General Discussion

People

Olavs63
Sumanth123
Summer
Angelinamarie
DanG
Test2
Jwhitehead333
Michaelthomas7892
Happyharvey49
Hunters Lodge
727
48
majorp
majorp
11 Dec 2017 10:19

Has any reader of this site paid for a parking ticket by using the facility called Ringo?

If you have no change, you can ring a number provided on the ticket machine, give your details over the phone and when a CEO gets to your vehicle, he/she can type in your VRM and find out whether or not you have paid to park.

If for some reason you did not give ringo the correct info, you will get a parking ticket.

If you challenge that parking ticket, you will discover, (that is if you have not discovered it before) that you would have been over charged.

So how many of you have paid this way and did not know they had been over charged.

Just agree to this topic to give me some idea of how many of you have done this

leatash
leatash
11 Dec 2017 17:30

They charge a fee for the transaction 20p i believe, they used to make it clear during the booking that this fee was being charged i used to use it a lot but havent for about a year they were contracted to DCC so i presume they collected the payment for DCC and there fee is how they make money all fair and square i would say. I was certainly always aware that this fee was being charged and found it acceptable as they reminded you via text when your time was running out.

1 Agree
Diana Mond
Diana Mond
11 Dec 2017 18:56

Before I offer my assistance to majorp, could he please advise us of where he believes the overcharge lies. Then I’ll be able to tell him whether or not I may have been overcharged. I’ve used ‘Ringo’ only a couple of times, but regularly use the ‘PayByPhone’ iPhone app in Exeter. 

leatash
leatash
11 Dec 2017 19:38

They charge a fee of 20p and add it to the cost of parking so lets say 2 hrs is £2.40 ringo charge you £2.60 the extra covers the text you recieve telling you when your time is up and there fee for the transaction i personaly see no problem with it.

Diana Mond
Diana Mond
11 Dec 2017 20:06

Thanks for the info Leatash, but that’s not an overcharge because I’m made well aware of the costs, including the minor charges for any optional additional texts, as they’re all clearly identified when one signs up.  It can’t be that, so what does majorp mean by “overcharge”? If I’ve been overcharged then, as he requests, I’ll readily ‘Agree’ with his post

majorp
majorp
11 Dec 2017 21:08

You cannot ignore the law. It doesn't matter what info you are given to make you aware, it is not the law.

When you buy a parking ticket, you are charged according to the fees set out on the ticket machine, and that is reflected in the Traffic Regulation Order. So taking leatash example 2hrs for £2.40, thats it, they are not allowed to charge you any more, it is ultra vires if they do. If you have used ringo and they plant on you the surcharge +vat, that charge must be absorbed into the cost of the price of a ticket. Because you use another service to pay they are still not allowed to charge you anymore

There have been countless cases going as far back as 2008 and I was one where Teignbridge who were the acting on behalf of DCC, tried it on me, but as not many are really interested in what goes on out side of the box they are in, no one is interested until someone else brings it to their attention.

majorp
majorp
11 Dec 2017 21:15

And before anyone attempts to knock me down, read this.

Credit card surcharges lead to parking penalties being set aside – High Court rejects Camden Council’s judicial review

02 Mar 2011 | by Caroline Sweeney

R(Camden Council) v Parking Adjudicator [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin)

This was a test judicial review case brought by Camden Council to challenge various decisions of parking adjudicators who had allowed appeals against the payment of penalty charges during a period in which Camden claimed an additional 1.3% as an “administration fee” for payments by credit card. Camden accepted for the purposes of the proceedings that it had no right to recover the 1.3% “administration fee” but denied that the parking adjudicators had the power to disallow recovery of the penalty charge itself.

In some cases, parking adjudicators directed the Council to cancel the penalty charge on the statutory ground that in substance the penalty exceeded the prescribed amount. In other cases, adjudicators held that the inclusion of a statement requiring an extra 1.3% to be paid with credit card payments fell within the statutory ground of “procedural impropriety”, whether or not the recipient of the parking ticket tried to pay by credit card.

In addition, the test case explored (a) whether the obiter comments of another adjudicator who would additionally have allowed the appeal by way of a collateral challenge to an invalid administrative act would provide a good ground for appeal and (b) whether the cases would fall within the statutory ground “that the alleged contravention did not occur”. Extensive argument dealt with the scope of the powers of the parking adjudicators generally. This was the first case to consider the breadth of the power of the adjudicators to consider collateral challenges and the new statutory grounds for appeal under the Traffic Management Act 2004.

