A woman was forced to fork out £355 because of a sophisticated ULEZ scam. Lauren Matthews, 28, wants more people to know about the online dangers of paying ULEZ charges.
Ms Matthews was left with a £355 fee from Transport for London and the threat of bailiffs at her door despite believing she had paid her ULEZ charges on time.
“I had all these fears in my head…I felt awful. It made me very anxious and it made me really overwhelmed,” she said.
Since MyLondon began investigating, TfL has told Ms Matthews that the confusion over the unpaid ULEZ charges stems from her paying via a third party scam website.
Ms Matthews worries that older people could easily fall victim to a similar scam
(Image: Facundo Arrizabalaga)
“The site didn’t look different or anything, and it didn’t ring any alarm bells,” she said.
“To my memory I googled ‘ULEZ fee’ and I’m 90% sure I logged into my ULEZ account, as I paid it before and was familiar with the process. It was more than £12.50 so I thought I guess it just costs this much.”
Ms Matthews, whose mum works in a bank, says that anyone could become a victim to a scam like this. She especially worries about older people who could easily fall victim to something similar.
“I know so many people in my family, older people, who would not feel good about being scammed. I would have no idea how to avoid this in the future,” she said.
Following a friend’s birthday on the weekend of April 20 last year, Ms Matthews paid her ULEZ charge through what she believed to be TfL’s official website. She saw £35 come out of her bank account for two days travelling in the ULEZ and thought nothing more of it as she has an older car.
Her family then moved home and on May 7 she says she was given her TfL penalty charge notice by the new occupants of their old house. She says she then appealed this the same day.
On December 4, after moving out of her family home to London, she was then given a “big red letter” from debt collectors telling her she needed to pay £355 for the unpaid PCNs.
The process has left Ms Matthews with questions
(Image: Facundo Arrizabalaga)
“I felt absolutely dreadful, I cried initially – I didn’t answer any knock at the door in case it was these bailiffs,” she said.
“Anytime someone knocked at the door I turned all the lights off and made everyone be very quiet.”
After complaining to the debt collectors, CDER Group, Ms Matthews was told to go to Traffic Enforcement to appeal through what she felt was a lengthy and complicated process. With the threat of bailiff action looming, she decided to pay the fine on January 2.
Once MyLondon began investigating this story in early January, TfL informed Ms Matthews that she had paid via a third-party scam website – more than eight months after she was initially scammed. They have since refunded her the money as a gesture of goodwill.
Despite being glad to have the money returned, the lengthy and difficult fallout from the scam has raised questions for Ms Matthews. She said: “If this is a big issue more could be done. I’m a bit confused because they should have told me that straight away.”
She added: “Even if they can’t prevent a scam, if someone appeals there should be some way it can be flagged. More could definitely be done to avoid this situation.”
‘We have used our discretion to cancel the penalty charge notices’
A TfL spokesperson said: “We are sorry that Ms Matthews was a victim of a third party website when attempting to make a daily ULEZ charge payment, and for any distress caused. Payments for our road user charging schemes should only be made through the official Transport for London website.
“TfL has no association with third party organisations that process charges; we work proactively with search engine companies such as Google, as well as with Trading Standards, to remove them entirely from the internet. We advise drivers impacted by overcharging by a third party site to contact Trading Standards. Having reviewed the case, we have used our discretion to cancel the penalty charge notices and will be returning to her the funds paid to us.”
A spokesperson for CDER Group said: “CDER Group act on the instructions and business rules of our clients and are unable to assist with disputes unless provided with sufficient evidence to escalate the matter. Ms Matthews was notified of the information required and when she was unable to provide this was advised to follow the formal appeal process via the Traffic Enforcement Centre, which would permit enforcement action to be suspended.”
Got a story? Please get in touch at katherine.gray@reachplc.com
Get the top stories from across London directly to your inbox. Sign up for MyLondon’s The 12 HERE to get the biggest stories every day.