Dart Charge Issues

baza52

Mannion wrote: »

I though the website is flawed because there was no option for someone to pay after the day to a day and a half deadline expires. For 2 whole weeks yes 14 out of 15 1/2 days? Anyone wanting to pay in that time has no direct option and yet that isn't clearly stated anywhere. Why clog the phones up when you have an automated web system?
.

The idea of phoning was meant tht you have phoned on the day to make a payment if you could not do it online. You failed to do this.
You are missing the point that you have until 12am the following day to pay, If you dont pay you will get a penalty charge.
You didnt pay....

Think of it like this.
You park in a carpark that says you have to pay to park there, you park and leave without paying but return over a week later and buy a ticket even though you dont use the carpark.
You then get a PCN for not paying when you parked but argue you bought a ticket a week later.

You cannot seriously say you never saw any signs or road markings. I live a couple of miles from the crossing and all the signposts you would have passed would display the dart charge sign clearly.

baza52

Mannion wrote: »

2. By the time we realised we were on the crossing in a grid lock situation with several large trucks around it would have been impossible to turn around and if I'm honest it would have certainly meant missing the flight anyway.
3.At this stage I had never heard of a non toll booth method of payment for road use. We did notice a few signs talking about paying the Dart Charge whatever that was by midnight the following night. I remarked about 3 things at this stage. a) That's pretty vague and a novel approach but we might be liable for this although its certainly not clear and it so easily could have been. b) There was no way even with the best will in the world we would be able to make that payment securely on time. c) We would certainly try and pay as soon as possible on our return and hopefully that would be sufficient even though we weren't 100% sure we were required to.
4. I paid immediately on our return on 23/08 and fully expecting some annoying legal communications had resigned myself to thinking we may have to pay some charge although I felt it extremely unjust. I received an email a receipt in a PDF and took a screenshot when I paid. At no stage was there any information suggesting that there was an issue with my payment or any further payments required.
5. A Warning Letter with a PCN arrived a few days later dated 25/08 this stated in bold font that if I paid the original fee by 08/09 the PCN would be waived. This was also confirmed on the PCN. I was pleasantly surprised.
6. I've recently received a Charge Certificate saying that no payment has been received and that no appeal has been made. I am now due to pay 105 pounds with threats of further charge escalations and legal costs.

so you noticed a few signs but thought you might not be liable? WHY
What did the first letter say about paying the charge? If its not giving the correct info on how to pay it then post a picture of it here.

baza52

ok here is a copy of what you will have received. As you had received the PCN you should have chosen the correct option online to pay it (with the crossing fee added)
Except you didnt pay the PCN you just ignored it didnt you.
Now you face a £105 fine because of your choice not to pay.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/428145/XXXXXXXX_Dart_Charge_PCN_Mar_15__1_.pdf

Misc2017

Marston (Holdings) Ltd (based in Epping) arrived at doorstep and intimidated my partner in my absence into paying £425 by debit card regarding an outstanding dart charge. They say correspondence was ignored. None has been received. They did not provided proof of previous correspondence or PCN number or crossing dates this fine of £425 relates to. Is this in fact legal to tell another they have to pay on behalf of the person who the supposed fine relates to? I have an account for Dartcharge with two vehicles registered and all crossings listed appear as paid. Anyone heard of such a situation using such awful methods with no proof. Seem to be getting away with this as appointed by Government to collect on behalf. Is there any way possible to appeal this? Why is more effort not spent by the Government pursuing illegal criminals who avoid this charge?

Mannion

@Misc2017
Don't expect much support on this particularthread ;0)
The one useful piece of advice that I received was to post on their Twitter feed. They are actually quite helpful. My charges were waived immediately. I would give that a go my friend.

This particular issue could have been resolved in a couple of posts and within 10 minutes. Unfortunately I have had to spend a while re explaining myself and pointing out assumptions. Low and behold we're now at 60+ replies that were mostly just white noise.

Hermione_Granger

Mannion wrote: »

@Misc2017
Don't expect much support on this particularthread ;0)

That's because people don't tend to support others who can't or won't acknowledge that because of their actions or inactions, they themselves were the main cause of the problem concerned.

For someone who is supposedly in IT themselves, you appear to have had a difficult job understanding clear instructions written on a website which stated that payments were only to be made for crossings made in the past day or for those in the future.

tho_2

I'm glad the advice of a "moron" helped you. You're welcome.

shaun_from_Africa

Mannion wrote: »

Low and behold we're now at 60+ replies that were mostly just white noise.

Is "white noise" I.T shorthand for "posts that don't say I'm correct and didn't do anything wrong"?

Gazdok

This thread could have made interesting reading if

a) some people had responded with real advice on how to deal with the initial problem and get rid of the fine
and

b) if it had not been for all these trolls with clever clogs remarks at best.

waamo

Gazdok wrote: »

This thread could have made interesting reading if

a) some people had responded with real advice on how to deal with the initial problem and get rid of the fine
and

b) if it had not been for all these trolls with clever clogs remarks at best.

Some people did give real advice. Looks like it was useful too.