Mr Justice Burnett upheld the decisions of the parking adjudicator in each case and dismissed Camden’s application for judicial review of their decisions. Both of the statutory grounds relied upon were held to have been correctly applied by the adjudicators. In addition, the judgment has provided valuable guidance on the scope of the statutory grounds of appeal and the power to consider collateral challenges to the validity of administrative acts.

The Judge set aside a protective costs order which had not been requested by the Parking Adjudicator, but which had been made by the Judge who had granted permission to apply for judicial review in order to ensure that the court would have the benefit of detailed argument from the Parking Adjudicator at the hearing. However, following the final judgment, Mr Justice Burnett made an order that Camden should pay the Parking Adjudicator’s costs of the proceedings.

The press reported that Camden face a possible liability of £10 million in overpaid charges. Camden were granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Ian Rogers appeared for the Parking Adjudicator (instructed by the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service).

Ian Rogers is also appearing on behalf of the Parking Adjudicator (instructed by the Traffic Penalty Tribunal) as respondent to an appeal in the Court of Appeal on 11-12 July 2011 in the case of (R(Herron) v Parking Adjudicator).

1 Agree
Diana Mond
Diana Mond
11 Dec 2017 21:37

Oh dear. As I thought, no-one who uses ‘Ringo’ etc is being overcharged. Apart from in the paranoid heads of those who are too thick to understand the T&Cs that they willingly agreed to.  In which case, they really aren’t safe to be on the roads... 

 

leatash
leatash
11 Dec 2017 22:02

I use ringo only because it reminds me that my time to move is fast aproaching and 20p is a charge i am happy to pay does it matter if it's right or wrong not one jot i am happy to pay it for peace of mind all i can say is well done RINGO for a great service.

1 Agree
majorp
majorp
11 Dec 2017 22:10
Diana Mond
Diana Mond
11 Dec 2017 21:37

Oh dear. As I thought, no-one who uses ‘Ringo’ etc is being overcharged.

YOU wanna bet?

 

Diana Mond
Diana Mond
11 Dec 2017 22:31

Yet again majorp, you’re talking in riddles

 

All you have to do is, in your own words, explain how we’re being overcharged.

leatash
leatash
11 Dec 2017 23:25

majorp We may be being overcharged but for different reasons we eccept the charge i prefer to pay ringo rather than put money in the meter for two reasons one they remind me my time is running out and two i can do it from the comfort of my home ie if i am parked outside my home late at night i can pay for parking without getting out of bed the next morning and all for 20p

majorp
majorp
12 Dec 2017 09:30

Just a little excerpt from a latest decision from none other than the chief adjudicator.

Diana Mond is not so good at working out riddles, being spoon fed is the order of the day  it appears. And leatash has money to burn even if he thinks it is a good idea to get a reminder, which he should not have to pay for.

 

"6. Of course it was not until Mrs S arrived at the machine with the right change considering a £1 coin to be acceptable that she saw that it was not what she considered acceptable, but the County Council’s inability to keep up with the currency in use everywhere else in the land.

7. Devon County Council failed to provide adequate facilities that accept the legal tender of the realm so it may take longer for someone to pay using other methods. I find, given the circumstances that Mrs S paid as soon as reasonable.

8. I further find that the charge she paid exceeded the relevant amount given that service charges and VAT were taken from her account.

Caroline Sheppard

Chief Adjudicator

27/09/2017"

 

So Diana Mond, if you buy a ticket from a machine using legal tender for the time you require to park, why should you be charged more for the same time to park using another method to pay for it?

And why should leatash pay more for the same service just to get a reminder. It is a service provided by a LA and whether it is for an on street or off street parking bay, their charges are controlled by law, whether or not they have a third party to collect the money for them

Diana Mond
Diana Mond
12 Dec 2017 09:49

So the original question on this thread should be, “Have you ever been forced to use the Ringo service due to pay machines not being capable of accepting the new pound coin, and therefore unnecessarily had the pay the 20p “convenience fee”?  In any other circumstance, the customer chooses to pay the convenience fee. 

 

”PayByPhone” in Exeter charges a 10p convenience fee, which includes the text reminder. 

 

 

majorp
majorp
12 Dec 2017 12:20

As usual Dian Mond is talking absolute rubbishsurprise

1 Agree
Diana Mond
Diana Mond
12 Dec 2017 13:01

Would you like to expand on your abusive message? Which part of my post is what you call “rubbish”?

majorp
majorp
12 Dec 2017 13:42

You are trying to say that it doesn't matter how you pay, if you want to pay more than is relevant, that is ok.

