A group of users has taken to court the charge of $220 in electronic tolls from the company Flypass, questioning its legality. The action was filed with the Civil Court 2 of Itagüí, Antioquia, to determine whether this charge is improper according to current regulations.
The lawsuit involves 20 individuals and focuses on the Standard and Colpass plans, disputing the validity of an additional transaction charge. The plaintiffs argue that the electronic intermediary should not be allowed to charge more than the official rate established for tolls. This action does not question the rates set by the road concessionaires but seeks to clarify the legality of the extra charges.
The legal representatives of the plaintiffs, Hernán Panesso and Manuel García, point out that Resolution 20213040035125 from the Ministry of Transport prohibits charging users an amount exceeding the corresponding rate and establishes that additional charges cannot be agreed upon. They assert that the judiciary must decide on the appropriateness of the extra charges and their compliance with existing regulations.
Flypass processes approximately four million transactions monthly nationwide and is present at all tolls within the Colpass network. The plaintiffs have described the additional charge as a “nickel-and-dime charge,” an amount that, while it may seem low individually, escalates when multiplied by millions of transactions.
Regarding the $220 charge, Flypass classifies it as “cost for direct debit via payment method for toll use” on its platform, appearing in both payment modalities, immediate and postpaid. However, the company has also noted that there is a discrepancy between what is advertised and what is actually deducted from users.
The president of F2X, Juan Manuel Vicente, acknowledged in an interview that 19 of the 20 plaintiffs were indeed users of Flypass and that they detected flaws in the system that affected some users when changing plans. These inconsistencies led to erroneous charges, affecting 312 users with a total additional amount of $675,000. Despite the errors, F2X claims that adjustments have already been made in the system and that the issue has been resolved.
The case could have broader implications if the judge determines that the $220 charge is improper, which could result in reparations to more users in the future. So far, there is no judicial decision ordering the refund of this amount, and the legality of these charges is under review.
Source: www.infobae.com
