See also

Infringement Notice 2149227212

Infringement Notice Admin loophole 2 Evaluation by Google AI

I received Infringement Notice 2147291300, dated 10/4/2025 on a date that I can not remember, nor can the person that took it out of our letter box remember, the day we received it in the mail. I have disposed of the envelope it came in.

That ALL the questions I have asked in this document are answered. So ther is a mutual understanding, my questions are text sentences that ends with a question mark. That is this symbol. ?

That the infringement notice is withdrawn. If it is not withdrawn, that a detailed explanation is given as to why it is not withdrawn?

I have very carefully read the notice and particularly were it refers to Sections 114, 118 and 120 of the transport Operations (road use management closed) act.

On carefully reading those and other relevant sections of the act, I see that the notice, leaves out important information and appears to use words or phrases that contradict the act.

One example is the use of the phrase “must submit a declaration”, whereas the legislation does not use that phrase.

Does that make the notice invalid?

On the notice it shows I have 3 options. Yet the legislation provides for more than 3 options. I think, but am not sure, that the only option on the notice, I am interested in, is the second.

Its wording is:

“Submit a declaration – DO NOT PAY If you were not the driver, submit a declaration”

I do not no, if I was the driver, for the same reason that I do not no when I recieved the notice in the mail.

Because the lack of instructions on the notice, at first I did not know if I had to make a declaration. On reading the legislation, I am of the opinion that I do not. Please confirm that? See Refer to the act, rather than the notice and The Refered to Act below

On the back of the notice is a text box with the heading “Submit a declaration online – DO NOT PAY”

On part of that section is written “… or that you do not know who the person in charge was, having made diligent reasonable inquiries….”

Is in charge the same as the driver?

The statutory decloration form that accompanied the notice has no provision for stating that you do not know who the person in charge was

I suggest this could be to deliberately to confuse the receiver of the notice. Is this so?

If not, where and how does a person indicate, they do not no who the person in charge was?

Considering that part of the notice that indicates, that a person can indicate that they do not no who the person in charge was, is under the heading, to submit a declaration online, does that mean it can only be done online? If so, is this in contravention to the transport Operations Act and laws in general?

If not how does a person find out how to make a declaration? Or does a person have to make a declaration?

This is all very confusing.

In attempting to find out, where I could say, I did not know who was driving, and going to the links shown on the notice, I found an online page showing this:

“Step 1 of 5▼

About this service

This online service allows you to request a fine to be transferred to another person or organisation.”

Because I did not want to transfer the fine to another person or organisation, I completely ignored reading the rest of the page. But after not finding anywhere else, where I could report that I did not no who was driving the car, I returned to the page and found this other text:

“If you don't know who the person in charge was at the time of the offence, please submit an enquiry”

With a link on the words, submit an inquiry.

Actually, I did not want to submit an inquiry, rather I wanted to report that I did not know who was driving the vehicle. But I can not find anywhere else online, where I can do that.

Is ther anywhere else, online, where I can do that? If not why not? Considering the text at the top of the web page, re about this service, is this a deliberate tactic so as to not allow such reporting? If so why?

As I said, I wish to no how to report, that I do not know who was driving the car. As it appears ther is no other way of doing so, I will report it here. Is that acceptable?

As the reporting form is limited to 3000 characters and this will likely be more than that, I have put this on my web site, and will link to it, on your form.

As I have previously indicated the infringement notice appears not to comply with the Transport Operation (road use management) Act

To be more precise, I will refer to the relevant sections of the Act, applicable to myself

TRANSPORT OPERATIONS (ROAD USE MANAGEMENT) ACT 1995

The wording of the Act I have enclosed in quotation marks

“(1) If a prescribed offence happens and the offence is detected by a photographic detection device, a person is taken to have committed the offence if the person was the person in charge of the vehicle that was involved in the offence at the time the offence happened even though the actual offender may have been someone else.”

Does this mean a person can be in-charge of a vehicle without being the driver? Does it apply to learner drivers under instruction, and or something else?

“(2) If the actual offender is someone else, subsection (1) does not affect the liability of the actual offender but the person in charge and the actual offender can not both be punished for the offence.”

I assume that means that only one person can be liable for the offence?

