The Observer - 25.08.2019

• The Observer
  60 25.08.19 Cash

Think you’ve paid the congestion

charge? It could still be a £160 fi ne

Despite solid evidence

that drivers have paid

the £11.50 fee online

i n adva nce, t hey a re

still receiving penalty

charge notices.

Anna Tims reports

S

tudent Liberty
Sprackling paid the
London Congestion
Charge online before
driving into the capital.
The £11.50 fee, levied
during peak hours on weekdays, was
debited from her account. Eight days
later, it was mysteriously refunded.
Sprackling contacted Transport
for London (TfL), the government
body responsible for the charge, and
was told she would have to wait until
she had received a penalty charge
notice (PCN) for non-payment and
then contest it.
She did so and, despite sending
confi rmation of the transaction pro-
vided by her bank, her challenge was
turned down and she was ordered to
pay an £80 fi ne, rising to the full £160
if not settled within 14 days.
On the same day she made the pay-
ment, the Observer reported the case
of another reader, Mahdi Koutizadeh ,
who also transferred the £11.50
online before driving into the conges-
tion zone. The transaction showed as
pending on his account for fi ve days,
then vanished. He, too, was told that
he must await a PCN then challenge
it. He sent a screenshot of the pend-
ing sum but TfL declared that he had
not provided “suffi cient evidence” of
payment and fi ned him.
Both drivers appear to have fallen
victim to a glitch with TfL’s payment
system which failed to collect the
sums after they had been authorised
by the banks. Worryingly, the Observer
has heard from fi ve other readers who
have suffered an identical experience.
Complaints website Resolver
reports a surge in similar cases. Not
only does TfL refuse to acknowledge
a problem, it continues to ignore evi-
dence from motorists showing that
they have paid up. Moreover, those
who heed its suggestion to appeal to
London Tribunals, the independent
adjudicator, face a £160 fi ne if they
lose, since the right to pay 50% only
applies within 14 days of receipt.
Ethan Gates was warned that his
fi ne would rise to £240 if he failed to
pay within 28 days. Like Sprackling
and Koutizadeh, he had paid the
charge on the day he drove into the
zone and after showing as pending
for 10 days the sum was refunded to
his account.
A letter from his bank confi rming
the transaction, and the fact that TfL
had failed to claim it, was ignored. “I
phoned to inquire what further infor-
mation I should ask for my bank to
provide, and the lady I spoke with was
incredibly rude. I’m feeling trapped

and forced into paying £80 I genu-

inely don’t believe I should have to

pay,” he says. “I’m really stuck and

don’t know what I should do.”

Koutizadeh’s fine was cancelled

after the Observer intervened. Only

then did TfL admit that it was clear he

had attempted to pay. It also agreed

to cancel Sprackling’s PCN when we

alerted it to the case.

Paul Cowperthwaite, general man-

ager of Road User Charging at TfL,

says: “We’re sorry we didn’t immedi-

ately cancel the penalty charge notice

when evidence of an attempt to pay

was provided. We have cancelled the

notice and will review how we handle

these rare issues. We’ve contacted Ms

Sprackling to let her know.”

In fact, no one did contact her and

the fi ne was only cancelled a month

later after further media pressure.

Motorists who query a missing or

failed payment with TfL fi nd them-

selves entering a realm of Orwellian

bureaucracy. The standard response

is that nothing can be done until a

PCN has been issued, at which point

they should use the in-house appeals

process to set the record straight.

When their challenge is dismissed

they are told their only recourse is

London Tribunals. Dismissal of these

appeals results in increased revenue

for TfL which, instead of an £11.50 fee,

benefi ts from a penalty of up to £240.

TfL insists that only a “very small”

number of drivers ha ve been affected

by the issue. “We’re sorry that incor-

rect penalty charge notices were not

immediately cancelled after evidence

of an attempt to pay was provided,”

Cowperthwaite adds. “ Clearly our

response hasn’t been right, so we’re

putting in measures to avoid this hap-

pening again.” The agency says it is

investigating each case we raised to

ensure lessons are learned.

The operation of London’s conges-

tion and low emission zone charges

was outsourced to Capita in 2015. It

had to pay TfL more than £20m in

compensation after botching an IT

upgrade the following year and TfL

is reportedly considering taking over

the administration itself when the

contract ends in 2021.

Capita denies that there is a prob-

lem with its technology. It says:

“Working with TfL, we have tested the

payments process and there is cur-

rently no indication this extremely

rare issue has been caused by a fault

in Capita’s platform. We continue to

work closely with TfL to ensure pay-

ments are processed smoothly.”

However, Martyn James of Resolver

says that customer feedback sug-

gests there is a problem and that

they are seeing a signifi cant increase

in complaints.

When paying the charge ensure you

receive confi rmation and take screen-

shots of your online bank balance so

you have evidence of the transaction.

And scammers can

get you, too

Drivers entering chargeable

congestion zones are being

scammed by websites

masquerading as offi cial payment

portals. Th e sites, which come

up fi rst on some online searches,

charge covert fees which can

double the price of the offi cial

charge and do not pass the

payment on to the relevant

authority, leaving drivers with a

penalty charge.

Sarah Weston inadvertently

used paylondoncharge.co.uk when

she entered London’s ultra-low

emissions zone. An emailed receipt

confi rmed the transaction, but two

weeks later she received a £160

penalty charge from TfL, £80 if

paid within 14 days. Weston sent

TfL the receipt but was told the

money had never been received.

Moreover, the website charged

£19.99 instead of the £12.50

required by TfL. Th e extra £7.49 is

a service fee only mentioned in

the small print at the bottom of the

home page, together with the fact

the site is not affi liated to TfL.

It failed to respond to requests

for a comment and its phone

number does not work. But

following media contact it refunded

the cost of the fi ne.

A similar site, Paydartcharge.

co.uk, charges £6 for the Dartford

Crossing – the offi cial charge

is £2.50. Paydartcharge did not

respond to queries.

Signs at the crossing,

administered by Highways England,

instruct motorists to search

online for how to pay , leaving the

uninitiated vulnerable to impost ors.

Some fake websites off er

24-hour support on a premium rate

number which connects callers to

TfL’s own call centre while racking

up charges. TfL didn’t respond for

a request for a comment but its

website states it is “continually

working to try to remedy

the situation”.

BELOW

Liberty

Sprackling had

evidence she

had paid but

fell victim to a

‘glitch’ in TfL’s

system.

Motorists who

query a missing or

failed payment with

TfL fi nd themselves

entering a realm

of Orwellian

bureaucracy