❓ Hon Giz Watson inquires about Traffic Infringement Notices related to vehicle license transfers, revealing system issues and DPI responses. The DPI acknowledges system errors and outlines corrective actions, including an internal audit.
AnsweredQoN 2591Legislative Council
Asked
13 September 2005
Member
Portfolio
Minister Assisting the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure
QuestionView source ↗
Regarding the management of Traffic Infringement Notices under the
Road Traffic Act
, I ask -
(1) How many Traffic Infringement Notices were issued since July 1 2004, for the failure to transfer a licence for a vehicle within 28 days of becoming the owner of the vehicle? (Please provide monthly figures)
(2) How many of these infringement notices were withdrawn under Section 102(5) of the
Road Traffic Act
? (Please provide monthly figures)
(3) How many of these withdrawals were caused by an oversight or administrative mistake of the Department? (Please provide monthly figures)
(4) How many of these withdrawals were accompanied by an apology? (Please provide monthly figures)
(5) What initiative will the Minister take to reduce the number of mistakes in the management of traffic infringements?
Road Traffic Act
, I ask -
(1) How many Traffic Infringement Notices were issued since July 1 2004, for the failure to transfer a licence for a vehicle within 28 days of becoming the owner of the vehicle? (Please provide monthly figures)
(2) How many of these infringement notices were withdrawn under Section 102(5) of the
Road Traffic Act
? (Please provide monthly figures)
(3) How many of these withdrawals were caused by an oversight or administrative mistake of the Department? (Please provide monthly figures)
(4) How many of these withdrawals were accompanied by an apology? (Please provide monthly figures)
(5) What initiative will the Minister take to reduce the number of mistakes in the management of traffic infringements?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
20 October 2005
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister Assisting the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure
Response time
37 days
(1)&(2) Infringements were unable to be issued from 1 July 2004 - 27 April 2005 due to a series of technical problems associated with the introduction of the TRELIS computer system and there was uncertainty that the system could accurately identify those in default. The Department for Planning and Infrastructure (DPI) took the decision that it would be better to ensure the system was fully functioning rather than sending out potentially inaccurate demand notices and penalties, causing unnecessary stress to those affected. From 27 April 2005 all customers with outstanding penalties were advised to make payment. A business decision was taken to forward as many notices as possible prior to the end of the financial year which accounts for the large number of notices sent in June. Month Issued Number Issued Number Withdrawn April 2005 978 194 May 2005 6215 1267 June 2005 13200 4503 July 2005 3556 679 August 2005 2730 199 Sept. 2005 2299 78 (3) The DPI does not keep separate statistics on the number of infringements that are withdrawn as a result of DPI error. The records maintained by the DPI reflect all infringements withdrawn. There are a number of reasons why infringements may be withdrawn including: Applicant is deceased Applicant's address details are unknown Record is statute barred Address details are incorrect Transfer has been paid in the Eastern States Applicant has left the country Company in liquidation Fraud Error by dealership Incorrect information System fault Processing error (4) The DPI sends out a standard letter of advice when infringements are withdrawn (see tabled paper no. ). The standard letter does not include an apology as the letter is required to cover all circumstances when infringements are withdrawn, as outlined in the response to question (2) above. (5) As stated in the response to question (1) above, the non-issuance of infringements during the period 1 July 2004 to 27 April 2005 was caused by a system error following the implementation of the TRELIS licensing system. This problem was progressively fixed and from April 2005 the system has been operating normally. An internal audit has recently been commenced to review all administrative aspects of the infringement process including the procedures for withdrawing them. The recommendations of the audit will be used to improve practices and process.
