My 10 Years with Autosecurit Ltd/Skyguard: Personal Experience and an Unexpected Parking Fine

An Unexpected Parking Fine and the Application Issues Behind It

In April 2025, I received an unexpected parking fine after the Skyguard parking application appeared to successfully initiate parking but actually failed due to an error. This incident perfectly illustrates how poor user interface design (UX) can lead to concrete financial loss.

Throughout my 10-year customer experience, I've gradually observed how an initially innovative and dynamically developing service stagnated, with its shortcomings increasingly manifesting in everyday situations. The parking fine case perfectly demonstrates how an apparently minor design flaw (using a green icon for error messages) and inadequate error handling processes can lead to tangible financial damage and erode trust in a service.

The April 28, 2025 Parking Fine Incident in Detail

On April 28, 2025, I went to a downtown partner meeting and, as always, used the Skyguard application for parking, which is paired with my bank card. One of the main advantages of the application has always been that it automatically starts parking and stops when my vehicle has traveled 100 meters – thus eliminating the previous common problem of forgetting to stop parking and continuing to pay unnecessarily.

Details of the incident:

• When parking began, the application sent a message, but I didn't notice it, as the notification only displayed "Unexpected error".
• What I find important to highlight is that while alarm error messages appear with a red icon, this error message arrived with a green icon, which was almost imperceptible to me while walking, and I found it extremely misleading in retrospect.
• When I returned to my car at around 9:30 PM, I was shocked to discover a parking ticket.
• I immediately checked if the parking function was working - I started parking again, which worked without issue, and automatically stopped when the vehicle moved on.
• The next day I promptly contacted Skyguard customer service, sending them the fine document as well, but was disappointed to receive no substantive response.

Skyguard's response referenced section 3.1.13 of their Terms and Conditions: "The Service Provider, as a reseller of the National Mobile Payment Ltd... Due to the reseller quality, ensuring the operation of the Service is outside the Service Provider's sphere of interest... Due to the Service Provider's limited liability, the Customer must pay special attention to start the use of the Service only after ensuring the success of the Service's initiation."

10 Years with the Skyguard System: Expectations versus Reality

In 2015, when my company, CSE Business Services, purchased its first company vehicle, I chose the Skyguard security system. At that time, the SmartKey technology - an upgraded version of the previous Skyguard Gold system - appeared particularly modern in the Hungarian market. The introduction of the smartphone application seemed like a significant improvement over the previous card-based system.

In the initial period (2015-2018), I observed continuous developments, but from 2019 onwards, I increasingly noticed that while the company seemingly focused on fleet tracking, parking, and other target communities, the development of individual installations stalled. The application's functions became more stable, but the user interface modernization lagged behind, which I found increasingly frustrating.

Besides the parking issue, I've faced other system problems over the years:

• In December 2023, I experienced a multi-day complete service outage, which I found particularly concerning for a security service
• On January 30, 2024, the call center and servers were shut down for maintenance, and I only received an SMS notification
• In March-April 2024, the horn/alarm of the system installed in my Audi A6 allroad malfunctioned, but despite reporting it, it hasn't been fixed even a year later
• In October 2024, there was a 17% service fee increase, while the company's revenue decreased by 7% in 2023 according to Opten data

Professional Analysis: The Consequences of a Mobile App UX Failure

Analyzing the case more deeply, I identified several technical deficiencies:

• Outdated UI/UX design: Based on my professional experience, the application's user interface follows design principles from about 20 years ago, ignoring modern mobile usage habits, which is unacceptable in 2025.
• Misleading error signals: I find it particularly disturbing that in the case of a critical error (which leads to a parking fine), the system signals with a green icon, which contradicts general UX rules that every professional application developer should follow.
• Lack of redundancy: It's a severe deficiency that in case of a parking function error, there is no secondary notification mechanism or automatic retry, which should be a basic expectation for such a critical function.
• Weak customer service reaction: After reporting the problem, no quick and constructive solution was proposed, which is unacceptable for a premium service.

In my own analysis, I also examined the company's digital presence. The skyguard.hu is an older WordPress-based website that operates visibly without optimization. According to my measurements, the mobile page loading time is more than 10 seconds, which is unacceptable in 2025 (the industry benchmark expects loading times under 3 seconds). Examining the site with a professional cloud-based checking tool, I found more than 100 subpages, many of which are not optimized and do not follow modern web development principles.

In my professional opinion, the website's state clearly reflects that the company's technological development has stalled, which perfectly aligns with my experiences with the application and service. The 17% price increase is particularly difficult to justify for a service where neither the reliability of the basic infrastructure nor the user experience has improved significantly in recent years.

Lessons and Conclusions: How Poor UX Design Can Lead to Financial Loss

The case of the Skyguard mobile application perfectly illustrates how poor user interface design and error indication can cause concrete financial loss to the user and undermine trust in the service.

My parking fine case well demonstrates how an apparently minor design flaw (using a green icon for error messages) and inadequate error resolution process led to concrete financial damage and shook my confidence in the service. This is particularly concerning for a service whose fundamental purpose is to provide security and convenience features.

Although I will likely have to pay the fine, I'm determined to use every possible forum to discover the exact cause of the error and who is responsible. This situation strongly reminds me of my 2023 case when Apple and Telekom shifted responsibility onto each other regarding eSIM activation problems, and I ended up in the communication gap between the two companies. At that time, only a consumer protection report and an investigation by the NMHH (National Media and Communications Authority) brought results.

As a user, the most important lesson is the critical importance of thoroughly vetting service providers before contracting, and to be wary of providers who try to deflect responsibility for their own application's faulty operation through Terms and Conditions. Referencing the Terms and Conditions, while an understandable legal tactic, does not solve a fundamental UX problem that misleads the user.