Opening your mailbox to discover a speeding ticket is never pleasant. Finding that the violation dates back nearly twenty years is another matter. That’s exactly what happened to a Canberra motorist who is now being asked to pay two speeding offenses from 2007, totaling AUD 334, about USD 230 (roughly €200).
The two infringement notices detail speeds recorded on Hindmarsh Drive, a road limited to 80 km/h (about 50 mph), on 22 April and 25 May 2007. Each lists a fine of AUD 167 (about USD 110, roughly €100), and they resurfaced thanks to an administrative update in the Access Canberra system, the agency responsible for licenses, vehicle registrations, and fines in the Australian Capital Territory. The motorist in question, Robert Scott, 42, says he has no memory of these infractions, a situation that is triggering a flood of legal and practical questions for drivers everywhere.
Two $167 fines, 19 years later, and “no memory” for Robert Scott
When the two letters landed in his mailbox, Robert Scott says he first thought they were recent offenses, before realizing the year listed on the notices. He summed up his shock by telling the Daily Mail: “They sent me two citations dating from about 19 years ago. They’re from the same junction, about a month apart.” He adds, “I’m not even sure I owned a car with that license plate; it goes back that far.” Each notice carries a AUD 167 fine, about USD 110, for speeding allegedly committed in 2007.
Scott says he cannot understand why these fines were not flagged at the time and how they can resurface today. “I don’t understand at all how this could happen, because if I hadn’t paid a fine over the past 20 years, my license would have been suspended,” he explained. He continues: “I don’t understand why there haven’t been updates since, and I don’t understand why I’m getting a reminder nearly 20 years later.” He recalls his situation at the time: “I was in my twenties and commuting between my girlfriend’s place and my parents’ house; I have no memory of fines dating back 20 years.” He also emphasizes that nothing has ever been flagged since: “Since 2007, I’ve registered several cars many times, and at no point did I receive penalty points or learn about any unpaid fines.” The only time police stopped him recently, nothing was flagged either: “I’m not doing anything wrong; I was just pulled over for a check, but they found nothing.” Scott says he intends to contest these infringement notices.
Administrative bug in Access Canberra, ghost notices and possible remedies
Facing this case of a speeding fine received 19 years later, Access Canberra offers a very administrative explanation. According to a spokesperson for the ACT government, “When a client updates their address or renews their driver’s license with Access Canberra, the vehicle registration system may automatically reissue outstanding notices or mailings under that person’s name,” he told the Daily Mail. And there’s more: “When a customer accounts are merged, it is possible to request the system to reissue pending notices or mailings.” The agency notes that merging duplicate client records or updating an old account can cause old notices that were never settled to surface again. “Even when these exchanges occur, merging a historical file with a current profile updates contact information, which, in some circumstances, prompts the system to resend correspondence,” it acknowledged. Normally, “Procedures are typically in place to detect this kind of reissuance before it happens.” In Scott’s case, evidently those safeguards did not work, and the person has a legal window of 28 days to respond, either by seeking the withdrawal of the notices or by challenging them.
For attorney Hayder Shkara, director of Fourtree Lawyers, a driver facing such a situation should not pay without asking questions. “I wouldn’t pay without first obtaining the history of the fines,” he told Yahoo News. He underscores the magnitude of what is being asked of a driver: “Think about what we’re asking someone to do here. We’re asking them, in 2026, to reconstruct what happened on a specific day in 2007.” He then poses a string of concrete questions: “Where were they? Who was driving? Were they the vehicle owner? Was the car sold? Did others have access to it? Did they receive the initial notification? What documents existed back then?” For him, the first step is to clarify what happened to these notices in 2007: “If a valid infringement notice was issued in 2007, became due, and simply wasn’t paid, the ACT government may still have the right to enforce that existing debt,” he explains, before clarifying: “This is different from starting a new criminal proceeding for an alleged road offense nearly two decades later.” His first question is clear: “What exactly happened to these fines in 2007? Were they properly issued and notified, did they become payable, and what collection steps followed?” He also notes that such a long delay does not automatically erase a debt: “A 19-year delay does not automatically mean the fine vanishes,” while pointing to the root cause of Scott’s case: “But if this matter resurfaced, it’s because duplicate client profiles were only merged now, which raises a clear question: why should a citizen bear the consequences of an administrative problem within the very government system?” In practice, in the Australian Capital Territory, a recipient of a notice can request withdrawal within 28 days, and if denied, may appeal to the ACT Magistrates Court or the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal. In France, the public action for a fine, such as a standard speeding offense, is typically subject to a one-year statute of limitations, and the penalty for an unexecuted fine expires after three years. Reminders can extend the life of a file, but receiving a road fine twenty years after the fact would be exceptional. For a French motorist living in Australia, this story highlights the importance of routinely checking the history of any old fine, keeping copies of official correspondence, and staying informed about one’s rights before handing over payment.