Month Issued Number Issued Number Withdrawn April 2005 978 194 May 2005 6215 1267 June 2005 13200 4503 July 2005 3556 679 August 2005 2730 199 Sept. 2005 2299 78 (3) The DPI does not keep separate statistics on the number of infringements that are withdrawn as a result of DPI error. The records maintained by the DPI reflect all infringements withdrawn. There are a number of reasons why infringements may be withdrawn including: Applicant is deceased Applicant's address details are unknown Record is statute barred Address details are incorrect Transfer has been paid in the Eastern States Applicant has left the country Company in liquidation Fraud Error by dealership Incorrect information System fault Processing error (4) The DPI sends out a standard letter of advice when infringements are withdrawn (see tabled paper no. ). The standard letter does not include an apology as the letter is required to cover all circumstances when infringements are withdrawn, as outlined in the response to question (2) above. (5) As stated in the response to question (1) above, the non-issuance of infringements during the period 1 July 2004 to 27 April 2005 was caused by a system error following the implementation of the TRELIS licensing system. This problem was progressively fixed and from April 2005 the system has been operating normally. An internal audit has recently been commenced to review all administrative aspects of the infringement process including the procedures for withdrawing them. The recommendations of the audit will be used to improve practices and process.
(3) The DPI does not keep separate statistics on the number of infringements that are withdrawn as a result of DPI error. The records maintained by the DPI reflect all infringements withdrawn. There are a number of reasons why infringements may be withdrawn including: Applicant is deceased Applicant's address details are unknown Record is statute barred Address details are incorrect Transfer has been paid in the Eastern States Applicant has left the country Company in liquidation Fraud Error by dealership Incorrect information System fault Processing error (4) The DPI sends out a standard letter of advice when infringements are withdrawn (see tabled paper no. ). The standard letter does not include an apology as the letter is required to cover all circumstances when infringements are withdrawn, as outlined in the response to question (2) above. (5) As stated in the response to question (1) above, the non-issuance of infringements during the period 1 July 2004 to 27 April 2005 was caused by a system error following the implementation of the TRELIS licensing system. This problem was progressively fixed and from April 2005 the system has been operating normally. An internal audit has recently been commenced to review all administrative aspects of the infringement process including the procedures for withdrawing them. The recommendations of the audit will be used to improve practices and process.
Applicant is deceased Applicant's address details are unknown Record is statute barred Address details are incorrect Transfer has been paid in the Eastern States Applicant has left the country Company in liquidation Fraud Error by dealership Incorrect information System fault Processing error (4) The DPI sends out a standard letter of advice when infringements are withdrawn (see tabled paper no. ). The standard letter does not include an apology as the letter is required to cover all circumstances when infringements are withdrawn, as outlined in the response to question (2) above. (5) As stated in the response to question (1) above, the non-issuance of infringements during the period 1 July 2004 to 27 April 2005 was caused by a system error following the implementation of the TRELIS licensing system. This problem was progressively fixed and from April 2005 the system has been operating normally. An internal audit has recently been commenced to review all administrative aspects of the infringement process including the procedures for withdrawing them. The recommendations of the audit will be used to improve practices and process.
(4) The DPI sends out a standard letter of advice when infringements are withdrawn (see tabled paper no. ). The standard letter does not include an apology as the letter is required to cover all circumstances when infringements are withdrawn, as outlined in the response to question (2) above. (5) As stated in the response to question (1) above, the non-issuance of infringements during the period 1 July 2004 to 27 April 2005 was caused by a system error following the implementation of the TRELIS licensing system. This problem was progressively fixed and from April 2005 the system has been operating normally. An internal audit has recently been commenced to review all administrative aspects of the infringement process including the procedures for withdrawing them. The recommendations of the audit will be used to improve practices and process.
(5) As stated in the response to question (1) above, the non-issuance of infringements during the period 1 July 2004 to 27 April 2005 was caused by a system error following the implementation of the TRELIS licensing system. This problem was progressively fixed and from April 2005 the system has been operating normally. An internal audit has recently been commenced to review all administrative aspects of the infringement process including the procedures for withdrawing them. The recommendations of the audit will be used to improve practices and process.