“(3) It is a defence to a camera-detected offence, other than an unregistered or uninsured offence, for a person to prove that—

(a) the person was not the driver of the vehicle at the time the offence happened; and”

What accuracy is used in respect to time the offence happened. Minutes, seconds or fractions of a second? Because this could be significant. See below in relation to the time of the aledged offence.

See also Time synchronisation

“(b) the person—

(i) has notified the commissioner, the chief executive or the SPEA administering authority of the name and address of the person in charge of the vehicle at the time the offence happened; or”

I do no wish to use this defence

“(ii) has notified the commissioner, the chief executive or the SPEA administering authority that the person did not know and could not, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained the name and address of the person in charge of the vehicle at the time the offence happened.”

I do wish to use this defence.

Is my writing here, notification to the commissione or the chief executive or the SPEA administering authority? If not what is required9 to do so?

For Proof of: could not, with reasonable diligence, see point 6 below.

“(3A) It is a defence to an unregistered or uninsured offence for a person to prove that—

(a) when the offence happened, the vehicle—

(i) was stolen or illegally taken; or

(ii) had been sold or otherwise disposed of; and

(b) if the vehicle was stolen or illegally taken—the person has notified the chief executive or the SPEA administering authority of that fact and either—

(i) the name and address of the person who stole or took the vehicle; or

(ii) that the person did not know and could not, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained the name and address of the person who stole or took the vehicle; and

© if the vehicle had been sold or otherwise disposed of—the person has notified the chief executive or the SPEA administering authority of that fact and of the following information—

(i) the name and address of the person to whom the vehicle was sold or disposed of;

(ii) the date and, if relevant, time of the sale or disposal.”

As the car is registered and insured I do not wish to use this defence.

“(4) A defence under subsection (3) or (3A) is available only if the person notifies the commissioner, the chief executive or the SPEA administering authority about the matters in subsections (3) and (6) , or subsection (3A) , within the required time—

(a) in a statutory declaration; or

(b) in an online declaration.”

As I have described above, the supplied statutory decloration form has no provision for declaring that I do not no who the driver was.

Is this, that I am writing now, an online declaration? If not how do I make an online declaration?

“(5) The required time is 28 days after whichever of the following is first given to the person—

(a) a written notice from the commissioner or chief executive alleging a camera-detected offence;

(b) an infringement notice under the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999.”

I am only able to proceed when ALL my questions are answered.

“(6) For subsection (3) (b) (ii) a person must prove that—

”(a) at the time the offence happened, the person—

(i) exercised reasonable control over the vehicle’s use; and“

I have REASONABLE control over the vehicle, in that:

• I only allow select people to drive it
• Ther are only 2 sets of devices that allow the car to be operated
• I usually always no where my device is
• I do not control the second device, that is in someone elses possession

”(ii) had in place a reasonable way of finding out the name and address of the person in charge of the vehicle at any given time having regard to—“

At any given time, I usually no if the other person, that has the device that enables them use of the car, is driving the car. I am often with that person when they are driving the car.

Via location sharing, I can asertain where the other persons phone is, when I am not with then.

”(A) the number of drivers; and“

Usually ther are only 2 people that drive the car including myself. However, to the best of my knowledge, ther have been 2 other people that have ever driven the car since I have owned it.

”(B) the amount and frequency of use; and“

The car is used far less than 5% of all time. http://greig.homeip.net/doku.php?id=car_usage_percentage

”(C) whether the vehicle was driven for business or private use; and“

The car is driven only for private use.

”(b) after the offence happened, the person made proper search and enquiry to ascertain the name and address of the person in charge of the vehicle at the time the offence happened.“

After the alleged offence happened:

• I was able to establish that one of the other people, that have ever driven the car, was not in the country at the time of the aledged offence
• The second other person, that have ever driven the car, only ever drove it once, and that was not at the time of the alleged offence
• Because of recorded GPS tracks I no that the car was not at the aledged position at that specific second, of the aledged offence
• As my device that records GPS positions does not record who was driving the car, I cannot use it to establish who was driving the car at the time of the aledged offence.
• I did not, at the time of the aledged offence, check to see if the other person, was at the location of the aledged offence, because I had no need to, at that time.
• When I recieved the notice and asked the other person if they were driving the car at the time the aledged offence, they said they did not no.
• Because the aledged offence took place a number of weeks ago, I cannot, with any REASONABLE DELIGENCE, remember who was driving the car at the time, just like I can not remember the date that I received the infringement notice, in the mail, nor can I remember what I had for lunch or dinner, the day of the aledged offence.

