http://www.rgj.com/news/stories/reno/952748865.html

[Fair Use: For Education and Research Only]

DMV computer glitch charges for 100 years in late fees

By Frank X. Mullen Jr. RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAl March 11th, 2000

Robert S. Challender of Reno took one look at the registration fees for his 1978 Datsun and told Department of Motor Vehicles employees that he refused to pay.

The DMV clerks agreed with him. The registration bill was for $378,426.25, an amount that included about $260,000 in late fees and penalties.

OK, so I didnt get my mail-in registration and I was a month late in getting to the DMV and I expected a late charge, Challender said.

But I thought the bill was a bit steep. I told them to take me to jail if they had to. I wasnt paying.

The shocked clerks at the Galletti Way office called supervisors over to the agencys Genesis computer terminal. The employees marveled at the amount and tried to fix it, but the computer kept reverting back to the outrageous total.

This is the second case where weve had this happen, said Kim Evans, DMV spokeswoman. When we converted the old data to the new computer system something apparently happened in at least those two files.

She said Challender was apparently billed for late charges accrued since 1900, when there was no DMV and no automobiles except for some experimental horse-less carriages.

When the clerks couldnt change the computer screen, they adopted a low-tech solution. They charged Challender the same $60 fee he paid last year and renewed his registration.

They were very nice, he said. They even waived the late fee for the month I really was late.

Evans said the billing problem appears to be rare and isnt a Y2K program glitch. On Jan. 1, some computer users feared their machines would mistake 2000 for 1900.

We hope we dont see that again, she said. Billing for 100 years of late fees is kind of shocking.

========================================

-- (Dee360Degree@aol.com), March 11, 2000

Answers

Saying that the computer charged for late charges "since 1900" and then saying that this isn't y2k is very, very absurd.

-- Bud Hamilton (budham@hotmail.com), March 16, 2000.