If the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (Outa) is so confident “that the e-toll system is unlawful” why won’t it “guarantee the outcome of any legal matter”?

That’s amongst the questions the South African National Roads Agency Limited (Sanral) is putting to the e-tolling system’s most vociferous critic.

In a statement‚ Sanral said it “has challenged Outa to clarify its standing in relation to insurance laws and its practice of collecting funds from the public”.

 It described reports last week that Sanral had agreed that Outa’s 25000 members would be immune from legal claims over the non-payment of e-tolls as “a fundraising exercise”.

 Sanral also claimed “Outa membership costs more than paying for e-tolls”.

“An extract taken directly from their website 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‚” said Sanral spokesperson Vusi Mona.

“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% 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.

Mona said “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 summoned value and would be poorer having paid Outa also. Go and read the fine print on the terms and conditions‚” said Mona.

Sanral 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 do they mean that they provide an ‘Umbrella Cover’ whilst they are not a registered insurance provider as required by law?

“3. Why did they go to the media with a statement whilst 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 they provide no assistance to the other contributing members?

“6. Why do they state their confidence that the e-toll system is unlawful‚ but also state that ‘Outa cannot and does not guarantee the outcome of any legal matter’?

“7. In the event that Outa is not successful‚ will they 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?”

On Monday‚ The Times reported that hundreds of motorists have had their e-toll bills discounted by staggering amounts but the SA National Roads Agency has denied slashing its charges in an effort to shore up its finances.