”(7) Subsection (6) does not apply if the person is able to prove that at the time the offence happened the vehicle—

(a) was stolen or illegally taken; or

(b) had already been sold or otherwise disposed of.“

I am not claiming this as a defence

”(8) Nothing in this section stops a person notifying the commissioner, the chief executive or the SPEA administering authority that the person was the driver of the vehicle involved in a camera-detected offence—

(a) in a statutory declaration; or

(b) in an online declaration.“

If the website that l am reporting this information on, is not the place to report it, then, that fact, could be stopping someone from making such a declaration. Is that a fair assessment?

”(9) A notification purporting to have been given for a body corporate by a director, manager or secretary of the body corporate is to be taken to have been given by the body corporate.“

My situation does not involve a body corporate.

”(10) In this section—

“online declaration” means a declaration made using the online declaration system.

“online declaration system” means an electronic system established by the chief executive for giving notifications under this section that is designed to—

(a) be accessed by an individual through the individual’s customer account on the department’s website; and

(b) send a notification of matters entered into the system by the individual to the commissioner, the chief executive or the SPEA administering authority; and

© allow a record of the sent notification to be downloaded or printed by the individual.“

So is what I have written, regarded as a online declaration?

”“photographic detection device” includes a photographic detection device that is linked to an information technology system described in section 113A (2) .

“unregistered or uninsured offence” means a camera-detected offence that involves a person driving or otherwise using, or permitting someone else to drive or otherwise use, a vehicle that—

(a) is not registered as required by a regulation under this Act; or

(b) is not insured as required by the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994.“

The vehicle was registered and insured.

I recieved an email:21 Apr 2025, 6:36 pm

Your infringement enquiry has been received and will be reviewed.

Please find attached a copy of the enquiry details submitted (PDF).

Important — please don't pay or forward the fine Don't pay the fine or give the notice to another person to pay If needed, we will give you extra time to pay the fine or take another action. What happens next? While your enquiry is being reviewed: the infringement will be put on hold Once the review is complete: you will receive a written response to your enquiry we will use the correspondence method you chose (email or post) Need help? For all fine and infringement enquiries please contact the Queensland Revenue Office.

(Some information xxx'ed out)

That had a PDF attachment, with the following information:

Department of Transport and Main Roads Confirmation Notice Submit an infringement enquiry Date: 21/Apr/2025 Time: 18:36 Transaction Number: 1414597816 Notice Number: 2147291300 Vehicle Registration Number: xxxxxx Your details First Name: GEOFFREY Last Name: GREIG Date of Birth: xx/xx/xxxx Customer Reference Number (CRN): 85287761 Correspondence Address: geoffreykgreig@gmail.com Infringement enquiry details The 3000 character limit is insufficient.I therfor have created a document on my website which can be viewed here;http://greig.homeip.net/doku.php?id=infringement_notice_2147291300If for any reason you are unable to view the contents of the above link, please contact me immediately.ThanksGeoff Greig Files you attached (you should retain copies of these) No documents attached

19 May 2025, 1:43 pm

qldfinesenquiries@treasury.qld.gov.au

“SENSITIVE

Dear Geoffrey,

In regards to the attached online enquiry, we are not permitted to access the link to your enquiry.

Can you please provide your written enquiry to this email address.

The matter will remain on hold for 7 days pending your response, if not response is provided we will release the matter off hold which may result in your matter going to SPER for further enforcement.

Further enquiries may be directed via phone to our Customer Contact Centre on 1300 360 610 during business hours (Monday to Friday 8am – 5pm).

Kind regards,

The Registrar

Client Services Branch

Fine Administration and Management

Queensland Revenue Office

P 1300 360 610

W www.qro.qld.gov.au”

My reply to that:

19 May 2025, 4:08 pm

qldfinesenquiries@treasury.qld.gov.au “The Register person,

I give you permission to access the link to my enquiry.

If that is what you ment.

If not please elaborate.

