Pages

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Car number fees: LTA to consider feedback in review

Sorry for not posting anything for the past three weeks. I was away on holiday.

When I opened my email today, I was pleasantly surprised to read a reply from Mr Lim Bok Ngam of the Land Authority of Singapore. It was on the issue of car number retention fees which I had written in my previous postings.

I had expressed my unhappiness over my having to pay $1,300 for retaining my car number and using it on another used car that I had purchased. I thought it was illogical and unfair when compared to the $100 fee which is charged on someone who retains his number and uses it on a new car.

In his reply, Mr Lim did not concede his position (see earlier posting), but what I found comforting was his assurance that LTA would take into consideration my feedback in its future review of car number retention fees.

In trying to read between the lines of Mr Lim's email, I thought my argument about the huge disparity between the two fees might have struck a chord with the powers that be in LTA.

If I am right, there is hope that action will be taken to close the gap.

The following is Mr Lim's reply to me...

"I refer to your email dated 1 Sep 2010.

"I am glad you understood that the processes involved for using a vehicle number on an existing vehicle vis-a-vis a brand new vehicle are different.

"Thank you for your feedback on the retention fee. I would like to reiterate that whilst LTA provides the service to give the vehicle owner the opportunity to use a retained number of his choice on either a new or used vehicle, we leave it to the owner to decide whether or not he wishes to make use of the service and pay the relevant fees.

"With regard to the fee to use a retained number on an existing vehicle, LTA has pegged it to the minimum fee payable by an owner to use a bid number on his existing car to make the 2 fees comparable, as the processes are somewhat similar.

"Nonetheless, we have noted your feedback, and will take them into consideration in our future review of the retention fees."

No comments:

Post a Comment