ICBC - What it’s There For?
She was 15 years old.
Rayanne Tupman was young, foolish and made some teenage mistakes when she rode Skytrain without paying.
And yes, she should have paid the tickets she was issued.
But is it right for ICBC to refuse an upgrade of Rayanne’s driver’s license until she pays $2,000 in Translink fines which date back a decade?
There’s a story on the front cover of today’s Province newspaper which lifts the lid on a new piece of legislature from ICBC that will make it impossible for drivers to renew licences or registrations without first paying off their TransLink debts.
And Rayanne’s story is front and centre in the article.
In fact, her story shines a light on how heavy handled ICBC’s collection tactics have become.
Now don’t get me wrong I think that fare dodgers should be punished.
But what on earth is the connection between ICBC and decade-old transit fines?
Have I missed something?
Last time I looked ICBC’s job was to provide auto insurance to British Columbians, not to act as a debt collector for every government agency under the sun.
If you ask me, ICBC has badly over stepped its mandate here.
The bottom here is that, ICBC was created in 1972 to provide auto insurance to British Columbians.
Why? Because the government of the day felt that British Columbians weren’t being treated fairly by the insurance behemoths that ran roughshod over the plains of BC at the time.
ICBC is supposed to be there to help BC’s motorists drivers, not to hold them to ransom because they rode the Skytrain without a ticket when Moses was in diapers.
Instead of chasing unpaid TransLink fines ICBC should concentrate on giving us all better service. And making our roads a safer place for the thousands of people who get injured on them each and every day.
Is that too much to ask?
Post a comment
Post a Comment to "ICBC - What it’s There For?"To reply to this message, enter your reply in the box labeled "Message", hit "Post Message."