Thanks

Geoff Greig”

To which I got this email:

22 May 2025, 2:30 pm

“SENSITIVE

Hi Geoff,

We are not permitted by our IT department to access your link.

Can you please provide any enquiry or documents that were included as part of an email or as attachments so that we can review it.

The Registrar

Client Services Branch

Fine Administration and Management

Queensland Revenue Office

P 1300 360 610

W www.qro.qld.gov.au”

To which I replied:

Q22 May 2025, 5:05 pm

Register person,

Thousands of other people access my website.

I suggest that you ask your IT department why you are not allowed to access my link.

Or ask them, to access my link.

I could copy the text of my webpage and email it to you, but that would require me to reformat the entire document, and considering the above, it is unnecessary.

Are you will to take my suggestions?

Thanks Geoff Greig

To which I received:

23 May 2025, 9:09 am

SENSITIVE

Good morning Geoff,

As advised, we will not be accessing the link you provided.

If you have questions regarding this infringement notice, you can also contact us directly on 1300 360 610. Our office hours are 8.00am to 5.00pm, Monday to Friday (excluding public holidays).

Alternatively, you can also reply email with your enquiry.

Kind regards,

Peter

Fine Administration and Management

Queensland Revenue Office

W www.qld.gov.au/qro

To which I replied:

24 May 2025, 7:27 am

Peter,

Now at least I get to correspond with a person by name.

You wrote:

“As advised, we will not be accessing the link you provided.”

I was NOT advised.

If you are now advising, that you organization will not being accessing the link I provided, please confirm that?

Because if that is the situation, your organization is refusing, in part, to communicate with me.

If you are refusing to communicate via the method I have chosen, please show me the legislation that allows that to happen?

To put this in perspective, it's like your organization says it will not read correspondence because it was delivered by a particular courier company.

In my previous email I made 2 suggestions to overcome the apartment restrictions imposed by an internal part of your organization, and asked if you are will(ing) to take my suggestions. You did not answer my question.

Another suggestion, is that you go to my link, on a device, such as a phone, that is not owned by your organization. Ther are plenty of them around. You will then see that my link is quite benign. Then you could ask your IT department why they are imposing the blockage. I would suggest the blockage was a response to a historical security issue that now no longer applies, due to more modern security systems.

In addition to the reasons I previously gave, for my not being willing to send my correspondence to you as a email, is that my link included links to other pages on my website that further links to other pages and so on. Hence sending my text as a email will ultimately end up in the same situation that currently exists.

This, apparently impass is caused by a problem within your organization. It should not be up to me to fix the problem within your organization.

As this involves a legal matter it could appear that your organization is attempting to pervert the course of justice.

I strongly suggest that you escalate this matter to a person of higher authority.

I await your reply.

Geoff Greig

Ther Reply

27 May 2025, 1:29 pm

SENSITIVE

Good afternoon Geoff,

I can confirm that we will not be accessing the unsecured weblink you have provided.

We would like to assist you with any enquiries you have in relation to this infringement, however we need to understand what that is.

Your options to contact us with your enquiry are to either reply email. You can include attachments.

By phone on 1300 360 610 between 8.00am to 5.00pm, Monday to Friday (excluding public holidays).

By post to;

Fines Administration GPO Box 1447 Brisbane QLD 4001

You can send correspondence by a courier to.

Fines Administration GPO Box 1447 C/– Iron Mountain 3 Balaclava Street Woolloongabba QLD 4102

Your options to resolve the infringement notice are listed on the notice. Please note, as no enquiry has been received, we have not placed this matter on hold. The due date to take action is 1 June 2025.

If you have a dispute regarding the matter of the offence, your options for court election are listed on your notice.

Kind regards,

Peter

Supervisor

Fine Administration and Management

Queensland Revenue Office

To which I replied:

21 Apr 2025, 6:36 pm

Peter (Supervisor)

Thank you for your response to my previous email.

Thank you for saying, that you will not be accessing my webLink.

Whoever you did not answer the second question I asked, that being, because you are refusing to communicate via the method I have chosen, show me the legislation that allows that to happen?

Please answer that question?

You stated:

“I can confirm that we will not be accessing the unsecured weblink you have provided”

None of the correspondence I have had with your organisation has ever said that my link is unsecured. Previous correspondence stated:

“we are not permitted to access the link to your enquiry.”

and

“We are not permitted by our IT department to access your link.”

