DoNotPay.co.uk helped 160,000 avoid paying traffic fines last year

If you drive in a major city, then getting a traffic or parking ticket is inevitable, regardless of how law-abiding you are. Local governments have turned minor road violations, or simple driving errors, into huge cash revenue sources. In 2015, London drivers racked up a huge £119 million in fines alone. DoNotPay is leading the fightback.

DoNotPay.co.uk

was used 250,000 times in the UK last year, winning an impressive 160,000 of its claims.

The story is the same across the Atlantic. NYC made $77 million from issuing fines to drivers last year. DoNotPay launched in the US in March this year and has already been used more than 90,000 times.

What is DoNotPay?

If you’re unfamiliar with DoNotPay, your day is about to get considerably better. DoNotPay is essentially a bot that acts as your lawyer for free. Once you log in to the website, you’re presented with two options. “Appeal a Ticket (UK and US)” or “Compensation for a delayed flight”. From here, you’re asked a series of multiple-choice questions to determine your fine and generate your appeal.

The site was created by Joshua Browder after he received a parking ticket in the UK. He says “I realised there is a formulated process for appealing tickets, so I wrote a script that does the same thing and I started winning.

“I feel that parking tickets are already hurting the elderly and disabled, the most vulnerable in society… From my experience, parking lawyers are making millions appealing tickets from these groups, a task that can be easily automated for free.”

He seems a nice chap.

How can I use DoNotPay?

It’s simple – just go to the site, sign up and use either the multiple-choice or the chatbot option.

The process takes just two minutes from start to finish and, in the end, you’re given a claim that looks like this (dependant on your circumstances).

“To whom it may concern,

Thank you for taking into account my appeal. I am appealing on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur because there were no clear signs informing me of the regulations (as required by Article 4, section 34. of the Rules of the City of New York).

Though the ticket is the result of allegedly Parking, I argue that the lack of signs on Cleveland Street failed to inform me of the regulations. As the signage (or lack thereof) failed to inform me of what was required, no offence has been committed.

I believe that the court should exercise fairness in cancelling a ticket that, according to the guidance, is perfectly justified to be cancelled. I will of course endeavour to avoid this again, but I feel that the issue of a ticket is an unlawful action inconsistent with precedent.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Thank you,

David Court”