How are RingGo still charging a credit card convenience fee?

jpf198

How can RingGo still charge a credit card surcharge now 20p per transaction calling it a Convenice fee?

Surely this is illegal after the The Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012?

They even confirm on their website it is "covers the convenience of cashless parking"... 

DullGreyGuy

jpf198 said:

How can RingGo still charge a credit card surcharge now 20p per transaction calling it a Convenice fee?

Surely this is illegal after the The Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012?

They even confirm on their website it is "covers the convenience of cashless parking"... 

It's not just on credit cards, it's on all methods of payments that they accept. There is no legal requirement for them to be able to accept cash payments and as an app inevitably it would be hard to give them a bunch of pound coins. 

KittenChops

jpf198 said:

How can RingGo still charge a credit card surcharge now 20p per transaction calling it a Convenice fee?

Surely this is illegal after the The Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012?

They even confirm on their website it is "covers the convenience of cashless parking"... 

I regularly use a council run car park - the signs say it costs £9 to park for 12 hours but you have to pay with the RingGo app - so it's actually £9.40, which includes 20p "convenience fee" & another 20p for a text message (which you can't opt out of)
I can't understand why there's no mention of the extra on the signs, when this is the only way you can pay...

jpf198

DullGreyGuy said:

jpf198 said:

How can RingGo still charge a credit card surcharge now 20p per transaction calling it a Convenice fee?

Surely this is illegal after the The Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012?

They even confirm on their website it is "covers the convenience of cashless parking"... 

It's not just on credit cards, it's on all methods of payments that they accept. There is no legal requirement for them to be able to accept cash payments and as an app inevitably it would be hard to give them a bunch of pound coins. 

But you can pay cash at the machine with a bunch of coins? 

DullGreyGuy

jpf198 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

jpf198 said:

How can RingGo still charge a credit card surcharge now 20p per transaction calling it a Convenice fee?

Surely this is illegal after the The Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012?

They even confirm on their website it is "covers the convenience of cashless parking"... 

It's not just on credit cards, it's on all methods of payments that they accept. There is no legal requirement for them to be able to accept cash payments and as an app inevitably it would be hard to give them a bunch of pound coins. 

But you can pay cash at the machine with a bunch of coins? 

Is the physical machine run by them? Haven't used a carpark in a long time buy back when we had a car the onsite machines weren't theirs so are effectively a different vendor 

elsien

jpf198 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

jpf198 said:

How can RingGo still charge a credit card surcharge now 20p per transaction calling it a Convenice fee?

Surely this is illegal after the The Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012?

They even confirm on their website it is "covers the convenience of cashless parking"... 

It's not just on credit cards, it's on all methods of payments that they accept. There is no legal requirement for them to be able to accept cash payments and as an app inevitably it would be hard to give them a bunch of pound coins. 

But you can pay cash at the machine with a bunch of coins? 

Not always you can’t. I’ve come across some more recent ones where cash has not been an option, 

Although RingGo do have a button to turn off the SMS expiry reminders so payment for those is not obligatory.

Beeblebr0x

In my opinion machines should have to accept bank cards.

doubledotcom

Why not challenge this surcharge through the CMA under the DMCC Act 2024?

The CMA is empowered to investigate potentially unfair commercial practices under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs), the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC Act) – recently enacted, strengthening consumer enforcement powers.

If the “convenience fee”:

• Is unavoidable because other payment options (e.g. cash/card machines) are withdrawn,

• Is not clearly advertised at the point of decision (i.e. signs not stating a surcharge applies), or

• Misleads consumers into believing it is optional when it is not,

then this may constitute:

• A misleading action or omission under the CPRs,

• An unfair contract term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, or

• A breach of fair trading obligations under the DMCC Act, especially regarding hidden fees or lack of transparency in digital transactions.

The DMCC Act, which received Royal Assent in May 2024, grants the CMA direct enforcement powers (without court involvement), the ability to impose significant fines for consumer law breaches and greater oversight of digital platforms and consumer charges.