Well let me tell you, the law does not allow the LA to take any more than that which is covered under a TRO, even if you wish to give more voluntarily.

You do alot of talking, how about you walking the walk and take Exeter city council to task for taking more than is legally allowed even though you do not mind them taking it.

Many others would not like someone to take more than is legally allowed

In one case I pasted in above the judge had this to say,"This was a test judicial review case brought by Camden Council to challenge various decisions of parking adjudicators who had allowed appeals against the payment of penalty charges during a period in which Camden claimed an additional 1.3% as an “administration fee” for payments by credit card. And you will notice, [for payments made by credit card]. So you did not give permission for them to take anything more than what was required, but they did take more and you accepted it. Money bags!

Diana Mond
Diana Mond
12 Dec 2017 16:53

You’re talking about a credit card fee for parking in London, I’m talking about a 10p “convenience fee” in Exeter. A fee I readily agree to because of the, erm, convenience that paying for parking this way brings me. 

 

I’m too busy in the real world to bother taking ECC to task for something so trivial. 

majorp
majorp
12 Dec 2017 18:29

Typical response from Diana Mond. Ignoring the law is not an option however convenient it is to you and others.

What would you expect if you did not buy a ticket to park one way or another? that is the latest question to you.

If the law allowed this charge (which it doesn't) then fine.

And it is not just London. In an excerpt that I gave you above, you will note DCC did it as well.

You may think it is trival and you are too busy. Funny that when you can find time to consistantly come out with rubbish on this site.

Lord Denning Master of the Rolls and now deceased once said when he himself was prosecuted for breaking the law over planning.

"Be you ever so high, the law is above you".

leatash
leatash
12 Dec 2017 19:02

We are not ignoring the Law it's just we cant be bothered with trivia a double yellow is 12 inch to long it matters not if you dont park on it, a non transferable ticket it matters not if you dont transfer it ,and a surcharge on Debit Cards again if it's acceptable to the customer no problem. You can spend your life fighting injustice and you will make gains and embarrass local authoroties from time to time but in the end there are bigger things to worry about like were should i go for new year Scotland or The Lake District.

2 Agrees
majorp
majorp
12 Dec 2017 19:19

Good for you. Your remarks have a selfish tone to them. Some peolpe can hardly afford a loaf of bread let alone pay more for something that the law does not allow. And here you are only deciding where you will go in the new year. There are many things that the government has placed a cap on. If you wish to go beyond that cap and pay more that is your choice and yours alone.

Diana Mond
Diana Mond
12 Dec 2017 19:44

Just think how many penny chews one could buy with that 10p that I willingly and knowingly parted with. 

 

Judging by by the lack of Agrees that you requested, it looks like you’re alone in thinking Ringo is Wrongo...

 

To answer your latest question, if I didn’t pay to park in a chargeable parking place, then I’d quite rightly expect to receive a parking ticket. Likewise if I were stupid enough to park on double yellow lines. 

 

@webmaster - are you on holiday or do you no longer exist? if you’re still there, when are you going to stamp down on @majorp  and his abusive posts?

2 Agrees
majorp
majorp
12 Dec 2017 19:58

Diana Mond. At long last you have admitted that if you break the law you may be punished. so why is it different to those LA's who break the law?

Diana Mond
Diana Mond
12 Dec 2017 20:53

Charging a 10p convenience fee isn’t breaking the law. If it was, then they should be punished - but not as heavily as stupid idiots who dump their cars on double yellow lines. I’ve never said that lawbreakers shouldn’t be punished. 

Diana Mond
Diana Mond
12 Dec 2017 20:54

@DawlishNews (the same person as @Webmaster) has also disappeared. 

leatash
leatash
13 Dec 2017 01:16

Holiday??

webmaster
webmaster
13 Dec 2017 11:04

@Diana Mond, no i'm not on holiday. Who is @majorp being abusive towards?

Diana Mond
Diana Mond
13 Dec 2017 11:17

There are a couple of examples on this thread alone. I don’t want him banned, just for him to be reminded of the expectations you’ve set for respectfulness between forum posters. Margaret Swift is another one who I believe could do with a reminder, but she may be above reproach. Thanks.  

elvis presley
elvis presley
13 Dec 2017 11:54

I think Mrs C has found Jesus.

2 Agrees
majorp
majorp
13 Dec 2017 12:20

Diana Mond, you are so silly with your remarks and it is shown by all to see.

