Congestion Charge - Thinking out of the box

[green_and_mean]

I don't feel abused everyone is entitled to their opinion after all! I was simply pointing out the consequences of what you had mistakenly claimed was the situation regarding the car registration. Often people come on here and think they have found ways of avoiding certain situations but in fact they do not realise they could be creating another situation completely.

 

As for the point mentioned in the thread about keeping up with the law whilst going about your daily life, it is your responsibility as a car driver.

Things change on a yearly basis new signs are introduced etc. A lot of rural areas do not have bus lanes but this would not be an excuse for an out of townie to drive up and down one without penalty.

 

CC is a law and a service its a charge for driving in the capital the same as charging for parking in council bays. The Authority is by LAW allowed to charge and the same law allows them to penalty charge you for failing to do so.

 

You can pay the CC using a vast variety of ways including online once you have got home. There are signs a very long way from the zone its not as if they pop up 100m before you get there.

[awf]

Time to clear up the second misunderstanding about what I've posted:

 

I referred to my car and drivers licence being registered at my last address (which was a mistake but it is my mothers house and I still have some post there etc.. in fact when I was at university I lived on campus but was still registered at my mothers as it was easier- for the sake of argument we could say I'm registered at 2 addresses like some Londoners are eg. 1 in the country 1 in London).

 

Basically I should have said I forgot to inform the DVLA.

 

Yes I imagine it's true many people come on here thinking they have found a new way. But why is it you have only pointed out what punishment awaits me and not offered any genuine help?! (This is a legitimate question not an attack).

 

I don't need you to point out punishments or errors since I will actually experience them if I don't do the right thing.

 

The authority may BY LAW be allowed to charge for the service, but that means the same thing as British Gas may BY LAW be allowed to charge for their service. It certainly doesn't alter contractual obligations.

 

For example, it's a given that everyone has gas, but there is no law that says I must have gas at my home (I could choose to live expensively with electric).

 

However if I move to a new home and British Gas are already installed and I don't cancel or pay, then BY LAW they are entitled to take me to court for debt, then send bailiffs- but AFAIK they are not entitled BY LAW to report it as a crime and have the police throw me in jail.

 

Now, if I run someone over in my car and drive away that's a criminal offence and I can go to jail, but if I park or enter the C-zone then I will go to an adjudicator, then registered debt, then bailiffs.

 

It seems to me the the C-zone is a service enforced BY LAW, just as gas is a service enforced BY LAW.

 

I know some of you don't agree but I'm going to test the thesis anyway.

 

BTB doesn't agree but at least he did a good thing and actually offered some alternative information and advice on steps to take.

[green_and_mean]

Transport Act 2000

 

173 Penalty charges

(1) The appropriate national authority may by regulations make provision for or in connection with the imposition and payment of charges (“charging scheme penalty charges”) in respect of acts, omissions, events or circumstances relating to or connected with charging schemes under this Part.

 

The Law (Transport Act) gives Local or Regional authorities the power to issue a penalty charge for non compliance. Banks or Gas companies cannot penalise you for breach of contract because there is no legislation allowing them to do so. The Law for penalty charging is not the same as bank charges in that it does not just have to cover the cost of non compliance but may also act as a deterent.

[patdavies]

The authority may BY LAW be allowed to charge for the service, but that means the same thing as British Gas may BY LAW be allowed to charge for their service. It certainly doesn't alter contractual obligations.

 

For example, it's a given that everyone has gas, Not true, there are whole swathes of the population without access to mains gas.but there is no law that says I must have gas at my home (I could choose to live expensively with electric).

 

However if I move to a new home and British Gas are already installed and I don't cancel or pay, then BY LAW they are entitled to take me to court for debt, then send bailiffs- but AFAIK they are not entitled BY LAW to report it as a crime and have the police throw me in jail. No, if you don't use the gas, there is no contract either implied or otherwise, With no contract to enforce, there can be no valid debt. I had exactly this with British Gas when I moved into my present house. I set up the contracts for both meters with my supplier. Three months later, BG tried to get me to pay for gas. Go forth and multiply, was my response, I have no contract with you,

 

Now, if I run someone over in my car and drive away that's a criminal offence and I can go to jail, but if I park or enter the C-zone then I will go to an adjudicator, then registered debt, then bailiffs.

 

It seems to me the the C-zone is a service enforced BY LAW, just as gas is a service enforced BY LAW.

 

I know some of you don't agree but I'm going to test the thesis anyway.

 

BTB doesn't agree but at least he did a good thing and actually offered some alternative information and advice on steps to take.

 

I'm afraid that I don't agree that the C-zone is a service, nor is parking nor bus lanes nor driving contrary to mandatory road signs nor box junctions - all of which are now (in London) enforceable in the same way - via civil penalty.

[awf]

No-where on any correspondence I have received from TfL have they quoted the Transport Act 2000, however I accept that similar statutes are listed in the regulations they are quoting.

 

GAM and Patdavies, so far you have given me reasons why nothing can (or should) be done. Fair enough.

 

Are you for or against the CC? If you are for it, I understand why you are simply repeating to me what the government would repeat. If you are against it, then I don't understand why you wouldn't perhaps try to help me find contrary legislation, holes in current legislation or even just alternative options.

 

No matter, I've found another thread on the forums here listing a BOR defence currently being used by a solicitor. It's quoted from Neil Herron's blog.

