City of Westminster* and PayByPhone

*This blog will also apply in part to other enforcement authorities.

The sign at the heart of the PCN.

The motorist, 'J', tried to pay by phoning and texting.

He didn't get anywhere and, of course, received a PCN for not paying.

Mr Mustard tested the explanation, texted the number and got an unhelpful response.

If a sign offer the ability to pay by text message the enforcement authority must make sure that it works. Equally, if they offer the ability to pay by phoning a contact centre that must also work and for the same hours as for which payment is expected.

 

Mr Mustard made the representations which included both lots of phone records above.

The good news is that the PCN was cancelled. The bad news is that what was written in response made no sense.

There are seven short paragraphs, imagine they are numbered from 1 to 7.

 

1    A polite introduction. 

2    A pointless sentence.

3    Undisputed so a waste of time.

4    No it wasn't, where did they get this from? 'J' knew where he was as he was in front of the sign. Mr Mustard knew the location in question and put it in his text.

5    Good to use goodwill but offered on a false basis, Westminster's system was at fault. Mr Mustard has tried it again just now, he gets the same message pushing him to the App. Shut up about precedents and fix your system please Westminster.

6    No session was paid for so this is irrelevant standard text and the motorist knew the correct number in any event. No mention of how you get a refund for the unwanted session.

7    Nothing about the responsibility of the City of Westminster to provide systems that work.

Should you end up with a PCN at London Tribunals an adjudicator might take the view that given the App isn't shown on the sign it doesn't matter if it goes wrong as you shouldn't be using it in any event (notwithstanding that it is probably the method used about 90% of the time). 

Mr Mustard would be arguing that neither the phone number nor text messaging works and based upon those being the only methods stated on the sign nothing else is of any relevance. Doubtless the City of Westminster will claim that you should have parked somewhere else but given that they control the whole of Westminster the same flaws would apply and so the suggestion is ridiculous.

Please do let Me Mustard know in the comments section if you do manage to pay in Westminster by either phoning up or texting.

The end.

Engineering payment failure

This is the sign that tells you how to pay by text within the London Borough of Barnet.

Some people still use text as they do not have a touch screen phone and even some that do have one still like to use text.

Having done exactly what you are told this is the message you get back.

The council have a duty to adequately sign the restrictions in place at each location which previously was standard signs with arrows pointing to meters i.e. not only the times have to be stated but also where to pay. If the council insist that you pay by phone they must give you the correct information with which to do so. Has no-one thought to update the signs?

Does the council have the right to waste your time & possibly money texting an out of date number? It wouldn't be procedurally fair but that is where we are.

If you get a PCN because your text payment went wrong, this may give you grounds of escape.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Barnet - the council that likes to say 'No'

Yesterday, Mr Mustard received the below rejection of an informal challenge (an informal challenge is one made in response to a PCN served on street or in a car park).

Mr Mustard didn't provide any evidence? How odd, as here is the challenge he sent in.

That seems pretty conclusive evidence to Mr Mustard, the supplier of the PayByPhone service says there was a problem with texting that day. The council are unable to corroborate this statement, perhaps because they haven't tried to? or maybe they just don't want to as then they would have to think seriously about cancelling the PCN. It makes Mr Mustard wonder about all the times that the council say that there were no reported problems with the PayByPhone system, that might be because there is no system to report such problems to the council from their supplier.

Here is an extract of the tribunal decision on which Mr Mustard will claim the persuasive support (as it doesn't set a binding precedent).

Mr Mustard's client's payment went through 2 days later, which is why she doesn't show as having paid on the day in question. Mr Mustard doesn't think it reasonable that Barnet Council expect her to have waited in her car until she got the confirmatory text.

What peevs Mr Mustard is that the council can write such blatant rubbish in response to clear, evidenced arguments. Barnet Council have a general duty at law to be procedurally fair and Mr Mustard can't see how they have been in this case. Had his client been representing herself she might easily have accepted the council's opinion as gospel and paid up the 50% to avoid going to the tribunal, writing two further challenges and then attending at the Chancery Lane hearing centre. Mr Mustard has a block booking at the adjudication centre so one more case (on top of the 7 he has on his next appearance) is no big deal.

