Question NW1145 to the Minister of Transport
25 April 2016 - NW1145
Alberts, Mr ADW to ask the Minister of Transport
(1)Whether, with reference to paragraph 3 of her reply to question 733 on 4 April 2016, she is referring to the suspension of the delivery of notices from the Road Traffic Infringement Agency (RTIA) or the issuing authorities or both; (2) whether (a) from 1 January 2016, as she indicated, (b) from 17 March 2016, as the RTIA indicated by way of its notice, or (c) since October 2015, as was indicated in other sources, no notices are being issued; (3) (a) whether the lack of issuing notices is influencing the legality of the notices and (b) whether the issuing authorities and the RTIA, as applicable, will cancel the specified notices if they are found to be illegal; if not, (i) why the noncompliance with the provisions of the AARTO Act is not illegal, (ii) on the strength of which principles in the AARO Act or otherwise the notices will continue to remain valid and (iii) whether the validity continues ad infinitum, or whether there will come a point in time when they will indeed be unenforceable; if so, what are the relevant particulars; (4) whether notices that were issued in terms of section 17(1) of the AARTO Act and that do not conform to any of the requirements of the further subsections are still legal?
Reply:
- The suspension of delivery of notices was done by both the Road Traffic Infringement Agency as well as issuing authorities.
- The sending out of courtesy letters to South African Post Office for postage was suspended by the RTIA during the month of August 2015, and the suspension of postage of enforcement order notifications was effected in November 2015. The response on Parliamentary Question 733, indicated, as the question was making reference to 1 January, that since the said period no notice has been sent out.
- (a) According to the AARTO Regulations as well as speed prosecution guidelines issued on behalf of the prosecution services, an infringement notice must be served on the alleged infringer within 40 days from the date of the contravention, if the alleged infringer receives a notice later than the stipulated time frame, he or she may exercise one of the elective options such payment, if he or she admits guilt, submit a representation stating the non-compliance with time frames or elect to go to court, and (b) the issuing authorities may cancel notices that they feel were unjustly issued but in the case of the RTIA, the Act confers no powers to cancel notices unless when such a notice was disputed through submission of a representation; (i) where the non-compliance of the AARTO Act is proved then the necessary punitive measures are prescribed by the Act itself, (ii) the Act prescribes the procedures to be followed in order for a notice to be declared invalid or illegal, if such procedures and/or processes were not undertaken, the notice would still be active in the system until an issuing authority cancels such a notice or the alleged infringer challenges the notice by submitting a representation that if successful would be cancelled by the Representations Officer
adjudicating the matter, (iii) as indicated under the response on (ii) above the notices may only be cancelled by the issuing authorities or by a Representations Officer upon receipt of a representation challenging the notice.
4. The notices that were issued in terms of section 17(1) should comply with the prescribed processes if not, then the alleged infringer need to challenge such non-compliance in the prescribed manner by submitting a representation to the RTIA for adjudication.