Dart Charge system wasn't working but they won't accept my friends evidence

somethingabstract

My friend received a penalty from Dart Charge, but it was expected.

The website wasn't working for some reason.  They also tried phoning but the system also wasn't working.  Knowing they would get a fine they screenshotted both the website not working and the phone call log of 2 minutes and 43 seconds.  

Dart Charge have rejected the appeal stating:

We're sorry that this error occurred.  We've carried out a full investigation and have found that our website was available and there were no known problems around the time you attempted to pay.  We do not accept you were unable to pay, however, because alternative methods of payment are available, including our contact centre and Payzone retail outlets.Payment for a crossing can be made up to a year in advance or by midnight the day after travel.  

Surely a fair approach would be to ask for payment for the crossing not fine my friend £105 when my friend made an attempt to pay using 2 different methods of payment.  

Neither of us know what a retail Payzone is and were unaware that this was an option.  At what point does a system fault become the onus of the provider of the service?  

Why has this country become such a huge problem when people appeal on very reasonable grounds things are just rejected.  Ever since systems became automated the humanity has been completely lost.  Is there anything that can be done?

LDast

You could try taking your questions over to the Free Traffic Legal Advice forum at https://ftla.uk where they have a forum dedicated to council and authority issued charges. We tend to specialise in Parking Charge Notices from unregulated private parking companies.

somethingabstract

It's ok my friend phoned them and it was a £2.50 charge.   The appeal did state that it was rejected and further appeal could cost £105 in bold writing but when calling it was just £2.50.  Humanity is not lost, just an unclear letter.

tacpot12

I agree that it has become a problem to make appeals on reasonable grounds. I've had cause to do so , and have met with mixed success. If your friend has a screenshot to show that the website was down, it seems perverse that the appeal was rejected for that reason, but actually they are not saying that it was rejected for that reason, but for another reason, i.e. there were other means to pay. If you were to post the screenshot into this thread, I think someone would be able to confirm that it was a service problem rather than something at your friend's end of the connection. 

A call log entry doesn't really prove that the phone system was down; your friend could have just ended the call; deliberately or accidentally. I would have expected to see your friend retry again a couple of times. 

Ultimately, I think that such services can make it the user's responsiblity to pay for the service, providing there are reasonable means and time to do so. 

The option to use a Payzone outlet is shown on static pages on the GOV.UK website, so would not be affected by the Dart Charge payment system being down.

The Dart Charge appeals team will be targeted with recovering as much fees and fines as they can, so they are going to err towards decisions that are in their favour, unless there is clear evidence that shows an appeal should be allowed. It's up to the appellant to provide that evidence. I think your friend didn't quite do enough to try to pay the charge in time. They had at least 24 hours to make a payment and knew that they needed to do so. 

somethingabstract

My friend called a few times.  The phone system wasn't down, it's just after there was a press 1 press 2.  At one stage it just froze and the call was blank for 2 minutes or more.  It happened repeatedly.  There's no real easy way to confirm that as you can't record a phone call when using the mic for the phone call.  In any case, it was £2.50 in the end so not worth the time to complain.  But I dare say it's worth WAY more than £2.50 to them.  Plenty of people must have paid the fine out of fear of further punishment, and that is just plain illegal.

You're right Payzone was a possiblity.  I still don't know what that is but I'll remember it if me of my friends ever get in this situation in the future.  But I would suggest there's got to be a reasonable amount of effort you're expected to put in.  Trying to pay multiple times using two out of three methods is surely a good effort.  Driving to whatever these payzones are has a cost associated with it both time and petrol.  It's not reasonable to expect that.