ULEZ charges in error: more than two-thirds of mine are wrong!

Lotus17racer

Like a good boy, I signed up with TFL for automatic payment. I live outside the expanded ULEZ area and have to enter it (just) for childminding duties. They photograph me in my car and they charge me; simple. 

But no, my bank account has been plundered and, to date, about two-thirds of my payments have been for cars which are not mine! I certainly strongly recommend that people who have signed up like me for direct debits look very carefully at their TFL ULEZ account to see if you are being similarly affected. I cant believe that it is just me, but my 'private' plate (with four digits/letters) cannot help. It seems that any car whose last four numbers/letters are mine, i get charged for! No matter that they are different cars and that there are many letters/numbers preceding the last four!!!

It is not immediately clear how to view the photographic evidence in your account with TFL/ULEZ but it can be done so persevere. 

I claim the refunds and, to date, I have got them. But that's not the point. They are taking money when they shouldn't, others may not have checked, their cameras and systems should fit for purpose. And it's a pain receiving loads of cheques for £12.50.

Brie

why do they have to send you cheques?  can't they simply refund to your account?  (ok, yes it's a government thing so maybe they aren't being sensible....)

cymruchris

That's interesting - so if your plate is '1 ABC' - you're getting the tickets for HA51 ABC, T321 ABC, CD71 ABC etc?

Sounds like quite a flaw in the software. Aside from calling up about getting the wrong charges refunded - have they mentioned anything about what they might be doing to address the underlying issue?

KeithP

This post by @Fruitcake on the Parking Board may be of interest...
forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80370197/#Comment_80370197

Fruitcake

KeithP said:

This post by @Fruitcake on the Parking Board may be of interest...
forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80370197/#Comment_80370197

The photo showing the van's number plate has now been removed from the article (possibly because of a data protection issue ) so the problem is not as obvious to readers as it was when originally published.

One photo showed the first digit of the VRM obscured by the back of another vehicle, which by chance matched the full VRM of the victim's vehicle. The next image showed the full VRM of the van.

For example, the first image showed a partial number plate that began J20 ***, but the second image showed the missing character that now read MJ20 ***.

Lotus17racer

Brie said:

why do they have to send you cheques?  can't they simply refund to your account?  (ok, yes it's a government thing so maybe they aren't being sensible....)

That’s the least of my problems!!!!

Lotus17racer

cymruchris said:

That's interesting - so if your plate is '1 ABC' - you're getting the tickets for HA51 ABC, T321 ABC, CD71 ABC etc?

Sounds like quite a flaw in the software. Aside from calling up about getting the wrong charges refunded - have they mentioned anything about what they might be doing to address the underlying issue?

Yes, that is what’s happening to me. The camera  software sometimes notes and records on the photographic evidence (to use your first example) that the plate is 51ABC but still allocates the charge to my account of 1ABC. I don’t have funny number plates or anything: all very legal script and spacing and so on. 

I apply for the refunds on-line and of course don’t get any explanation whatsoever: just that my claim is accepted and a cheque will be out in the post. 

I can’t believe that lots of people are affected by this. 

Lotus17racer

KeithP said:

This post by @Fruitcake on the Parking Board may be of interest...
forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80370197/#Comment_80370197

Yes, it looks like a similar thing. I like dear old TFL’s spokesman’s comment on this article:

A spokesman for TfL said: 'We apologise for any distress this has caused to Mr Roberts. 

'This is a very rare occurrence, but unfortunately our Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras have misinterpreted the registrations on the other cars as Mr Roberts’ registration and incorrect charges were applied. 

Such arrogance but so often encountered when dealing with large powerful bodies to, in reality, don’t answer to anyone who cares. 

born_again

Part of the problem, are all the plates that are wrongly spaced or font, have a wrong colour screw to make a letter/number look like a different one. 

cymruchris

Lotus17racer said:

cymruchris said:

That's interesting - so if your plate is '1 ABC' - you're getting the tickets for HA51 ABC, T321 ABC, CD71 ABC etc?

Sounds like quite a flaw in the software. Aside from calling up about getting the wrong charges refunded - have they mentioned anything about what they might be doing to address the underlying issue?

Yes, that is what’s happening to me. The camera  software sometimes notes and records on the photographic evidence (to use your first example) that the plate is 51ABC but still allocates the charge to my account of 1ABC. I don’t have funny number plates or anything: all very legal script and spacing and so on. 

I apply for the refunds on-line and of course don’t get any explanation whatsoever: just that my claim is accepted and a cheque will be out in the post. 

I can’t believe that lots of people are affected by this. 

I do wonder whether these ANPR systems are properly programmed to deal with private number plates - it sounds like the software is analysing the image, and then only seeing a partial plate, and then doing some random matching to come up with yours. Definitely sounds wrong (and very frustrating for you.) Maybe you should 'tweet' (or is it 'x' now?) the mayor of London and let one of his team know that you keep receiving erroneous charges.

sheramber

Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras have misinterpreted the registrations on the other cars as Mr Roberts’ registration

Iy wasnea me, ma lud, it was the camera that did it.