Law firm threatening to garnish wages or impound over a red light ticket (Chicago: sales, leases)

[Mirinjobra]

So basically after living in Chicago a few years I realized how corrupt it really is here. 10.25% sales tax, tax on digital services, taxes on car leases for the full price of the car, red light tickets, speeding tickets, etc.

That being said, a few months back my dad, who lives in another state, received the following letter for his car (he was visiting) - do they really have the authority to do any of this? Over a red light ticket? Weren't red light tickets outlawed a while ago?

[MSchemist80]

If it is just one ticket which is what seems to be indicated I'd just ignore it at this point and don't bring your car into the city. They will just keep sending threatening letters but as long your father keeps out of the city there is not much they can do. If he comes into the city will probably boot him.

Unfortunately red light cameras and now speed cameras are here to stay as well as the waste of human flesh politicians running things.

[Mirinjobra]

Originally Posted by MSchemist80

If it is just one ticket which is what seems to be indicated I'd just ignore it at this point and don't bring your car into the city. They will just keep sending threatening letters but as long your father keeps out of the city there is not much they can do. If he comes into the city will probably boot him.

Unfortunately red light cameras and now speed cameras are here to stay as well as the waste of human flesh politicians running things.

Well the truth is, I use the car in the city but it's not registered in my name.

I thought they can only boot the car if there's three or more tickets? What about wage garnishment?

[MSchemist80]

Originally Posted by Mirinjobra

Well the truth is, I use the car in the city but it's not registered in my name.

I thought they can only boot the car if there's three or more tickets? What about wage garnishment?

They aren't going to do wage garnishment for 1 ticket $220. As for the three tickets before they boot you I wouldn't count on it but you can go ahead and risk it. It will cost you an extra few hundred if they do. The city is insolvent so they are only going to get more aggressive with collections and camera tickets. The other possibility is that they intercept any tax refund going to your father and take it out of that but it isn't worth the administration costs for just 1 ticket and $220 so I really doubt it.

At this point the city will mainly just keep sending scary letters and possibly boot the car if they have the chance.

[MarianRavenwood]

Originally Posted by Mirinjobra

Well the truth is, I use the car in the city but it's not registered in my name.

I thought they can only boot the car if there's three or more tickets? What about wage garnishment?

I don't know why you think it is 'corruption' that the city expects you to pay the ticket you got when you ran a red light. There's no jurisdiction in the country that would expect anything less.

But as it says right there in the letter you posted...they can boot your car IF you have more than three tickets, or if your unpaid ticket is more than a year old.

The biggest scofflaws in the city (which are posted annually in the Trib I believe) are usually city employees. So I wouldn't worry too much about wage garnishment. But....why not just pay it, and learn to stop running red lights?

[Murk]

Standard collection agency tactics.

Note how it says they have the legal right to do those things, not that they are actually doing them. They'd have to take him to court and get a judge to rule in favor of wage garnishment, etc. before it happened.

That being said... if he ran a red light - or if you did while driving his car -- the ticket still needs to get paid. This sounds like he ignored it for too long.

[Mirinjobra]

Originally Posted by MarianRavenwood

I don't know why you think it is 'corruption' that the city expects you to pay the ticket you got when you ran a red light. There's no jurisdiction in the country that would expect anything less.

But as it says right there in the letter you posted...they can boot your car IF you have more than three tickets, or if your unpaid ticket is more than a year old.

The biggest scofflaws in the city (which are posted annually in the Trib I believe) are usually city employees. So I wouldn't worry too much about wage garnishment. But....why not just pay it, and learn to stop running red lights?

I think it says they can boot my car if I have more than three tickets or if I have MORE than one ticket that is over a year old.. so I'm good

These red light tickets were ruled to be illegal by a judge last year until another judge overruled that decision.

Standard collection agency tactics.

Note how it says they have the legal right to do those things, not that they are actually doing them. They'd have to take him to court and get a judge to rule in favor of wage garnishment, etc. before it happened.

That being said... if he ran a red light - or if you did while driving his car -- the ticket still needs to get paid. This sounds like he ignored it for too long.

I just don't want my dad's wages to be garnished or something. They can't do anything to his car because I have it, and they have no idea about that.

[personone]

Alabama City Pays for 'Debtors Prison'

[MSchemist80]

Originally Posted by MarianRavenwood

I don't know why you think it is 'corruption' that the city expects you to pay the ticket you got when you ran a red light. There's no jurisdiction in the country that would expect anything less.

It could have something to do with the fact that a senior city official and company exec were convicted of bribery and corruption and given a prison sentence in connection with the red light camera program. Also the majority of tickets aren't people blatantly running red lights, they are people making right turns on red and stopping past the stop line so they can see. It is just extortion under the pretext of safety and law enforcement.

[Mirinjobra]

Originally Posted by MSchemist80

It could have something to do with the fact that a senior city official and company exec were convicted of bribery and corruption and given a prison sentence in connection with the red light camera program. Also the majority of tickets aren't people blatantly running red lights, they are people making right turns on red and stopping past the stop line so they can see. It is just extortion under the pretext of safety and law enforcement.

Got an angry call from my dad asking what if they decide to increase the cost of the fine?

He was also asking what if the administrative costs they incur to garnish his wages get added onto the cost of the fine?

Are these valid questions?