Pay By Phone as only option...legal? |
Pay By Phone as only option...legal? |
Tue, 9 Jun 2020 - 08:58
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 110 Joined: 17 Jul 2011 Member No.: 48,310 |
I appreciate that 'everyone' has a mobile phone nowadays, but is it legal/allowed for councils to not provide any means of paying for parking other than using a mobile??
If someone could point me in the direction of any further reading on this matter I would much appreciate... |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 9 Jun 2020 - 08:58
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 10 Jun 2020 - 11:16
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,397 Joined: 12 Jun 2008 From: West Sussex Member No.: 20,304 |
. . . . . Brighton used to do P&D vouchers - I think they stopped the scheme but I don't know why. Probably because nearly everyone has a phone or a debit card... If it's Brighton, it will only be because they found that they could rake in more cash by making it harder to pay for parking! I think they are getting worried about the movement to make more streets "car free" in the current climate as that'll cost them dear! |
|
|
Wed, 10 Jun 2020 - 11:21
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 64 Joined: 12 May 2020 Member No.: 108,664 |
Brighton used to do P&D vouchers - I think they stopped the scheme but I don't know why.
Shrewsbury used to as well, many years back, they reverted to cash P&D machines for on-street parking as it was cheaper. |
|
|
Wed, 10 Jun 2020 - 12:26
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,611 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Indirect discrimination on the grounds of age. Unless Deutsch, R (On the Application Of) v Hackney [2003] EWHC 2692 (Admin) has been overturned, that might be tricky. I didn’t suggest that it would succeed. However, without giving too much thought to it, a challenge against the order directly could be avoided by instead casting the challenge under the PSED. This post has been edited by southpaw82: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 - 12:31 -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Wed, 10 Jun 2020 - 15:24
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 898 Joined: 8 Aug 2006 Member No.: 7,035 |
My issue isn't with the Pay By Phone as such, but the additional charges that are incurred for doing so. I'm not paying another company 20p extra or whatever just so I can pay the parking fee. Maybe not such a problem in London with high parking charges anyway, but for other areas it can be a significant percentage of the cost.
|
|
|
Wed, 10 Jun 2020 - 15:42
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
My issue isn't with the Pay By Phone as such, but the additional charges that are incurred for doing so. I'm not paying another company 20p extra or whatever just so I can pay the parking fee. Maybe not such a problem in London with high parking charges anyway, but for other areas it can be a significant percentage of the cost. Someone has to pay the operator - either the motorist or ultimately the taxpayer. Not all councils add the fee. Ringgo says: What is the convenience fee charge? In some areas a convenience fee is charged when using the RingGo service. This is an additional charge which has been agreed between the Council or private parking operator and RingGo, usually at the time of service setup. The parking operator may have taken a decision to apply this fee for a number of reasons, relating to both cost and convenience. From the customer’s point of view, cashless parking allows you to extend your parking session without having to return to your vehicle and you can buy longer-term parking through RingGo which may not necessarily be available using the on-site payment machines. Some parking operators subsequently decide to waive the convenience fee as levels of takeup provide benefits from other savings such as reductions in cash collections and machine maintenance. We hope over time this trend will continue to spread. |
|
|
Wed, 10 Jun 2020 - 15:48
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,300 Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Member No.: 47,602 |
My issue isn't with the Pay By Phone as such, but the additional charges that are incurred for doing so. I'm not paying another company 20p extra or whatever just so I can pay the parking fee. Maybe not such a problem in London with high parking charges anyway, but for other areas it can be a significant percentage of the cost. It may be a significant percentage, but that's irrelevant. The absolute amount is the same, whether you're in London or John O'Groats, and 20p is a trivial sum. |
|
|
Wed, 10 Jun 2020 - 17:03
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I didn’t suggest that it would succeed. However, without giving too much thought to it, a challenge against the order directly could be avoided by instead casting the challenge under the PSED. As others have pointed out, you don't need to have a smartphone, simply a phone. The few people who don't have a mobile phone at all typically don't have a phone due to personal choice rather than anything else. If a disproportionate number of older people make a deliberate choice not to have a mobile phone, that's a choice they've made of their own free will so I don't think a discrimination claim would be made out. It would be quite different if parking were only possible, for example, with a smartphone with internet access. My issue isn't with the Pay By Phone as such, but the additional charges that are incurred for doing so. I'm not paying another company 20p extra or whatever just so I can pay the parking fee. Maybe not such a problem in London with high parking charges anyway, but for other areas it can be a significant percentage of the cost. So the council can charge £2 and ringo charges a 20p convenience fee, or the council can charge £2.20 and pay the 20p to ringo. You don't pay a separate cash handling fee, but the amount you put in a P&D machine includes the cost of emptying the machine. There is merit in saying that the fee should be the same for everyone, as eliminating the cash payment option also eliminated the cost of maintaining and emptying the machines, but this is a political rather than a legal point. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 10 Jun 2020 - 17:26
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 516 Joined: 27 Sep 2008 Member No.: 22,840 |
I expect a phone would fall under the definition of a "parking device". Thus making it legal to require payment by phone only. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/51
In my opinion, in many (if not most) cases the phone user charge is possibly unlawful because the TMO or TRO does not prescribe the charge. Section 46 RTRA 1984 requires parking charges to be prescribed. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/46 |
|
|
Wed, 10 Jun 2020 - 18:32
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
But the definition of "parking device" is "a card, disc, token, meter, permit, stamp or other similar device", I don't think a mobile phone would count as a "similar device".
