A registered letter dated Feb 24, 2015 was received a month ago from Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) on an alleged wrongdoing of haphazard relating to my motorbike which occurred on June 11, 2011, a time period of more than three years and eight months ago.

DBKL had sent the letter to my updated address after DBKL had crossed-referenced with the Road Transport Department as I had moved in 2013. That is a good job done in checking the latest address.

However, the incident happened such a long period of time ago where many would be vague about what happened that time.

As a complying citizen, I would be glad to have accepted the compound and pay the fine for the committed offence. In fact, I am most supportive of DBKL doing their job of booking delinquent drivers.

However, in this case, the alleged offence occurred after my motorbike had been dismantled in 2010 and de-registered on April 11, 2011 via an application by me.

A de-registration letter dated April 11, 2011 by the Road Transport Department was issued after fulfilling the requirements, including surrendering the registration card.

The offence could not have been committed for a dismantled de-registered bike as the alleged offence is three months later, on June 11, 2011.

The motorbike concerned has not existed since 2010 as it was in a total constructive loss position beyond repair. The motorbike was stripped apart by disposing off all plastic pieces and rubber parts, while the broken down metal pieces have been recycled.

Any remaining useful parts have been legally permitted to be used for another motorbike of mine. All these fact were made known to the road Transport Department as part of the de-registration process before the approval and issuance of the de-registration letter on April 11, 2011.

An appeal to the DBKL was made, resulting in the summons being cancelled via a letter dated March 12, 2015 received a few days ago. The letter stated that there are two haphazard parking offences in 2011 where DBKL should have checked the facts before registering the offence in their database.

It is imperative that DBKL checks the status and existence of the vehicle first before sending any summons to the owner as it is a hassle, stressful and time-consuming to appeal the summons.

In the letter ‘Push funds for zero tolerance policy on parking’ by Hafidz Baharom, the writer has advocated allocating funds for tow truck operations but it is a cumbersome approach. Would it be better if funds are allotted for the betterment of the DBKL enforcement agency computer system and internal controls to ensure that summons issued are properly checked for correctness and the owner of the vehicle notified promptly?

By all means, DBKL must do its job to ensure vehicles are not violating road laws in view of the bad attitude of drivers, but the efficiency on delivery of summons must be in a more timely manner instead of years later.