Outa membership costs more than paying for e-tolls

Issued by SANRAL
Johannesburg, Sep 13, 2016

The South African National Roads Agency (SANRAL) has challenged Outa to clarify its standing in relation to insurance laws and its practice of collecting funds from the public. This comes after SANRAL has questioned the cost of membership of Outa versus paying for e-tolls.

On 8 September, SANRAL issued a statement which exposed Outa's latest PR stunt as a fundraising exercise. Its statement coincided with a drive for late membership application.

"An extract taken directly from their Web site [see below] is unambiguous when it comes to the true cost of opposing a system that has been declared lawful by Pretoria High Court, the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court," says Vusi Mona, spokesperson for SANRAL.

The call for late membership of Outa makes it plain that should one have received a summonses below R50 000, a once-off payment of R5 000 is required, and above R50 000, an amount of 10% for Magistrate Court matters and 5% for High Court matters. Should you have a matter of a million rand (High Court), then an upfront fee of R50 000 is payable to join.

"Shockingly, there is still is a monthly fee payable. The lowest amount is R200 per month. This against the reality that 78% of users' monthly toll is less than R100 per month, and that the absolute maximum payable is R236 per month for light vehicles, if you are registered.

"Now, had one been summonsed for R20 000, it would mean that the monthly toll over the summons period would have been only R170 at the e-tag tariff. This means Outa expects payments in excess of the actual monthly costs to fight a system which brought about the upgrading of 201km of freeways, provides daily maintenance of these freeways, provides for free assistance to those involved in incidents and accidents by means of towing vehicles, paramedics and incident management personnel, and providing lighting on all freeways," laments Mona.

"Outa has failed in court time and again and is alive to the possibility that it has no strong legal basis to challenge the system. That is why its terms and conditions require its members to indemnify it from the probability that it might be unsuccessful in its legal challenge. Their members will still be liable for the summonsed value and would be poorer having paid Outa also. Go and read the fine print on the terms and conditions," challenges Mona.

There has been no response to the gauntlet thrown down on Thursday when SANRAL had listed eight questions to be asked of Outa.

They are:

1. What oversight does Outa guarantee the public in terms of the management of the funds received?

2. What does it mean that it provides an "Umbrella Cover", while it is not a registered insurance provider as required by law?

3. Why has it gone to the media with a statement while the parties are still busy with 'without prejudice negotiations', and Outa has not yet pleaded in any matter where it is representing a road user?

4. On what basis does Outa issue a media release on matters that are the subject of without prejudice negotiations taking place in good faith?

5. What is meant with providing services "within the financial means of the organisation"? If the funds are depleted after the first few cases, will Outa provide no assistance to the other contributing members?

6. Why does it state its confidence that the e-toll system is unlawful, but also states: "Outa cannot and does not guarantee the outcome of any legal matter"?

7. In the event that Outa is not successful, will it refund users or assist them with the payment of summonses, including legal costs and interest?

8. Is it more important for Outa to continue with legal battles than to support infrastructure provision to the benefit of exactly the same members that are reliant on proper freeway infrastructure?