Red Light Camera Tickets and Collecti...

Red Light Camera Tickets and Collection Agency

Posted in the Arnold Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
More Shenanigans

Arnold, MO

#1 Jan 14, 2012
Can anyone explain why people are receiving letters stating:
The City of Arnold Police Department has referred the account described herein as being delinquent. Our records indicate you were previously sent notice of your violation of the City of Arnold Bill NO. 2102 relating to Automated Red Light Enforcement.
It is in your best interest to give this matter your immediate attention. If you fail to pay the Notice you will be referred to a collection agency for the collection of this debt.
Please make your cashier's check or money order payable to the City of Arnold and mail it to: Arnold Municipal Court, Photo Enforcement Division, 2101 Jeffco Blve, Arnold MO 63010
If you would like to pay by credit card please go to: www.ViolationInfo.com or call 1-866-790-4111. Please do not send cash and personal check.[sic]
Do not ignore this request for payment. If you have any questions please call customrer service at 1-866-790-4111.
If you have already resolved this matter, please disregard this letter.

Funny thing is, this violation was paid as soon as it was received, so how is it they are trying to collect it again? Has anyone else gotten one of these notices? Who authorized this letter going out? Is it legal in the State of Missouri to threaten to send someone who has already paid to a collection agency? This violation was from May of 2006 and they are trying to collect it again in 2012. Do they think if they send someone a bill every six years people will just pay it? This was sent from Tempe AZ.
JamesBeth

Fenton, MO

#2 Jan 15, 2012
Just throw it away. The city of Arnold is in desperate need of Money. I don't exactly see how a collection agency can collect on this. Unless the city can produce a contract? If the state can't put points on your license for a picture of your license plate then I can't see how a collection agency can force you to pay. I guess Arnold will find themselves yet in another lawsuit for now unfair collection practices. I sure hope those cameras were worth all the legal fees the city is now paying out.
obama

Saint Louis, MO

#3 Jan 15, 2012
its call democrates
they put it in thier pocket
instead of the city bank accoun
Joke of Jefferson County

Arnold, MO

#4 Jan 16, 2012
Dear City of Arnold,

Please, please send me to a collection agency. I can't wait. I could use some extra money in my bank account. I'm sure there would be enough people to sign up for another class action lawsuit and just threatening to send people to a collection agency to bilk money out of them is shameful. Guess the camera company likes to pay their attorney extra.
Bill

Fenton, MO

#5 Jan 17, 2012
I received 2 of these for tickets from 2008. I never paid them.... I wonder if there is a statute of limitations?
In the Know

Saint Louis, MO

#6 Jan 17, 2012
Bill wrote:
I received 2 of these for tickets from 2008. I never paid them.... I wonder if there is a statute of limitations?
The tickets are toilet paper. They can send them to collections (which ATS controls), but they cannot put anything on your credit, so they will send a few letters which you can pitch. If you ignore them, there is nothing they can do. Just throw them away.
lea58

Saint Louis, MO

#7 Jan 18, 2012
I received a letter yesterday, from 2006...I tried to put in the reference and pin number to view the picture of this alleged incident..unavailable. The plate number that they give does not match any of my current plate numbers and I have not bought a new car since 2004. Something stinks, thats for sure. It smells of a moneygrab!
Turnip Blood

United States

#8 Jan 18, 2012
Wow

Arnold, MO

#9 Jan 18, 2012
Wow maybe if I had not run that light at Jeffco and endangered my kids to get to that Tae Kwon Do lesson I would not have to worry about that ticket and this letter. Is it really that simple?
Idiot Alert

Arnold, MO

#11 Jan 18, 2012
Wow wrote:
Wow maybe if I had not run that light at Jeffco and endangered my kids to get to that Tae Kwon Do lesson I would not have to worry about that ticket and this letter. Is it really that simple?
Why don't you write something that makes sense to someone other than yourself? Most people who run lights do not do it intentionally, they are either distracted or impaired. Most accidents at intersections occur long after the light has turned red, definitely not in the first few seconds. Red light cameras have and will do nothing to change that and you, unlike ATS in Arnold, can take that to the bank.
Small_Claims_Cou rt

