I often receive complaints that pay by phone texts are sent by motorists yet the council will issue a parking ticket claiming they never received the text (even though the sender's phone company did not notify them that the text had failed!)

I intend to address this issue and in the meantime set out below a case on the matter from PATAS.

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

Pay-by-phone parking

Bawor v Wandsworth (PATAS Case No. 2060177682)

Two appeals relating to the use of pay-by-phone parking. The Council’s pay-by-phone system allowed payment of parking charges by mobile phone. The system maintained electronic records of payments. It was run on behalf of the Council by a company, Parkmobile.

Drivers had to register on the system beforehand and were given instructions how to use it. An electronic transponder card was displayed on the windscreen. To commence parking the driver activated the system by telephoning a number and giving details to the automated system as to location (by inputting a code number displayed at the location) and received an acknowledgement. At the end of the parking the user telephoned to deactivate the system. Parking attendants checked whether the system had been activated by pointing a bar code reader at the transponder card. Parkmobile calculated the fees, which were billed for payment.

 
Condition 2.9 of the conditions of use stated:
"You can only assume that the beginning or end of your parking transaction has been validly accepted by the Parkmobile system when you have received  a confirmation  of this via your mobile telephone.  You are responsible for ensuring that you have properly activated the system for the relevant parking zone before you leave your vehicle unattended  ..."

Condition 2.10 said that if the user cannot access the system then the parking must be paid for in the alternative way of purchasing a P&;D voucher.

The Adjudicator said that Miss Bawor was a regular user and he had seen records showing an example period of how often she had activated and deactivated the system.
Miss Bawor was not sure of her recollection as to what happened on the dates concerned. However she described sometimes having difficulty getting through on the phone and may have walked away from the vehicle to get a signal. She had used the Parkmobile system at this car park almost every day since Sept 2005 whilst walking her dog in the park.

The records of the system showed that on 1 November 2005 the Appellant had activated the system at 11:06 and deactivated it at 13:05. The PCN was issued at 10:51.

On 8 December 2005 the Appellant had activated the system at 16:06 and deactivated it at 18:47. The PCN was issued at 15:32.
 
The Adjudicator said he regarded her testimony as entirely honest and showing her use. However he had less confidence in her specific recollection of the 2 days in question. The likelihood was that on both of these occasions Miss Bawor left her vehicle unattended without either activating the system or receiving any acknowledgement. Judging by her testimony, she either forgot to activate until a little later or she could not immediately get through and decided to walk away and re-try later.

Appeals refused