We had some questions on this issue that was dealt with last Sunday, which I passed on to Superintendent Peter Paul Zammit, Dip, BA, LP, who kindly supplied us with answers:

Q. If this service is illegal, how come the car accessories retailer is being allowed to offer this "illegal" service to the detriment of consumers?

A. This service is not illegal. What is illegal is fixing the tint without the necessary permit from the ADT.

Q. To what extent do the traffic officials have the right to tell drivers that it is not their business if the retailer is offering an illegal service?

A. Again, the service is not illegal, and currently the service provider is not required at law to ascertain that the relative permit exists. Obtaining the permit is the responsibility of the owner of the vehicle.

Q. To what extent are the police empowered to fine offenders if they had acted in good faith as they have been served with a service from a legalised establishment?

A. This offence is not one wherein good or bad faith neutralises or cancels the offence; good or bad faith is an issue wherein the adjudicator may impose a higher or lower penalty within the bracket allowed at law.

This is an offence of strict liability like illegal parking under a no parking sign which the owner of the vehicle did not see/or notice, or was not using the vehicle himself but it is one where at law there is a strict liability.

Q. Who is right and who is wrong? Is it the car owner, who has ended up paying for the service as well as paying the fines? What protection do our consumer laws offer to such bona fide car owners?

A. This is more your line, but personally I feel that it would be conducive to good service practice to notify consumers that a permit is required for such services being offered.

I thank Superintendent Zammit for his co-operation.