You said,"To answer your latest question, if I didn’t pay to park in a chargeable parking place, then I’d quite rightly expect to receive a parking ticket. Likewise if I were stupid enough to park on double yellow lines. "

 

Now isn't that an admission that if you did break the law then you would quite rightly get a parking ticket. If you did not break the law, you would not get one. But you cannot get it into your head that by over charging by a LA (It is set out in the TRO of Devon County what they are permitted to charge) and regards a pcn, there is an upper and lower limit of how much they can charge for a PCN, that anymore than that is unlawful, irrispective of whether you like the service charge or not, and that is the law, it is not what I or you say.

 

And my original question is just as it should be and not what Diana Mond thinks it should be. By people not agreeing as I requested in my last para of the opening topic, it shows me that not many people that read this site/topic, use the ringo/paybyphone service. Only two have admitted they do you and leatash. Now what I find amazing is this, there are over a million potential car users in and around Exeter that use on and off street parking in Exeter (Not many can disagree with that statement). Now if you read this article:- https://www.theexeterdaily.co.uk/news/local-news/exeter-carparks-get-phone-technology You will find that ringo/paybphone, is not so popular as it is made out to be. You will also notice in the article that they remain silent about a charge levied to use the service. I visited two car parks in Exeter only this morning, took photos of all the information given on the machines, and you know what, there is nothing to tell anyone that they will be charged extra for using the ringo/paybyphone service. If every time you you used this service (because it suits you) you suddenly found that not only were they charging you to use the service but they had added on another charge which would go towards paying for the ticket machines, would you agree to that? You are still paying for the machines, because the cost of providing the machines are INCLUDED in the parking charge/PCNotice. And that is exactly what should be happening with the ringo/paybyphone service---- it should be included in the charge and not added on.

The law of the land is there to protect us all not just those that wish to cherry pick the the ones that suit them.

 

webmaster
webmaster
13 Dec 2017 13:31

@Diana Mond, are you sure it's not because you are deliberately winding these users up?

However, just to remind everyone that we have a no-name calling policy, so please stick to that, and also please be respectful to other users.

2 Agrees
leatash
leatash
13 Dec 2017 13:49

majorp we all understand what you are saying but when we use ringo we are made aware of the charge and right or wrong we dont care why because we cant be bothered to take photos measure lines surf the net to find fault with LA's i have better things to do in my retirement.  All folk have to do is follow the rules is it not easier to do as we are asked rather than spending time fighting the LA when one could be enjoying great scenery wonderful sunsets and sunrises there is more to life make the most of it as it doesn't last long. 

2 Agrees
flo
flo
13 Dec 2017 14:15

It sounds a better system than the old voice recognition one they had at the train station.  Can clearly remember shouting into the phone desperately trying to get it to recognise my registration whilst on the train with it leaving the station! For some reason it was convinced I had a blue Peugot when I didn't!

1 Agree
majorp
majorp
22 Jan 2018 20:52

In case anyone has missed it. https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/cards/2017/07/credit-debit-card-fees-to-be-banned.

 

Diana Mond
Diana Mond
22 Jan 2018 23:10

Irrelevant to the thread, but thanks for the reminder. 

Lynne
Lynne
23 Jan 2018 07:54
majorp
majorp
23 Jan 2018 09:33

As I have never used ringo or pay by phone, I wouldn't have a clue as to wether or not there is a charge on your card if you use that service. I believe there is, but those that use the service will know for certain and will be able to tell us.

Merlin228
Merlin228
23 Jan 2018 11:00

From a different side/angle I see in the paper that even paying by good old fashion cash in the carpark machines they don't give change and that Teignbridge council have raked in an extra £300,000 plus the other year through this "NO change" money grapping machines.

majorp
majorp
23 Jan 2018 16:34

Prices stated are misread most of the time. £5.99p is closer to £6 than it is to £5. Regarding the P&D Their pricing is deliberate as they know that not many people carry the correct change and they know that if you try to pay less, thet may still get you to a situation where they keep the change. I challenged this situation many years ago. Reply was, machines would need to be much bigger, be loaded with such change that they could deliver change etc,etc.

majorp
majorp
24 Jan 2018 11:36

Right from the horses mouth.

I have just found out the the 10p charged in Exeter for the use of ringo or pay by phone, is absorbed by Exeter City Council. So anyone that has found they have been charged 10p in any of Exeter City Council off street car parks when the have used the ringo or pay by phone service shouldn't have been. Someone has called it a "convenience fee", but that convenience is not chargeable to the customer who use it.

majorp
majorp
24 Jan 2018 14:54

Just noticed on a machine in a Teignbridge owned off street car park, that there is a 20p convenience charge. Anyone know why Teighbridge charge double what Exeter charges for the same service. And does anyone know whether or not, Teignbridge absorb the charge. 

