Solicitor to engage with eflow

wally1990

Pm me if you wish, I wish to work for E Flow between 2009 and 2015

wally1990

wally1990 wrote: »

Pm me if you wish, I wish to work for E Flow between 2009 and 2015

I can give advice is all

joeysoap

howyegettinon1 wrote: »

I grew up on legal aid

course you did


( I just wouldn’t be advertising it if I were you)

howyegettinon1

ruwithme wrote: »

The stink of moralising on boards from some posters is almost unbearable.

Its unbelievable, one odd ball here thinks he has a "judge friend" an everything, searches the internet high and low for unjust threads and posts then posts them to the judge, and all in the name of justice! What a brave soul!
In fairness boards would be fairly boring without them

howyegettinon1

endacl wrote: »

The bit where you posted. And the other bit where you posted. And your posts.

I think if you play this on loop it might help that book throwing erection go down :rolleyes:

Ronin247

howyegettinon1 wrote: »

Sure how else are you ever gonna get out of stuff like this, no point going to court to say you did it?

One of my favourite posts ever.

Good luck with this, please let us know the outcome.

whippet

The reason why I would and others here may get up on their high horses over this is due to a few reasons.

The barrier free toll was introduced so that the horrendous bottle necks every day at rush hour could be eliminated. I was one of those who suffered years of hour long queues twice a day at rush hour to pay the toll.

In order to make it barrier free they needed some sort of honesty / tag system.

The penalties for not paying your toll is designed to be punitive especially for serial offenders. Over the years I’ve had a couple of forgetful moments when drove other people’s cars or new cars etc .. each and every time I did call up to pay the fine was removed as I was being proactive and it was a genuine mistake.

However.. someone who does 69 trips isn’t forgetting or making a mistake.. they are dodging a payment which was put in to make everyone else’s life easier.

Eflow will pursue this ... it is legal and they will pursue in order to discourage others from becoming g serial dodgers.

Best of luck in court .. but remember by offering to pay anything you are more or less admitting guilt and once you admit guilt you are going to have to accept what the court directs.

howyegettinon1

whippet wrote: »

The reason why I would and others here may get up on their high horses over this is due to a few reasons.

The barrier free toll was introduced so that the horrendous bottle necks every day at rush hour could be eliminated. I was one of those who suffered years of hour long queues twice a day at rush hour to pay the toll.

In order to make it barrier free they needed some sort of honesty / tag system.

The penalties for not paying your toll is designed to be punitive especially for serial offenders. Over the years I’ve had a couple of forgetful moments when drove other people’s cars or new cars etc .. each and every time I did call up to pay the fine was removed as I was being proactive and it was a genuine mistake.

However.. someone who does 69 trips isn’t forgetting or making a mistake.. they are dodging a payment which was put in to make everyone else’s life easier.

Eflow will pursue this ... it is legal and they will pursue in order to discourage others from becoming g serial dodgers.

Best of luck in court .. but remember by offering to pay anything you are more or less admitting guilt and once you admit guilt you are going to have to accept what the court directs.

Thanks, buti wont be going to court it just doesnt seem like a good option

What i don't understand about the high horse comments is why get so worked up? Serial offenders aren't going away and neither is the barrier free toll as a result of them. If your paying your tolls why are you bothered with people that dont? They take a chance on the possibility of being fined and thats their choice. This is the same thing with people beeping at people in the bus lane while they sit in traffic, whats the point..?

I think some people might come here just to vent their furstration about some other **** that isnt going right for them

The J Stands for Jay

hullaballoo wrote: »

I am personally utterly outraged by this 69 unpaid tolls but sure not everyone would think to do my OCD the favour of at least making it an even 70.
gs.

Leave it as is. Nice.

Seth Brundle

howyegettinon1 wrote: »

Thanks, buti wont be going to court it just doesnt seem like a good option

It is not in any way a good option.
Especially with a poor excuse such as that given in your opening post. We're you to use that then the judge would ask how you managed to get your tax disc if your post wasn't being forwarded.
In all likelihood you were sent several hundred letters from eflow relating to these trips. Its nonsense to believe that you weren't made aware of them by your previois landlord and you'd quickly find yourself on a perjury charge.

You've been offered a lifeline by eflow. Take it and ignore the gamble of paying a solicitor a lot of money only to find you still have to pay the same fine.
That gamble is only for idiots!

Rodney Bathgate

ruwithme wrote: »

The stink of moralising on boards from some posters is almost unbearable.

Almost as bad as the stench of freeloading and deceit.

dennyk

hullaballoo wrote: »

I am personally utterly outraged by this 69 unpaid tolls but sure not everyone would think to do my OCD the favour of at least making it an even 70.

This is the real issue here. If these tolls were for "trips back and forth to Dublin", does this mean OP has been stuck in Dublin ever since his last unpaid trip (in which case he should really be let off with time served, as surely the courts couldn't conceive of a worse punishment than what he's already suffering), or does it mean he actually paid his toll the first time, but the experience of watching that €3 leave his bank account was so traumatic that he just couldn't bring himself to repeat it? :pac:

Marcusm

howyegettinon1 wrote: »

Im testing the water, if i can pay less it would be great. I've no intentions of going to court unless its 90% will be throw out on a technicality which i doubt it will, best case judge agrees on 2k im still stuck with a big legal bill and will probably be paying out close to 3-4k in the end

V confusing. The toll and related penalties are governed by byelaws made by the National Roads Authority under the aegis of the Roads Act 1993. Any court case is not going to be a negotiation. You’ve acknowledged that the scheduled toll and penalties amount to 9k but eFlow has offered to settle for 2.5k. It’s hard to see how your failure to reregister your car would be an arguable defence in which case it seems more likely that the court would simply rubber stamp the penalty meaning that you would be paying much more than eflow’s offer. Is this a smart move or is the 9k effectively irrecoverable (ie you don’t have it or a job)?

CoBo55

hullaballoo wrote: »

I am personally utterly outraged by this 69 unpaid tolls but sure not everyone would think to do my OCD the favour of at least making it an even 70.

For those posting from their high horses; people do things that aren't strictly legal all the time and they're not bad people because of it. Sure I've even driven a car with no tax paid for a few weeks shockingly enough. I also crossed the road within 15 metres of a pedestrian crossing but not at the crossing once or twice. Please forgive me.

It's not the crime of the century but obviously, not paying tolls is a gamble and one that's likely to see the OP having to pay the equivalent of 806.45 trips instead of 69. But it's his money so hey ho.

This forum is not the one for high horse morals. We all do stupid things.

Not paying tolls isn't a gamble, they take a picture of your car and send you a bill when it isn't paid on time.

SteM

CoBo55 wrote: »

Not paying tolls isn't a gamble, they take a picture of your car and send you a bill when it isn't paid on time.

Exactly. People go on about moral outrage but I'm just surprised that the OP did it 69 times in a car that was registered to him and thought he'd never get pulled up on it. I'm not morally outraged by what he's done, I'm stunned by the naivety.

But this is a bloke that thought that the equivalent defence of 'the dog ate my homework' might work in court I guess.

Claw Hammer

howyegettinon1 wrote: »

Yeah i dont think court is a good option in this case unless solicitor is certain it will gey thrown out on a technicality

Obviously your previous experience in court is in criminal cases. You are talking about a civil case where things don't get "thrown out technicality". In a civil case it is the balance of probabilities and small procedural slip-ups are almost invariably irrelevant.
Time to wise up.