Plano, TX

#12 Feb 4, 2012
Make them prove the debt is valid. If they cannot, sue them in Small Claims court for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. They will have to prove in court its a valid debt. Most debt collectors cannot do that.
KMA Small Style

Arnold, MO

#13 Feb 4, 2012
Small_Claims_Court wrote:
Make them prove the debt is valid. If they cannot, sue them in Small Claims court for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. They will have to prove in court its a valid debt. Most debt collectors cannot do that.
That would be one way to go. It was proven to be a valid process in the appeals court process. You are going to pay your ticket unless you can prove it was not you driving. Get over it. Just because that dipshet Eliot Davis says you can wad up the ticket and trash it does not make it the way to go. Get a judgement against you and let your credit score gets whacked. Who is the tuff guy then? If you ran then danged light then pay up. Why not let that idiot group Don't Tread on Me run this one up the flag pole? They have accomplished not a danged thing promised. Surprise dby that are you? Let them get you out of the ticket.
Wrong

Arnold, MO

#14 Feb 4, 2012
They cannot do anything to your credit rating. It would have to be secured or unsecured debt, if you have no contract with the city, you haven't signed anything, nothing they can do except make meaningless threats against you. Their head guy said so on TV. the one that needs a shave.
Moronitz

Saint Louis, MO

#15 Feb 4, 2012
KMA Small Style wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be one way to go. It was proven to be a valid process in the appeals court process. You are going to pay your ticket unless you can prove it was not you driving. Get over it. Just because that dipshet Eliot Davis says you can wad up the ticket and trash it does not make it the way to go. Get a judgement against you and let your credit score gets whacked. Who is the tuff guy then? If you ran then danged light then pay up. Why not let that idiot group Don't Tread on Me run this one up the flag pole? They have accomplished not a danged thing promised. Surprise dby that are you? Let them get you out of the ticket.
The Appellate Court ruled on Creve Coeur's ordinance, which was strict liability, unlike Arnold's, so legally, they are apples and oranges. See the ruling out of the 21st Circuit in Alexa Smith v City of St. Louis for a ruling more on point, as the City of St. Louis's ordinance was ATS's second iteration, and is very similar to Arnold's. Like Arnold's, and unlike Creve Coeur's, it is not strict liability, like the question in Nottebrok. Regardless of how ATS wants to spin it, they cannot get around that fact. The Nottebrok ruling means nothing to Arnold. They cannot put anything on your credit. They can do nothing to compel you to pay. Any payment made is strictly voluntary.
Nice Call Hay

Arnold, MO

#16 Feb 18, 2012
It seems the Missouri Supreme Court disagrees with the wanna be Attorney. After all, to paraphrase Matt Hay, "there is no way the Supreme Court does not overturn this". This denial is from January 31. Wonder why there has been nothing put out by the lad? Damn, where is that WrongonHay Website to be found anyway?

1)
http://www.courts.mo.gov/SUP/index.nsf/cfc8c4...

SC92204 City of Creve Coeur, Respondent, vs. Mary Nottebrok, Appellant.

Appellant's application for transfer from the Missouri Court of Appeals, No. ED96396, denied. Draper, J., not participating.

