Notice (in foreign, disclaimer): In my other life, I always did everything possible for official entities to communicate with people, customers, users, common mortals, etc. in a simple, clear and enlightening way. This old “addiction” leads me to write this chronicle.
I don't know if you guys ever had problems with the car seal. I already forgot that it had to be paid in that month, I ended up paying late and caught the respective fine.
To avoid situations like this, I went to the Finance website, sorry, to the AT website, and activated the payment by direct debit, an account already validated in my personal data and which has already been used for IRS refunds.
Last year, things didn't go very well, but I detected in time that the debit had not been made and managed to pay the IUC on time.
This year, already suspicious, upon receiving the notice that the amount was going to be debited from my account, I took advantage of a trip to the finance department and asked them to confirm if there was any problem. They replied that everything was ok.
When I saw the deadline passing and that no movement had been made in my bank account, I accessed the website to check if there was a way to pay the debt, but there wasn't.
I went back to Finance to try to pay, and was told that it wasn't possible, they didn't know what was going on and to wait and see.
And I saw… the notice to pay arrived, already out of date. I paid. And I saw… the fine arrives, sorry, the fine. Fulfilling, I paid.
But it irritated me to see it written there that the reason for the fine for not having paid on time was “negligence”. I found the term insulting to say the least, after all I had done to pay on time.
I decided to take two actions: I canceled the debit and, of course, I complained, asking for the fine to be canceled.
I explained the matter more or less as described above and received a response, which I will transcribe in full (I have only changed the name of the process). Bearing in mind my initial warning, the one that led me to write this chronicle, here is AT's response:
“Exm. Mr.
Having made the payment in PRC 12345678912345678912, it precluded the possibility of reacting against the decision to impose a fine since the procedure was extinguished under the terms of article 61º c) of the General Regime of Tax Infractions (RGIT), and, consequently, deprived all legal means of defense provided for in this process, written defense pursuant to articles 70 and 71 of the RGIT, or judicial appeal, pursuant to articles 80 and 53 of the RGIT.
Best regards.
The Head of Finance
Do you understand? Clear as cuttlefish water...
Comments