Month Issued Number Issued Number Withdrawn April 2005 978 194 May 2005 6215 1267 June 2005 13200 4503 July 2005 3556 679 August 2005 2730 199 Sept. 2005 2299 78 (3) The DPI does not keep separate statistics on the number of infringements that are withdrawn as a result of DPI error. The records maintained by the DPI reflect all infringements withdrawn. There are a number of reasons why infringements may be withdrawn including: Applicant is deceased Applicant's address details are unknown Record is statute barred Address details are incorrect Transfer has been paid in the Eastern States Applicant has left the country Company in liquidation Fraud Error by dealership Incorrect information System fault Processing error (4) The DPI sends out a standard letter of advice when infringements are withdrawn (see tabled paper no. ). The standard letter does not include an apology as the letter is required to cover all circumstances when infringements are withdrawn, as outlined in the response to question (2) above. (5) As stated in the response to question (1) above, the non-issuance of infringements during the period 1 July 2004 to 27 April 2005 was caused by a system error following the implementation of the TRELIS licensing system. This problem was progressively fixed and from April 2005 the system has been operating normally. An internal audit has recently been commenced to review all administrative aspects of the infringement process including the procedures for withdrawing them. The recommendations of the audit will be used to improve practices and process.
(3) The DPI does not keep separate statistics on the number of infringements that are withdrawn as a result of DPI error. The records maintained by the DPI reflect all infringements withdrawn. There are a number of reasons why infringements may be withdrawn including: Applicant is deceased Applicant's address details are unknown Record is statute barred Address details are incorrect Transfer has been paid in the Eastern States Applicant has left the country Company in liquidation Fraud Error by dealership Incorrect information System fault Processing error (4) The DPI sends out a standard letter of advice when infringements are withdrawn (see tabled paper no. ). The standard letter does not include an apology as the letter is required to cover all circumstances when infringements are withdrawn, as outlined in the response to question (2) above. (5) As stated in the response to question (1) above, the non-issuance of infringements during the period 1 July 2004 to 27 April 2005 was caused by a system error following the implementation of the TRELIS licensing system. This problem was progressively fixed and from April 2005 the system has been operating normally. An internal audit has recently been commenced to review all administrative aspects of the infringement process including the procedures for withdrawing them. The recommendations of the audit will be used to improve practices and process.
Applicant is deceased Applicant's address details are unknown Record is statute barred Address details are incorrect Transfer has been paid in the Eastern States Applicant has left the country Company in liquidation Fraud Error by dealership Incorrect information System fault Processing error (4) The DPI sends out a standard letter of advice when infringements are withdrawn (see tabled paper no. ). The standard letter does not include an apology as the letter is required to cover all circumstances when infringements are withdrawn, as outlined in the response to question (2) above. (5) As stated in the response to question (1) above, the non-issuance of infringements during the period 1 July 2004 to 27 April 2005 was caused by a system error following the implementation of the TRELIS licensing system. This problem was progressively fixed and from April 2005 the system has been operating normally. An internal audit has recently been commenced to review all administrative aspects of the infringement process including the procedures for withdrawing them. The recommendations of the audit will be used to improve practices and process.
(4) The DPI sends out a standard letter of advice when infringements are withdrawn (see tabled paper no. ). The standard letter does not include an apology as the letter is required to cover all circumstances when infringements are withdrawn, as outlined in the response to question (2) above. (5) As stated in the response to question (1) above, the non-issuance of infringements during the period 1 July 2004 to 27 April 2005 was caused by a system error following the implementation of the TRELIS licensing system. This problem was progressively fixed and from April 2005 the system has been operating normally. An internal audit has recently been commenced to review all administrative aspects of the infringement process including the procedures for withdrawing them. The recommendations of the audit will be used to improve practices and process.
(5) As stated in the response to question (1) above, the non-issuance of infringements during the period 1 July 2004 to 27 April 2005 was caused by a system error following the implementation of the TRELIS licensing system. This problem was progressively fixed and from April 2005 the system has been operating normally. An internal audit has recently been commenced to review all administrative aspects of the infringement process including the procedures for withdrawing them. The recommendations of the audit will be used to improve practices and process.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.