Parking fine in RingGo car park

mikey72

It's entirely your call. No one can tell you what to do. There's pro's and con's for both. But the main thing in life, is to know which battles to fight. And to fight the ones you can win.
If you want further advice, pepipoo is a good place.

Kite2010

The Uni didn't suffer a loss by you not paying at the time of arrival, as you did pay, abit late, but on the same day, then they don't have a leg to stand on as they suffered nil loss.

They already would have the address from your permit (I'm assume) so it's not like they can claim the £2.50 DVLA fee. All they could claim is the cost of some postage

Stephen_Leak

Kite2010 wrote: »

The Uni suffered a loss by you not paying at the time of arrival, as long as you kept your receipt that you paid on the same day, then they don't have a leg to stand on as they suffered nil loss.

I think you might have made a typo'. They suffered no loss as a result of the OP's delayed payment.

If the OP still has a record of the payment, then that's very useful. If they hasn't, then it isn't a showstopper. It's up to the university to prove that he didn't pay. Their system should show the payment.

From the T&Cs, they've shot themselves in the foot over delayed payments by not specifying any time limit.

And the bottom line is the fact that a university isn't a local council, a police force, a train operator or Transport for London (© IOC. All rights reserved).

Kite2010

Your right, I shall edit that now

taffy056

marks87 wrote: »

In my situation, it's not about whether or not owing the Uni money can prevent graduation, it's about whether or not I owe the uni money in the first place.

Of course you don't owe them money, you should ignore all demands for money off them short of a claim from mcol . Also looking at the app on the iPhone lots of reviews about it crashing constantly, so I suppose android will be the same. It's their fault for having an unstable system

mikey72

Kite2010 wrote: »

The Uni suffered a loss by you not paying at the time of arrival, as long as you kept your receipt that you paid on the same day, then they don't have a leg to stand on as they suffered nil loss.

It depends on how you interpret it.
There was a discussion on here recently over tailgating out of car parks
The agreement was it was either fraud, or theft, as the tailgater was trying to avoid paying for the service provided.
So, the argument could be if you do try to avoid it, (not saying the op did), when caught, why should it be acceptable just to pay the initial fee?
By that, any shoplifter could just pay for the goods when they were caught, and sent on their way.

So, as the uni would have had a clear, signed agreement, with pre agreed fees, and charges, does it seem reasonable that it could all be discharged by just paying the initial fee, after a ticket had been issued.
In this case, a contract has been formed, and both parties have agreed to it.
Certainly, the advice on cag, is not to ignore it.

marks87

Stephen_Leak wrote: »

If the OP still has a record of his payment, then that's good, but it isn't vital. It's up to them to prove that he didn't pay. Which they can't, because their system should show the payment. (Unless they're mad enough to lie and/or falsify the data.)

I get a text message confirmation when I pay, which I've not deleted.

mikey72 wrote: »

It depends on how you interpret it.
There was a discussion on here recently over tailgating out of car parks
The agreement was it was either fraud, or theft, as the tailgater was trying to avoid paying for the service provided.
So, the argument could be if you do try to avoid it, (not saying the op did), when caught, why should it be acceptable just to pay the initial fee?
By that, any shoplifter could just pay for the goods when they were caught, and sent on their way.

So, as the uni would have had a clear, signed agreement, with pre agreed fees, and charges, does it seem reasonable that it could all be discharged by just paying the initial fee, after a ticket had been issued.
In this case, a contract has been formed, and both parties have agreed to it.
Certainly, the advice on pepipoo, is not to ignore it.

I do understand the point about only paying once you're caught, but my view is that either the regulations or the method of imposing fines needs changing.

If they wish to use "patrol+ticket" enforcement, they need to update the regulations to, in order to avoid all ambiguity, impose a time limit on paying (I think it's unreasonable to strictly require people to pay before they "walk away from" their cars, not least because phone signal can be patchy at times).

Alternatively, they should switch to a system of enforcement where the car parks are still patrolled and number plates are still scanned, but tickets are issued via the internal mail system (the car parks are open only to staff and PhD students, so everyone with a permit has an internal address) only if no payment has been made at all during the day for the appropriate duration.

Anyway, I'll see what response I get next week. If it's "sorry, but...", I'll make a proper, written representation based on the ambiguous wording of the regulations, which I think is stronger than the technical problems side because in theory I still could have paid by text.

The worst that can come of that is that I still have to pay half the fine (the "grace" period is extended if an appeal is made).

taffy056

Can you tell me how the contract has been formed ? Did the OP sign specific documents in regards to parking ? It is argued that the terms and conditions are unfair contract, and the fee allegedly owed a penalty. The loss is the only thing that can be claimed, the uni will have an awful lot to explain how they lost £60 in 10 minutes.

The money is not owed , there is no debt and there will be no withholding of anything from the uni

mikey72

marks87 wrote: »

I get a text message confirmation when I pay, which I've not deleted.


I do understand the point about only paying once you're caught, but my view is that either the regulations or the method of imposing fines needs changing.

If they wish to use "patrol+ticket" enforcement, they need to update the regulations to, in order to avoid all ambiguity, impose a time limit on paying (I think it's unreasonable to strictly require people to pay before they "walk away from" their cars, not least because phone signal can be patchy at times).

Alternatively, they should switch to a system of enforcement where the car parks are still patrolled and number plates are still scanned, but tickets are issued via the internal mail system (the car parks are open only to staff and PhD students, so everyone with a permit has an internal address) only if no payment has been made at all during the day for the appropriate duration.

Anyway, I'll see what response I get next week. If it's "sorry, but...", I'll make a proper, written representation based on the ambiguous wording of the regulations, which I think is stronger than the technical problems side because in theory I still could have paid by text.

The worst that can come of that is that I still have to pay half the fine (the "grace" period is extended if an appeal is made).

Good luck, hope it goes ok for you.

mikey72

taffy056 wrote: »

Did the OP sign specific documents in regards to parking ?

Yes .