2) http://momunicipallaw.wordpress.com/
Wrong on Red Supporter

Arnold, MO

#17 Feb 18, 2012
So the Missouri Supreme Court didn't think the case was worth it's time and didn't hear it. Happens all the time. When the monetary gain is so minute it is no longer expedient for the red light cameras to operate, they will be gone. Hopefully sooner, better than later. If safety is the true goal, there are still many improvements that can be made at all of the intersections. Let's push for those and eventually those truly ineffective cameras will go away.
Nice Call Hay

Arnold, MO

#18 Feb 19, 2012
That is very much to the point. If the counts for red light running were so insignificant that they were no longer required then the cameras would probably go away. The fact is that is not the case. In many posts in here drivers say they are being inattentive for any number of reasons from texting to stuffing down some Taco Bell offering. If they would put down the phone or the Grande Gordita and stop on time we all win.
Doris Borgelt

Arnold, MO

#19 Feb 19, 2012
Fortunately red light camera violations have gone down 90 percent since last December. Numbers dropped from 1092 in 12/2010 to 91 in 12/2011. All that in one short year all due to the lengthening of the yellow light times and an all red period. If a few more true safety measures are implemented and they do something different with the light at Rockport, which is where most of the violations are coming from, that number will be reduced further. A camera that is only on an hour a day Monday through Friday is producing the most violations of all four of the cameras, I think that would indicate a different kind of problem exists. There should be an investigation into that intersection and other remedies should be implemented.
jus sayn

Irving, TX

#20 Feb 20, 2012
I like to steal other peoples plates especially those who decide to park on the street. Then in the middle of the night after putting the stolen plates on my company truck, I go for a ride and find the nearest redlight camera. While wearing a skimask I speed through the intersection with a beer in one hand and a fat bob marley in the other laughing hysterically...I did this for over an hour one night until i ran out of dope and got the munchies...
RLC Loss in St Louis

Arnold, MO

#21 Feb 21, 2012


Order



ORDER ANF FINAL JUDGMENT. IT IS ORDERED NA DDECREED THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER AND PARTIAL JUDGMENT DATED MAY 20, 2011, IS DENIED; PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR CLARIFICATION IS GRANTED IN PART; AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO AMEND JULY 11, 2011 ORDER IS GRANTED. THIS COURT'S MAY 20, 2011 ORDER AND PARTIAL JUDGMENT IS CLARIFIED TO GRANT PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANT'S FAVOR ON PLAINTIFF ALEXA SMITH'S CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES ONLY AS THEY RELATE TO RECOVERY OF THE $100 FINE SHE PAID, AND IS ALSO CLARIFIED TO REFLECT THAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED IN FAVOR OF DEFENANT ON COUNTS IV AND V; AND COUNT VI IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNT I IS GRANTED, AND DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMAMRY JUDGMENT ON COUNT I IS DENIED. IN SUMMARY, THIS COURT ENTERS FINAL JUDGMENT AS FOLLOWS ON PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION PETITION AS FOLLOWS: COUNT I - VIOLATION OF ARTICLE I,§ 10 OF THE MISSOURI CONSTITUTION ( DUE PROCESS): JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS. COUNT II - VIOLATION OF ARTICLE I,§ 19 OF THE MISSOURI CONSTITUTION (SELF-INCRIMINATION): JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT. COUNT III - VIOLATION OF ARTICLE I,§ 18(A) OF THE MISSOURI CONSTITUTION (CONFRONTATION CLAUSE) JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT. COUNT IV - UNJUST ENRICHMENT : JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT. COUNT V - MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED: JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT. COUNT VI - PERMANENT INJUNCTION : DISMISSED COUNT VII - ORDINANCE CONFLICT WITH STATE STATUTES : JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS. SO ORDERED JUDGE MARK H NEILL #24183

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Arnold Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Fox C6 Board of Education : Discussion (Jun '14) Thu Tom 1,397
News Brutcher gets life plus 109 years (Sep '06) Thu Brutchers Awesome 173
SB40 JCDDRB County Tax Levy - Funding & Service... (Nov '15) Apr 27 VeeBee 18
Turtle Creek Apartments 141 & Feidler Apr 25 yeah man 3
Have you seen this man? Apr 22 Victim 1
Have you seen this man? Apr 22 Victim 1
Arrest warrant for grandma over 12-year-old ticket (Mar '09) Apr 20 bloyd 26
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Arnold Mortgages