Dart Charge Issues

Mannion

@ DUTR
Sorry about the drama,point taken. Its hard not to vent in these circumstances. I did pay and I can't move on because I have to pay twice and I was never informed about this. It really ISN'T that simple unfortunately although it should be. If you read my post that would have been clear. I should probably post a shorter version of events.

Mannion

@ Hermione Granger
You do realise that at no point have I disputed having to pay. I just made a minor almost irrelevant point that it could have been clearer. So even if I whole heartedly agree with your point it has no bearing on the main issue.
Also I joined at a junction where the crossing was less that 2 miles ahead so didn't see this one. My point that I couldn't turn around at this point is still valid. The signs were also obscured by large trucks for a large section of the crossing. the only signs anyone in my car noticed were after the crossing had already commenced.

Mannion

@ waamo Thankyou useful response much appreciated. (Surprising how easy it is to actually post something helpful)

Mannion

@ spiro No not securely (if you don't understand the technicalities of this then that's fair enough but nonetheless it is a fact) from an obscure resort in Turkey. The notice period is not reasonable when considering people flying.
Again this is one aspect of my case. i did pay and they deliberately didn't take the money. you seem a little quiet on that issue bias perhaps?

Mannion

@soolin fair enough you've got me there. It just shows that I don't know the area or the crossing and backs up th efact that I had no intent of making that crossing at the outset of my journey.

Incidentally, it is the Dartford crossing, not Dartmouth if you were crossing the Thames. Have you paid the right charge- although I don't know if Dartmouth has any charges that you might have paid instead.

I definitely paid the right charge as I followed the directions from the signs and googled dart charge as soon as I had secure access to the internet upon my return. I have since confirmed this online and over the phone. It is actually their policy to deliberately not take the payment after midnight the following day even when making an extended offer to pay. They expect you to pay twice in this circumstance even though they do not inform you of this fact at any point. They in effect penalise you for paying before the warning letter arrives.

Mannion

@Tarambor

You could have paid online using whatever free wifi you could find abroad with your mobile phone.

Some confusion here. My statement is in 2 parts. 1. I couldn't pay using any UK internet connection at my disposal prior to boarding. 2. There was no secure WiFi available at the resort where I was staying.

Obviously I had 5 minutes available the next day.

Mannion

@ Tarambour

The database works just fine. I've used it a few times since it has been live and never had an issue. I even paid for my son this summer when he had gone through it on his way to France - he just phoned me to say he'd been through it and asked if I could pay. I did that needing nothing more than the registration number of his car and I paid in advance for the return journey at the same time so he didn't have to remember to do it after a 15hr journey.

The database doesn't work just fine either by deliberate design or by sheer incompetence. I work in the industry and the failure is trivial and an obvious consideration when designing the functional requirements of such a system.
The scenario is as follows:
1. Payment received in advance of (extended) cut off date. Correctly linked to car reg. Not registered against crossing requiring payment.
2. Crossing registered as requiring a payment against car reg. Mo payment identified.

This scenario should never be able to exist. There are only 2 explanations.
i) Woefully incompetent design.
ii) Deliberately build into the design the inability to identify a payment that has already been made clearly with good intent and combine this with misleading the driver by not mentioning this fact in any correspondence or web interaction.

Mannion

@ DUTR

The OP wrote that he was going on a family holiday, so chances are there would have been a passenger with him, trouble with the post is that there are all sorts of reasons and excuses of why he couldn't shouldn't pay, sometimes people have to remember the world doesn't revolve around them and their episodes. The route to the airport, commute and timing should have been included into the holiday arrangements.

It is so obvious that you haven't read my post and you are just trying to score petty points. If you are going to post read what I have posted i.e. "I paid and always intended to pay and never actually complained about paying". Bearing this in mid your comment is 100% redundant.
You do know that I did actually pay and that I complied with the original warning letter to the the letter don't you? Despite this I'm getting charged and after being misled, potentially deliberately, I am possibly now going to be required to pay a much larger sum.

DUTR

Mannion wrote: »

@ DUTR
Sorry about the drama,point taken. Its hard not to vent in these circumstances. I did pay and I can't move on because I have to pay twice and I was never informed about this. It really ISN'T that simple unfortunately although it should be. If you read my post that would have been clear. I should probably post a shorter version of events.

You should have definately posted a shorter event!
As there is so much side tracking that it made it hard to read and remain interested, TBH I can't even remember if one of the kids were crying at the time, or if the iphone was fully charged.
What I'm saying is pound for pound it's cheaper in real terms to pay up and shut up, factoring all the time to fight the system doesn't really win anything, around here it's £40 a year for green waste collection for 10 months twice a month, however even at NLW the 5 mile round trip and the time queuing on a bank holiday, it's cheaper to pay the £2 per collection, do you see where I'm coming from?

k3lvc

DUTR wrote: »

You should have definately posted a shorter event!
As there is so much side tracking that it made it hard to read and remain interested, TBH I can't even remember if one of the kids were crying at the time, or if the iphone was fully charged.

I'd give up if I were you - I recalled the name from a previous post and OP has history :rotfl:

50m+ vehicles use the crossing every year yet a special payment system should be set up for those who happen to be flying out that day and are running late with no access to a secure network in order to pay within the given timescale