail on this is flirting with offering legal advice.

My advice remains as before - consult a solicitor, many will be happy to offer an initial phone consultation for free and the cost of their appearance on the day should be well below €500. You may qualify for free legal aid or you might get a lawyer willing to appear pro bono. The regulations are clear that travel outside of the State to attend a dental appointment is permitted.