Clarify immediately

Published: Wednesday | January 2, 2013 Comments 0


I sent the following email to the Ministry of National Security on December 28:

"I visited your ticket amnesty database today out of curiosity and discovered - much to my amazement - that my name appears on your list for two offences: 1) disobeying the continuous white line and 2) no(t) [being in possession of] a valid certificate of fitness.

The location of the offences is inaccurately stated as Holborn Road. The correct location was actually Trafalgar Road (while travelling in a westerly direction) on the approach to the Holborn Road intersection.

Because I inadvertently omitted to pay the fine at the tax office within the prescribed period, I had to attend traffic court on South Camp Road. When my name was called, I presented evidence to the magistrate that conclusively showed that I was in fact in possession of a valid certificate of fitness for the vehicle I was driving at the time, a 1994 Toyota Camry. The charge against me was dismissed.

I paid the fine for the other offence, namely, disobeying the continuous white line, to a cashier located at a nearby office in the same building. A receipt was issued for the payment and thereafter I left the premises and placed the receipt in the car's glove compartment. I sold the Toyota Camry on February 23, 2009. Unfortunately, I did not retrieve the receipt or the yellow counterfoil of the traffic ticket that was issued by the police officer.

This is a true and accurate statement of the events that took place on September 11, 2007. I confirm that I paid the traffic fine as adjudged by the traffic court and that my name should not, therefore, be on your list."

My experience is almost identical to that of Balvin A. Leslie whose letter was published in this paper under the headline 'Costly amnesty glitch' on Monday. Some clarification from the authorities is needed.

Cedric Earle Stephens

Share |

The comments on this page do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner.
The Gleaner reserves the right not to publish comments that may be deemed libelous, derogatory or indecent. Please keep comments short and precise. A maximum of 8 sentences should be the target. Longer responses/comments should be sent to "Letters of the Editor" using the feedback form provided.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Top Jobs

View all Jobs