Under the DMCC, a mandatory fee—added only during the app process, not mentioned clearly on signage or before download—could be seen as a drip pricing offence (a hidden charge revealed only after commitment), a lack of upfront transparency and an unfair commercial practice if consumers are misled about the total cost of parking.

Half_way

Beeblebr0x said:

In my opinion machines should have to accept bank cards.

I hate parking apps with a passion, particularly when a contactless payment option could, make that should be provided

Nellymoser

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/25151107.brighton-drivers-outraged-parking-charge-scandal/

Drivers in this article were also not aware of extra charges when using the app to pay for their parking. 

Coupon-mad

doubledotcom said:

Why not challenge this surcharge through the CMA under the DMCC Act 2024?

The CMA is empowered to investigate potentially unfair commercial practices under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs), the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC Act) – recently enacted, strengthening consumer enforcement powers.

If the “convenience fee”:

• Is unavoidable because other payment options (e.g. cash/card machines) are withdrawn,

• Is not clearly advertised at the point of decision (i.e. signs not stating a surcharge applies), or

• Misleads consumers into believing it is optional when it is not,

then this may constitute:

• A misleading action or omission under the CPRs,

• An unfair contract term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, or

• A breach of fair trading obligations under the DMCC Act, especially regarding hidden fees or lack of transparency in digital transactions.

The DMCC Act, which received Royal Assent in May 2024, grants the CMA direct enforcement powers (without court involvement), the ability to impose significant fines for consumer law breaches and greater oversight of digital platforms and consumer charges.

Under the DMCC, a mandatory fee—added only during the app process, not mentioned clearly on signage or before download—could be seen as a drip pricing offence (a hidden charge revealed only after commitment), a lack of upfront transparency and an unfair commercial practice if consumers are misled about the total cost of parking.

Definitely worth using the CMA's powers under the new Act.

Aside from that, here are the illegal payment Surcharges Regs explained & linked:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/payment-surcharges

Going back to the new ban on drip pricing, see the MSE article here:

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2025/04/fake-reviews-drip-pricing-cma-rules/

I suspect the unknown added (fake, inflated) DRA fees that aren't shown on signs in private car parks but are added to 'contractual parking charges' are something that the CMA may consider illegal now?

We are building 2025 signage evidence to add to the existing signage thread, and I'm specifically after new, ideally metadata dated photos that either show low PCN sums of £50-£70 or any PPC t&cs sign with no quantified £DRA fee sum in big, or at all:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81464782/#Comment_81464782

Please add more pics with metadata, everyone, everywhere! Get your phones out.

I will use that thread and will in June take it directly to the MHCLG to disprove the PPCs' rubbish that the DRA fee acts as a deterrent.

I will also ask the MHCLG to ensure that this specific issue is referred to the CMA for an opinion about whether hidden (false) DRA fees are:

- akin to drip pricing, and even if not:

- otherwise a misleading omission per the CPUTRs

and/or 

- unfair & disproportionate under the CRA 2015.

We already know from most PPC signage (and indeed, there's a clue in the APAs' £100 PCN cap) that the fake DRA 'fees' are SEPARATE ('extorting money from motorists' said the Tory Minister in the Code intro notes) and certainly aren't part of the 'parking related charges' that the driver faced on the day!

Thus, to demand more money than was on the contract (the sign) always has breached the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the POFA) Schedule 4, where paragraph 4(5) mandates:

"The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d)"

And Explanatory Note 221 says:

"The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued."

Not sure what else the MHCLG want than that (isn't a breach of the POFA's prescribed 'maximum sum' already enough?!) but the CMA's new DMCC Act clout looks very timely to me.

Am I the only one who is (in some ways)  pleased that PPC World got so greedy that they used money thrown at Judicial Reviews to kick the can down the road and delayed the Code until 2025 ... and now face the added hurdle of the CMA's new powers in the DMCC Act?

I feel their position on DRA fees is actually becoming hopeless.

If they'd accepted what the Tories first mooted in 2021 (when the MHCLG fell for the line that the added £70 was the 'industry norm' so "stick it on the signs and all will be OK" according to those civil servants in the 2021 consultation public Q&A) they'd have had it all set in stone by now.