Diana Mond
Diana Mond
24 Jan 2018 15:03

Exeter City Council don’t use Ringo. You’d better tell Shergar that. And tell him how much the convenience fee actually is...

Plod
Plod
24 Jan 2018 18:40

Neither Exeter council, Teignbridge council or any other council will absorb the convenience/service charge for those opting to pay by phone. It will be the general public that will ultimately absorb these charges, either through higher car parking charges or cuts in public services like care, schools, libraries etc. Personally I see no benefit in making the general public absorb the pay by phone service charges. Surely it is in the public interest for the pay by phone user to absorb the charges rather than they be absorbed by everyone paying higher car parking charges or suffering cuts in public services?

7 Agrees
majorp
majorp
25 Jan 2018 14:53

Once again plod is wrong., this is how it works. You go into a car park in the City of Exeter, you opt to pay by phone. The tarriff charge is £2 and that is all you pay, you do not pay a convenience charge for the service. The company that operates this service, will then invoice ECC for the number of people that used that service. If the tarriff is £2 then that is what will be shown on the ticket.

You are then presented with another choice and depending on which button you press, you will be charged for sending you a text message to notify you when your ticket is running out and anything else that pleases the likes of plod, diana mond, leatash etc.

Having said all that, it is the TRO that control things and not what it say's on the machines. So perhaps diana mond could have a look at the tro for ECC car parks and tell everyone what it say's about paying by phone.

The company that operates the paybyphone service has nothing to do with ECC. All ECC can do is to mke sure that what is happening is legal and by all accounts from my inside sorce - it is not.

When diana mond and plod get around to reading this thread, perhaps they would like to try and answer the question on how ANPR cameras can be used to enforce LA's P&D car parks which is in another thread. If like plod has stated that it is possible, then please tell everyone how it would be possible.

Plod
Plod
25 Jan 2018 16:31

I'd like to know how much your 100+  freedom of information requests has cost us taxpayers majorp.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/peter_harry

 

 

6 Agrees
Dil
Dil
25 Jan 2018 18:19

Exactly Plod, there should be an annual limit to the number of FOI requests an individual can have or there should be a small admin charge (I guess that wouldn't be allowed under a TRO or other some such!). There are whole industries being set up in local governments out of our tax monies in order to succomb to peoples rather irrational bee in bonnet hobbies. I'm not saying some FOI's may not be justified and benefit the wider population but really, this many on parking issues for which it seems on here that most people are ok with the situation albeit a bind at times, bottom line is you always have a choice, park there or park elsewhere, carry a bag of change in your car or overpay on your parking fee...choices

5 Agrees
majorp
majorp
25 Jan 2018 20:24

You silly people, if you want to know something, ASK!

Years ago when I had the privilege of working with a renowned Judge, before he became a judge. He told me and I have never forgotten it. YOU DO NOT ASK A QUESTION, UNLESS YOU ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER.

It has stood me in good stead and it has enabled me to put down many LA officers. Some have taken early retirement (with or without a golden handshake) some have been moved to other pastures. Andjust to let plod know, Gary Powell who once worked as the parking manager for DCC, is now the parking manager for Bournemouth.

You employ these officer's and from the remarks above, you have been employing the wrong one's and that is why it is costing tax payers money, not people like me.

I just love a level playing field, but it appears some do not care about it.

There will be more to comeshortly, which will show how local authorities have been robbing people that in many cases are struggling to make a living themselves.

If plod wishes to know what my freedom of information requests has cost, ASK THE RIGHT PEOPLE by putting in his own FOI request.

Diana Mond
Diana Mond
25 Jan 2018 22:41

Plod isn’t wrong. Just because you say that he/she is wrong, doesn’t mean that is so. Another lie from you. 

 

I don't get charged for texts that tell me that my parking period is almost complete. Another lie from you. 

 

Your question re ANPR has already been answered by Plod. Another lie from you. 

 

I fear for your mental health, as you’re clearly not all there. Therefore, after this post I will no longer be responding to your posts as I don’t want to feel responsible for any deterioration in your wellbeing. Like I’m sure that you feel about your part in Martin Dix’ demise. No doubt you’ll call that a victory, like you have about others earlier today. If only you knew what normal people really think about you...

 

 

And finally, why do you ask so many questions if you already know the answers?

4 Agrees
Comment Please sign in or sign up to post