Mr Mustard suspects however, that this case won't be going anywhere near an adjudicator as his next email is to the parking manager with a complaint that his representations are not being properly considered, they are being rejected for nonsensical reasons. Mr Mustard doesn't think he will be amused at yet another trashing of the council's image. The rejection was probably written by an employee of NSL but at the behest of a council 'officer' (staff member).

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard


Update: 12 June 17

Well that didn't take long. If you complain to the correct person, the parking Manager (poor lad), and have a point, he sorts it out fast.

Oops, there is a contact with NSL Ltd not NSL Services Ltd; service was certainly missing!

Pay by text - delays

Slow text!

This tribunal decision, number 2160435402, which you can download from here could help anyone else whose text requests to pay were dealt with very slowly by PayByPhone.

The appellant attended the hearing. He reiterated the points made in his representations and Notice of Appeal.

The appellant accepts that at the time the Penalty Charge Notice was issued payment had not been taken from his card by the pay by phone system although he claims he had done all that was required of him to make the payment.

The issue is that although he claims he sent a text messages to make the payments to park for a full day in the car park, the pay by phone system did not process the payments until sometime later in the day.

He produced his mobile phone showing the relevant text messages sent by him to the pay by phone service. He had not retained the responses to the messages on his phone but had a photocopy of a screen print of the responses. In addition he produced a copy of the statement from the mobile phone company. The phone is a company phone so it includes details of other phone numbers including the appellant’s number.

The appellant explained he regularly uses the car park to park his car. On the 31 May 2016 he sent the first text message at 7:40. Usually he would receive a response immediately from the pay by phone system confirming the parking but on this occasion he did not receive a response so he sent a second message at 7:40 but he received no response. So he waited until 8:57 when he reached work and still having had no response to the earlier two text messages, he sent a third text message. He claims these were not processed until later in the day at 17:24 when he received responses to all three messages.

I accept having examined the appellant’s mobile phone and compared the text messages sent with those recorded on the mobile phone statement that the appellant sent the messages at the times he claimed he had sent the messages.

The copy responses to the text messages produced by the appellant match the times and detail of the responses shown on the Verrus pay by phone system.

However, the record of the times the appellant requested the parking produced by the Verrus pay by phone system is at odds with the times the messages were sent as shown on the appellant’s phone.

The appellant has raised an issue with the adequacy of the pay by phone system and the onus is on the Authority to satisfy me that on the 31 May 2016 there was no fault with the pay by phone system.

I note that there is a statement on the record produced by Verrus pay by phone that there was no down time on the 31/05/2016. Having examined the text messages on the phone and the Verrus pay by phone record, I find that there was a problem with the pay by phone system which resulted in a delay in the messages being recorded by the pay by phone system. There may not have been any down time on the system but it is likely that there was a delay.

The record produced by Verrus pay by phone shows the appellant made two payments within the same second at 17:24:01 and a third payment at 17:24:55. It is highly unlikely that a motorist would be able to send two text messages within the same second. It also seems odd that the payment which was allocated to the following day the 01/06/2016 was taken 4 seconds earlier at 17:25:13 than the first payment made for the date of parking (31/05/2016) which was taken at 17:24:17. The fact that the payments were not attributed in a chronological manner throws doubt on the reliability of the records produced.

Just as there is an obligation on the Authority to maintain road signs and markings there is also an obligation on the Authority to maintain the pay by phone system.

In this case I find the pay by phone system had failed on the 31/05/2016 so that there was a delay in the system recording payment. Accordingly, I allow the appeal.

---

Attitudes of adjudicators to staying with your vehicle until the transaction is concluded vary. One recent decision said it was the prudent choice and another said the whole point was you didn't need to as it is a mobile payment system after all. Being with the vehicle won't stop a traffic warden from giving the car a ticket so there is nothing much to be gained by staying. The council can check all your interactions with PayByPhone so simply demand they produce them at Appeal if you are sure they will help your case.

You should not suffer because a system that the council have imposed on you does not work efficiently.

It is also unreasonable behaviour by a council to seek to penalise a motorist (who probably parks and pays every working day) and was not trying a fast one on. No wonder the reputation of parking at Barnet Council is so poor when they act like shysters.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard