back to article Chatbot lawyer shreds $2.5m in parking tickets

An "automated lawyer" chatbot service has successfully challenged and overturned more than $2.5m in parking tickets in New York and London, according to its inventor. The Do Not Pay service automatically generates an appeal if people fit the criteria to challenge a parking ticket – all using publicly available information – …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Devil

    Ticket to slide

    "The appeal process, while not exactly consumer friendly, is very structured and so fits neatly with a simple AI bot."

    Not for long! Already there must be many bureautrolls taking notice, and drawing plans to put a stop to it. I'd guess it will involve an 'air gap' consisting of a newly staffed office (of course) that is tasked with taking ONLY real calls from real people.

    1. edge_e
      Boffin

      Re: Ticket to slide

      No where near cynical enough for these parts

      This will be deemed as giving legal advice, something only a lawyer can do and promptly shut down.

      We can't have people not handing over their hard earned to the legal profession can we ?

    2. Rusty 1

      Re: Ticket to slide

      Asterisk, armed with an appropriate set of phrases is waiting. Bring it on!

  2. Sebastian A

    If these are the kinds of jobs we stand to lose to AI/robots, then I'm all for it. Can you imagine if your full-time job consisted of asking people the same 5 questions, then putting through a request on their behalf?

    Now if the city would just automate the other end... But no, I bet there's a team of dozens set up purely to handle parking infringement disputes.

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      "But no, I bet there's a team of dozens set up purely to handle parking infringement disputes."

      There are. I was fixing a printer in one the other week. And yes, it's pretty much people ringing up and going through the same sets of questions.

  3. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

    "My car was stolen before I got the ticket" - I wonder how often that one is tapped. Sounds a bit like "The dog ate my homework".

    But then again aliens ate Thomas Dolby's Buick, so what do I know.

  4. Magani
    WTF?

    A small omission?

    At no stage has anyone asked if the parking fines were legitimate, hence there seems to be a moral and/or ethical element missing here.

    .

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: A small omission?

      It appears from the article that the bot is simply walking users through the same standard procedure that a live human on the phone would do. I suspect the only real difference is that it "knows" the correct way to submit a dispute claim in a way that it will be accepted, eg by quoting any relevant laws, legislation or regulatory points.

      Phoning up and saying the yellow lines are faded/worn/illegible will likely have them deny it by reflex and make you jump through hoops to try to get redress. If your contact with them includes reference to Act of Parliament X, section Y, paragraph N.N, they will more take it more seriously. They now have no legal option other than to follow the correct procedure of holding the fine (and putting the "discount period" on hold for the duration) while they investigate the claim. If the claim has merit the fine is rescinded. If not, the clock starts ticking and you pay it.

      Some people will game the system of course by betting that the cost of them processing your dispute will be more than the fine is worth and so rescind it anyway. But people already do that anyway.

      1. Crazy Operations Guy

        Re: A small omission?

        "But people already do that anyway."

        I learned a few years back that the easiest way to get a ticket rescinded is to actually show up at the court date. If the arresting officer doesn't bother to show (The vast majority don't) then it's excused automatically, otherwise, you can plead your case to the judge and can possibly get it excused that way. Not sure how it is in the UK...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: A small omission?

          In the UK we don't arrest people when issuing a parking ticket.

          1. Richard 12 Silver badge

            Re: A small omission?

            But they can go to court.

            It is a civil matter, and can be challenged all the way to court.

            It's just very rare that anything ever goes that far, as it's usually obvious which party will lose, so they back down.

            But not always.

            1. Crazy Operations Guy

              "It is a civil matter"

              Indeed. In fact a ticket is really just a lawsuit brought up on behalf of The People against someone for damaging public property or inconveniencing fellow citizens. The philosophy behind it is that by causing a disruption to other people, that the person responsible for causing the disruption would be required to repay the people affected by their actions, typically in the form of improved public facilities, better roads, and better public services in general.

              Whether that is true anymore is up to debate, of course given all the fancy and unnecessary toys the police now have in their possession in addition to the fact that they rigidly fine people despite them not causing any trouble for anyone else, kinda speaks towards the opinion that monies gained from fines are no longer being used for the public good...

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: A small omission?

              > "It is a civil matter, and can be challenged all the way to court."

              Not quite true, at least for UK council issued parking & bus lane fines.

              There are two steps. What the parking fine notice tells you in big writing is that enforcement of parking fines is a civil matter, so you might reasonably assume that they have to take you to court - you know, following the normal civil procedure. But that's not the case at all. If you don't object to the council within the time limit, the council will write a certificate saying you owe them the money, and you have no right of appeal whatsoever. *Then* they take you to court to make you pay up, with the kind of civil court case that trashes your credit record. You're not allowed to challenge the parking fine in court, the entire court case is about getting you to pay up (it's about collecting on "a debt", and the certificate is unchallengable evidence that the debt exists).

              So when they talk about the *enforcing* parking fines being a civil matter, they do mean that *enforcing* is done in civil court, not the actual decision about whether you have to pay. That is made by the council on a "guilty unless proven innocent" basis. And of course the council are biased because they are prosecutor, judge, jury, and they get the fine money.

              Oh, and the parking fine notice says something in small text about "submissions received later than X days may be disregarded by the council", what that actually means in reality is "if your submission is later than X days IT WILL BE IGNORED AND YOU HAVE NO RIGHT OF APPEAL".

              If you *do* object to the council, they will probably deny your objection and issue a certificate anyway. In that case, you can raise the same objection to a special court just for parking fines. I'm not going to call it a kangaroo court because it apparently does rule against the council reasonably often.

              Oh, and the prices ratchet up - special price for paying within 14 days, higher price for paying within the following 2 weeks, even higher price once the certificate is issued, then 2-4 weeks later they start adding on court costs and (if you still don't pay) bailiff fees.

              You have no right to legal counsel unless you pay for it yourself, which would be much more expensive than paying the fine at the start.

              The whole thing is kangaroo justice - you're guilty unless proven innocent.

      2. AdamT

        Re: A small omission?

        "Some people will game the system of course by betting that the cost of them processing your dispute will be more than the fine is worth"

        Arguably the council has already done this to you with the discount offer: "you owe us X for this alleged infringement but if you just pay up quietly within 21 days we will generously reduce it to X/2"

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: A small omission?

      legitimate vs moral and/or ethical?

      If parking tickets in general are sanctioned by legislation (the similarity of the words should be a clue) then they're legitimate. I don't see why you expect moral and ethical issues to be involved. The only question, in each case, is whether a particular ticket was issued according to the legislation.

      1. Clive Galway

        Re: A small omission?

        So, by your definition, anything that is legal by the letter of the law is automatically morally and ethically right as well?

        1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: A small omission?

          "So, by your definition, anything that is legal by the letter of the law is automatically morally and ethically right as well?"

          Who were you replying to?

          If it was me, then let me restate my point. If it's legitimate it's legitimate by definition. It would be a non sequitur to imply that something is moral, ethical, both or neither on account of whether or not it's legitimate. Or do you think that legislatures invariably act in moral or ethical ways?

  5. Raumkraut

    Automated Interface

    If it follows a set procedure, with a fixed set of outcomes, then it's not an AI, it's just an algorithm.

    AFAICT this is pretty much the same kind of thing as the government's "register to vote" website, which similarly just automates the process of filling out and sending a form. Except in this case it's being called a "bot", because reasons.

    1. Snivelling Wretch

      Re: Automated Interface

      Give me a piece of paper and a flow chart stencil.

  6. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    I'm convinced I've seen similar bots handling customer disservice queries for years.

    1. Velv
      Unhappy

      "Do you wish to register a complaint?"

      "Yes" > /dev/NULL

  7. Aristotles slow and dimwitted horse

    Eh?

    I'm all for the ongoing challenge of parking penalties and I can see how this makes things easier etc, but from a technical perspective surely this is just a jazzed up CASE or IF, THEN, ELSE construct?

  8. ukgnome

    How long before we can turn this bot into a nazi sex pest?

  9. Valerion

    Can it be re-purposed?

    To overturn referendum results?

  10. The Nazz

    100% success rate here

    Oxford County Council, maybe City i dunno, here's looking at you.

    Reason for my success, i had a perfectly valid ticket on full display.

    The time of the "issue" would suggest the warden was chancing his/her arm just before clocking off.

    It's about time that issuing such tickets in such circumstances is a CRIMINAL offence. By both the warden and the head honcho of the council. I did think of reporting it, as fraud*, to the Police at the time but am fully aware of what their response is.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: 100% success rate here

      It's about time that issuing such tickets in such circumstances is a CRIMINAL offence. By both the warden and the head honcho of the council. I did think of reporting it, as fraud*, to the Police at the time but am fully aware of what their response is.

      It would be cool if people were able (and willing) to report the success of an appeal so you get a closed loop, because that would give you the hard data to indeed allege fraud (and enough affected people to make it count in the press, and thus politically). Mistakes happen, persistent mistakes usually don't and could indeed highlight a fraudulent tendency.

      I agree it's time criminal charges are brought in to reign in the fraud in the system, and this platform may just be the ticket (pardon the pun) to gather enough evidence to kick this off.

      1. The First Dave

        Re: 100% success rate here

        Simplest thing would be: for every ticket that is rescinded, the cost of the ticket comes out of the pay packet of the issuer.

  11. DocJD

    I think I've seen this guy

    If I remember correctly, the guy who invented this was trying to raise money on Shark Tank (American version of Dragon's Den). I think his goal/business model was eventually to charge a small fee to anyone he helped successfully. Doing it for free was to demonstrate the ability and he wanted to get money from the investors to expand to many additional cities.

  12. Daedalus

    We're doomed, I tell ye...

    Every good military commander knows that the worst mistake you can make is to assume that when you change your tactics, the enemy won't change theirs. This is just the first shot.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like