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 10 Jun 2020 - 21:20
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 212 Joined: 9 Apr 2020 Member No.: 108,463 |
Where is the TRO?
Until you see that, pointless. |
|
|
Thu, 11 Jun 2020 - 22:33
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 516 Joined: 27 Sep 2008 Member No.: 22,840 |
But the definition of "parking device" is "a card, disc, token, meter, permit, stamp or other similar device", I don't think a mobile phone would count as a "similar device". it's the wording that follows "or other similar device" I think captures a phone and internet payments. "or other similar device, whether used in a vehicle or not, which, being used either by itself, or in conjunction with any such apparatus as is referred to in subsection (2)(d) above, indicates, or causes to be indicated, the payment of a charge, and— (a)the period in respect of which it has been paid and the time of the beginning or end of the period; or (b)whether or not the period for which it has been paid or any further period has elapsed; or the period for which the vehicle in relation to which the parking device is used is permitted to park in the parking place, and the time of the beginning or end of the period; or (d)whether or not the period for which the vehicle in relation to which the parking device is used is permitted to park in the parking place or any further period has elapsed; or any other device of any such description as may from time to time be prescribed for the purposes of this section and section 52 below by order made by the Secretary of State. No adjudicator has (as far as I know) yet questioned the legitimacy of phone/internet payments. That does not make it cast iron though. It's always worth challenging. I do recall Chief adjudicator Sheppard questioning the legality of the user charge in a decision. I'll try and find it. |
|
|
Thu, 11 Jun 2020 - 22:37
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,611 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Ejusdem generis - I’m not sure a mobile phone is similar to the specific examples given.
-------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Thu, 11 Jun 2020 - 22:57
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 516 Joined: 27 Sep 2008 Member No.: 22,840 |
Ejusdem generis - I’m not sure a mobile phone is similar to the specific examples given. Perhaps not. So a challenge on the matter is worth a go. I found the Chief Adjudicator's decision. I got it ages ago from a former member called Bluedart. Word has reached me that he has since passed away. @CP5789 you might be able to make good use of it with your tenacity for hunting down wayward councils. Coming from a chief adjudicator it cannot be easily dismissed. This post has been edited by phantomcrusader: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 - 23:18 |
|
|
Fri, 12 Jun 2020 - 12:27
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 64 Joined: 12 May 2020 Member No.: 108,664 |
Quality
|
|
|
Mon, 15 Jun 2020 - 12:31
Post
#35
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Ejusdem generis - I’m not sure a mobile phone is similar to the specific examples given. Perhaps not. So a challenge on the matter is worth a go. I found the Chief Adjudicator's decision. I got it ages ago from a former member called Bluedart. Word has reached me that he has since passed away. @CP5789 you might be able to make good use of it with your tenacity for hunting down wayward councils. Coming from a chief adjudicator it cannot be easily dismissed. I think we can park the "parking device" debate, as a mobile phone isn't issued or withdrawn by the council. I will not argue a case I think has no merit or prospect of success. However, the very helpful decision you have posted gives a much better angle of attack: a huge number of councils charge an inconvenience fee and while the idea of challenging those charges as unlawful has been ventilated in the past, we've never really taken a council to task on this. We now have what should be regarded as a highly persuasive authority so we should 100% pursue this angle when it next comes up. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 17 Jul 2020 - 14:13
Post
#36
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 266 Joined: 8 Mar 2018 Member No.: 96,940 |
Late payment due to network signal
Just came across this thread, might've helped in an old (linked above) PCN! This post has been edited by hustler6969: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 - 14:14 |
|
|
Fri, 17 Jul 2020 - 16:18
Post
#37
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 898 Joined: 8 Aug 2006 Member No.: 7,035 |
Someone has to pay the operator - either the motorist or ultimately the taxpayer. Not all councils add the fee. Could it no be considered a surcharge? Charging more to pay via one method of payment? Also, why should it cost more, the council should be forced to absorb the cost, if they want to take payment that way, especially given the savings that they make from no paper tickets and filling / collecting the machines. Even the PPC's don't charge extra for payment by card on their machines even though they get charged. I would say that the council's should have their own app to make payment with, cutting out the middle man, but we've just seen with the Track and Trace app how useless the government can be with technology. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Saturday, 30th March 2024 - 01:50 |