According to the plaintiffs, the Pascal device was used as a means of charging more expensive subscription fees than video subscribers and occasional customers. • Derech Eretz responds: "The allegations are completely rejected. Our position will be presented in court."
"The allegations are completely denied."
Road 6
Next week (21st of the month) there will be a first hearing on the application for approval of a class action lawsuit against Derech Eretz, the operator of the main section of Road 6.
This is a request for approval of a lawsuit filed by Haim Avigal, Pinchas Greenberg and Gadi Conway through Adv. Moshkin, in an extraordinary amount of more than two billion shekels. Three main allegations arise from the request for a lawsuit: The first is that Derech Eretz uses Pascal as a "barrier" to collect fees. Collection, out of alleged discrimination, of video subscribers.
Pascal is a smart electronic identifier designed to be installed in a vehicle, and automatically communicates with the computerized toll system located above the toll gates along the road.
The system identifies the vehicle using the Pascal, calculates the number of segments it went through on each trip and translates the information collected into a monthly invoice sent to the subscriber.
The rate for subscribers is reduced compared to occasional customers.
The second argument is that Pascal is not a "charge tag", as defined by law, and the third argument is that the collection fee of NIS 8 from occasional customers is clearly high.
Please claim that Derech Eretz "hides" the "collection fee" in invoices and contracts.
According to them, no one knows that "collection fees" are actually charged.
Video subscribers currently pay a collection fee of almost NIS 4 per trip, compared to about NIS 8 paid by occasional customers.
It is claimed that Derech Eretz collects more than NIS 100 million a year in collection fees, an amount that is about a third of its profit.
According to the applicants, the company presented to the Economics Committee a presentation according to which the Pascal is both a device that identifies the vehicle and a payment instrument, therefore the collection costs from non-Pascal owners will be "very high", as the vehicles in the photo, send an account, collect the account and more.
Therefore, Derech Eretz asked that she be allowed to charge an amount currently worth about NIS 8 for each trip by a non-Pascal subscriber.
Following the pressure exerted by Derech Eretz on the Economics Committee, the law was amended to stipulate that anyone who does not use a "debit badge" will pay a collection fee, and for video subscribers the amount is reduced to only NIS 4.
Pascal is not a billing device
A few years later, with the opening of the road, Derech Eretz decided, for economic reasons, that the Pascal would be an identification device only, and not a payment instrument.
According to the lawsuit, a legal problem has arisen here, as the definition in the law speaks of a "billing tag", which is a device that pays automatically, and on this basis collection fees have also been approved from those who do not use the device, but in practice Pascal is not a payment device.
The applicants further claim that since the auction took place, the creators have been overthrown, and today the operation of the video subscription is actually cheaper than the operation of the Pascal reader.
According to them, when a Pascal subscription device breaks down, the company does not require it to be repaired at all.
The lawsuit wonders why Derech Eretz continues to force drivers on Route 6 to own the outdated and troublesome Pascal, which has very heavy costs for both customers and Derech Eretz itself, and does not switch exclusively to the video system that already exists on the road, providing a better and cheaper answer, exactly Like the rest of the toll roads?
Derech Eretz responded: "Derech Eretz completely rejects the allegations detailed in the statement of claim, and its position will be presented to the court."