If you believe my link is unsecured, please explain how?

If it is because the URL is not a https link then be aware https links are only insecure when data is being sent to them. My link concerned has no provision for anyone to send data to it. It only sends data to those that wish to read it. Therefore no insecurity.

If you don't understand that, I suggest you consult with someone that can explain it to you.

You also stated:

“Please note, as no enquiry has been received, we have not placed this matter on hold. The due date to take action is 1 June 2025.”

I received an email:21 Apr 2025, 6:36 pm

Which in part stated

“Your infringement enquiry has been received and will be reviewed.”

You organisation has, as evidenced above, received my enquiry. It is that your organisation refuses to read it. This is a decision that you or your organisation has made. Not me.

The email I received on 21 Apr 2025, 6:36 pm also stated:

“While your enquiry is being reviewed: the infringement will be put on hold Once the review is complete: you will receive a written response to your enquiry we will use the correspondence method you chose (email or post)”

As you have not read or reviewed my enquiry, that you have received, why is the due date to take action 1 June 2025? And what action are you talking about?

Because you appear to be making incorrect statements (“As advised”, “unsecured weblink” and “no enquiry has been received”) I request that you escalate this matter to a person of higher authority, with a copy of all this correspondence.

I again await your reply

Geoff Greig

To which I got thes

28 May 2025, 9:34 am

SENSITIVE

Good morning Geoff,

Our office has provided you with multiple avenues for you to contact us regarding your infringement notice.

As you have not submitted an enquiry regarding your infringement notice via one of these acceptable avenues, we cannot assist you further.

There is no requirement for our office to provide you with legislation outlining our IT policy to not access weblinks.

As you have not submitted an enquiry regarding your infringement notice, no hold is being placed on your infringement notice.

No further correspondence will be responded to in relation to your request for our office to access your weblink.

Kind regards,

Peter

Supervisor

Fine Administration and Management

Queensland Revenue Office

To which I replied:

29 May 2025, 5:00 pm

Peter,

As I was not happy with your last email I rang your organisation and asked to speak to you.

Eventually I was contacted by Balinda were we spoke for some time about my I enquiry She was not able to as answer most of my questions. The enquiry is still outstanding.

I have resubmitted my enquiry via the online portal, but have included my link as a pdf attachment. I have also included that attachment to this email.

I do not ask you for legislation in relationship to your organisations IT policy to not access weblinks. I asked you to show me the legislation that says I can not submit a online enquiry via a webLink.

So please do that?

You organisation seem to have policies that contravene legislation.

I await your reply.

Geoff Greig

To which I got this reply:

“SENSITIVE

Dear Geoffrey,

Thank you for your correspondence in relation to Infringement Notice Number 2147291300.

To answer your questions around the declaration requirements, you will need to refer to both the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (TORUM Act) and the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 (SPE Act).

To take action on an infringement notice, section 22 of the SPE Act outlines ways an infringement notice can be finalised. Section 22 (1)© states if relevant, give to the administering authority an illegal user declaration, a known or unknown user declaration or a sold vehicle declaration for the vehicle for the offence.

Additionally, section 114 (4) of the TORUM Act outlines the method of submitting a declaration as a statutory declaration or an online declaration. Section 114 (10) includes the definition of online declaration.

Section 113 of the TORUM Act includes relevant definitions for person in charge of a vehicle. The registered or responsible operator of a vehicle is taken to have committed an offence unless they nominate provide the name and address of the person in charge of the vehicle at the time the offence happened (though the relevant declaration).

If you are unable to establish who the driver was at the time of the alleged offence, you can provide a statutory declaration under the Oaths Act 1867 outlining that you have been unable to identify the driver/person in charge, together with any other information relevant to your nomination. The unknown user declaration definition is outlined in the SPE Act definitions.

Please note, you cannot use the online declaration system for the purposes of submitting an unknown user declaration. You must submit a statutory declaration.

