DART Charge after car sold and refund requested

muppet1901

Earlier this year I made a one-off payment of £5 to cover two DART crossings.  Unfortunately before I got to the crossing my car died and it had to be recovered back home.  I notified DART immediately and then later requested a refund because the car had been sold.  I jumped through every hoop they demanded including proof that car had been sold, but over two months after my request (and no refund) they refunded £2.50 but said that the other £2.50 has been offset against a crossing.  But it definitely wasn't me. 

Initially they said they couldn't give me any details of the alleged crossing because I had told them I wasn't the driver.  In addition they are now also saying that it doesn't matter that I wasn't the owner and the charge stands.  They are preventing me from putting forward a defence - I am sure that the crossing they have charged me for was after I told them the car had been sold but I stand no chance of proving it.  They hold all the cards.  It's not the £2.50, it's the principle.  I don't want to even think how much money they make from people letting these things go.

Any suggestions out there?  Please don't just tell me to write it down to experience.

Aylesbury_Duck

muppet1901 said:

Earlier this year I made a one-off payment of £5 to cover two DART crossings.  Unfortunately before I got to the crossing my car died and it had to be recovered back home.  I notified DART immediately and then later requested a refund because the car had been sold.  I jumped through every hoop they demanded including proof that car had been sold, but over two months after my request (and no refund) they refunded £2.50 but said that the other £2.50 has been offset against a crossing.  But it definitely wasn't me. 

Initially they said they couldn't give me any details of the alleged crossing because I had told them I wasn't the driver.  In addition they are now also saying that it doesn't matter that I wasn't the owner and the charge stands.  They are preventing me from putting forward a defence - I am sure that the crossing they have charged me for was after I told them the car had been sold but I stand no chance of proving it.  They hold all the cards.  It's not the £2.50, it's the principle.  I don't want to even think how much money they make from people letting these things go.

Any suggestions out there?  Please don't just tell me to write it down to experience.

Well, for £2.50 (or £5 if you're sure the car didn't make even one crossing whilst registered to you) the sensible thing is to let it go, but seeing as you're prepared to spend time on a principle, simply refuse to pay until they have provided evidence of the date for which the charge is due.  Then, when presumably that date falls after the date for which you have evidence of no longer being the registered owner of the vehicle, you have genuine grounds for refusal.

cx6

It is likely that 'telling them when the car was sold' will not be not good enough - they will most likely be relying on the DVLA 'registered keeper' update date.

Your route is therefore:

1. contact DVLA to find out what date they hold

2. follow whatever procedure they have to change it to the correct date

3. re-contact Dartford with this new evidence

baza52

its only £2 for a car if paid up front. Crossed it 4 times today. (2 journeys)

muppet1901

Aylesbury_Duck said:

muppet1901 said:

Earlier this year I made a one-off payment of £5 to cover two DART crossings.  Unfortunately before I got to the crossing my car died and it had to be recovered back home.  I notified DART immediately and then later requested a refund because the car had been sold.  I jumped through every hoop they demanded including proof that car had been sold, but over two months after my request (and no refund) they refunded £2.50 but said that the other £2.50 has been offset against a crossing.  But it definitely wasn't me. 

Initially they said they couldn't give me any details of the alleged crossing because I had told them I wasn't the driver.  In addition they are now also saying that it doesn't matter that I wasn't the owner and the charge stands.  They are preventing me from putting forward a defence - I am sure that the crossing they have charged me for was after I told them the car had been sold but I stand no chance of proving it.  They hold all the cards.  It's not the £2.50, it's the principle.  I don't want to even think how much money they make from people letting these things go.

Any suggestions out there?  Please don't just tell me to write it down to experience.

Well, for £2.50 (or £5 if you're sure the car didn't make even one crossing whilst registered to you) the sensible thing is to let it go, but seeing as you're prepared to spend time on a principle, simply refuse to pay until they have provided evidence of the date for which the charge is due.  Then, when presumably that date falls after the date for which you have evidence of no longer being the registered owner of the vehicle, you have genuine grounds for refusal.

I paid £5 up-front for 2 crossings and made none - that's the whole point.  They have refunded £2.50, but they won't tell me the date of the crossing they say the car made, so I can't argue that it's not my crossing.

user1977

Letter before action and then a small claim for £2.50...

muppet1901

cx6 said:

It is likely that 'telling them when the car was sold' will not be not good enough - they will most likely be relying on the DVLA 'registered keeper' update date.

Your route is therefore:

1. contact DVLA to find out what date they hold

2. follow whatever procedure they have to change it to the correct date

3. re-contact Dartford with this new evidence

I provided them with exactly the document they asked for which had the selling date on it.  They haven't raised this as an issue.  Yet.

JJ_Egan

DVLA are rather slow updating vehicle details at present .

muppet1901

baza52 said:

its only £2 for a car if paid up front. Crossed it 4 times today. (2 journeys)

It's only £2 if you have an account.  I don't use it very often so choose not to have an account.  

muppet1901

JJ_Egan said:

DVLA are rather slow updating vehicle details at present .

DART haven't said that the date the car was sold is the problem.  They just say they won't tell me when the crossing was and I have to pay for it even though I sold the car.  Their exact words are: "As you were not the driver, as you stated, we cannot discuss the crossing with you. Please note that you do not need to own a vehicle to choose to pay for its crossings, but doing so does not authorise you to discuss the details of its movements."

I didn't "choose" to pay for the crossing.  On the contrary, I have tried for 4 months NOT to pay for any crossings at all.

Aylesbury_Duck

It seems you're caught, then.  You've told them you weren't the driver, but as far as their records are concerned, you were the owner of the car at the time it made the crossing, so the debt is yours.  Unless and until the DVLA record is updated, I can't see a way forward.  Either pay it, or ignore it and deal with it if they elect to pursue it further.