For that declaration to be considered, you must include the following:

that you have reviewed the offence images that you applied reasonable control over the vehicle’s use had a reasonable process in place to identify drivers of the vehicle and conducted enquiries to find out the name and address of the driver/person in charge who had access and keys to the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence and where was the vehicle parked prior to the alleged offence the steps you have taken to determine who was in charge of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence any other information to support the circumstances surrounding the matter. It is a criminal offence to intentionally make a false statement in a statutory declaration. A person who does so can be charged with an offence under the Criminal Code Act 1899. The information you provide may be forwarded to the Queensland Police Service to assist the Queensland Revenue Office in reviewing this matter.

To allow you additional time to submit a declaration, pay the fine, or elect to take the matter to court, a new infringement notice has been issued with a fresh 28 days to take action. Please refer to new Infringement Notice Number 2149227212 for the same offence to provide you with additional time to finalise the matter.

The new due date is 10 July 2025.

Should the matter remain outstanding beyond the due date, the unpaid fine will be referred to the State Penalties Enforcement Registry for collection.

Regards

The Registrar

Fine Administration and Management

Queensland Revenue Office

P 1300 360 160

W qro.qld.gov.au ”

https://youtu.be/hpbKnuBhyHM

A PDF Attachment to and email I received on 9 July 2025, 3:26 am

Was:

Queensland Revenue Office

GPO Box 1440 BRISBANE QLD 4001

TELEPHONE: 1300 360 610

Queensland Government

8 July 2025

Our Ref: 2149227212

GEOFFREY GREIG

geoffreykgreig@gmail.com

Your Ref: 8961P2

Dear Geoffrey

I refer to your online enquiry in relation to Infringement Notice number 2149227212.

The issues outlined in your correspondence have again been reviewed and the previous decision stands.

Please note, any future correspondence received about this infringement notice will be filed without acknowledgement from this office unless it provides new information that requires review.

If it is your intention to elect to have this matter dealt with by a court, you may follow one of the court election methods on the rear of the infringement notice. Should you have further enquiries regarding a court election, you may wish to visit the Department of Transport and Main Roads webpage:qld.gov.au/transport/safety/fines/contest#court. Unfortunately, this office cannot provide advice regarding this matter.

I trust this information is of assistance to you.

Should you fail to choose one of your 'Responsibilities' as outlined on the Infringement Notice by 10 July 2025, the infringement notice will proceed to the State Penalties Enforcement Registry (SPER), which may result in enforcement action.

Yours sincerely

The Registrar

Queensland Revenue Office

I have received your email of 9 July 2025, 3:26 am. Thank you. However most of the information you supplied was of no assistance to me.

I note in the wording of the email that it is a unmonitored mailbox with the words “Should you wish to contact us, please use the contact details provided in the attached response”

I also note that that the attached response has only GPO box contact details.

Therefore I am replying via the portal I made the inquiry on.

I also note that each time I make an inquiry via your portal it uses the words “While your enquiry is being reviewed:the infringement will be put on hold”. I then get an email saying: “The infringement notice has been placed on hold while the matters raised in your correspondence are considered”.

Your email attachment stated

“Please note, any future correspondence received about this infringement notice will be filed without acknowledgement from this office unless it provides new information that requires review.

Below is NEW information I require you to review.

This inquiry is new, as indicated by its date and time and the fact that the responce I get states that the infringement notice has been placed on hold.

I never asked for a decision. I asked specific questions, most of which were not answered.

I wish to no how to make an online declaration for a unknown driver.

NOTE this NEW information, it is not a legal question, it it administrative question.

As I am confused as to which part and what person of the Queensland government I am corresponding with can you please inform me if I am corresponding with the QPS, The Road safety camera office or the State Revenue office? I ask because the email and attachment had a logo, subject text and salutation, each indicate something different and are not personally identified.

I also ask because I get the impression I am corresponding with individuals that do not seem to understand that what I am asking is not legal, rather it is administrative. Therefore I requested this be escalated to a person of a higher authority.

Thank you for informing me about proceeding the mater to court. However I do not want to take this to court as it is not a legal issue. It is an administrative matter.

If your organisation, who ever that is, can not provide my with advice about this administrative matter, then who can?

Considering you received my enquiry on 3/7/25 it is unreasonable to expect me to respond in one day via snail mail. Hence this NEW information as a online enquiry.

On further reading the response to the last inquiry I made, I see that it says to not make a payment.

My apologies, I did make a payment.

Please refund it.

Thanks