 

Now can anyone help me with this- when a similar judgement is being decided in the courts, the defendant can ask for their trial/judgement to be delayed until the outcome of that case has been decided. Is this possible to do with a PATAS appeal or would it not count since they are only an adjudicator?

[green_and_mean]

All I can say is good luck and let us know how you get on although I'm sure if you win and prove the govt and Tfl and all their legal teams are in the wrong and acting unlawfully we will see you on the news.

[awf]

Thanks GAM,

 

Ironically, though I have defended my position here, I agree I have slim chances.

 

However I am hoping that if they reject my appeal and refuse the definition of the charge as a 'service' then that may be just as pressworthy.

[green_and_mean]

You may find this appeal is of interest as it uses the same argument against clamping it was however turned down....

 

Clamping: lawfulness; Bill of Rights; Human Rights Act

Henney v Camden (PATAS Case No. 2060037355)

The Appellant’s vehicle was clamped for being parked in a residents' parking space without displaying a resident's permit.

 

The Appellant accepted that he was liable for the basic penalty. He challenged the lawfulness of the clamping.

 

The Adjudicator said that parking attendants were empowered by section 69(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1991 ("the 1991 Act") to clamp vehicles. Section 69(4) provided for the vehicle to be released on payment of the penalty charge and the prescribed release charge. The person who obtained the release of the vehicle was then entitled to challenge liability for the penalty and release charges, ultimately by appealing to the Parking Adjudicator.

The Appellant's vehicle was parked unlawfully and the immobilisation power applied. The Appellant nevertheless put forward several grounds for contesting the lawfulness of the clamping.

The clamping regime was incompatible with the Bill of Rights 1688.

The Appellant referred to this passage in the Bill of Rights.

That all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons before Conviction are illegall and void.

The Bill of Rights had been categorised by the Courts as a constitutional statute. In Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] EWHC 195 (Admin), Laws LJ said that constitutional statutes may not be impliedly repealed, but only by express words or by words so specific that the inference of an actual determination to effect the repeal was irresistible.

In the 1991 Act, Parliament had provided for a very specific and detailed regime for the immobilisation of vehicles. In doing so it must have intended to repeal the Bill of Rights if and so far as necessary to give effect to that regime.

The application of a clamp did not afford a fair hearing, as required by administrative law and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The clamping regime was provided for by Parliament in primary legislation and could not be overridden by general administrative law.

The Appellant's submissions on Article 6 confused substantive rights with procedure. Article 6 was not concerned with the substantive law; it was designed to ensure that there were proper procedural safeguards wherever civil or criminal questions were being determined, to ensure a fair and just outcome: R (Westminster) v Parking Adjudicator [2003] RTR 1. The Appellant's submissions were directed at the rights he contended the motorist should have under the substantive law. For example, in referring to mitigating circumstances he argued that the substantive law should provide for the tribunal to be able to allow appeals on the basis of mitigation. But the substantive law did not make any such provision, and therefore there was no breach of Article 6 because there was no substantive right for it to engage.

The Appellant contended that the clamping regime was not compliant with Article 6 because payment of the penalty and release charges was required before a hearing of the motorist's liability for those moneys. There was nothing in Article 6 that prohibited such a regime.

[awf]

Just found this from a libdem site. Very Interesting...

 

According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development:

 

"16.A further development however has been the government coming to us to explore whether activities could be treated as market and the unit running them as a quasi corporation. One example is the London congestion charge - there are similar charges in some other British cities. This could have been seen as a source of tax revenue if the money had gone in to a general fund for spending on the full range of services. However the legislation specifies that the income from the congestion charge can only be spent on a limited range of transport related items in London. Transport in London is organised as a number of real and quasi public corporations owned by local government in London. These provide market services to users of London's transport including underground trains and buses. We see the road charge scheme as an additional market service provided by them. There is cross subsidy between different categories of user but this is common in the provision of services in the private sector. The congestion charge is therefore a service charge not a tax because of the ring fenced accounting inherent in the scheme. This is also consistent with the national accounts manuals where the Eurostat Manual on Government Deficit and Debt, which is consistent with ESA95, cites road and bridge tolls as examples which should be treated as payments for the provision of services."

 

 

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/38/24330376.doc

[patdavies]

Good argument there awf, and I wish you luck with it.

 

However, the OECD is by nature an international reporting body and not an English legislative one - this reduces the reports value somewhat.

 

It also fails to take account of the fact that taxation may be hypothecated - doing so does not turn the tax into a service charge. Indeed, VED, in its original form as Road Fund Licence, was I think, hypothecated for road building/maintenance.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

In any event, the appropriate remedy for an alleged failure to supply services is to sue to recover loss or damages sustained as a result of a failure to provide services. What you have done is to fail to pay for the services (if that is what they are) by driving in the CC zone without payment. Ordinarily, failure to pay for services will result in you getting sued for the fees you should have paid. However, the law makers have specifically provided in the case of the CC for a penalty charge to be levied.

 

There is nothing to stop you mounting a claim for loss or damages as a result of TFL allegedly failing to provide you with the services you claim they are contractually obliged to do. However, quite apart from the huge legal hurdles you would be giving yourself to jump through to prove that they were services, they were failed to provide and that you suffered loss of damage as a result, the real danger for you is that this would not be a small claims track case but fast or multi track and thus you would be exposed to TFLs legal costs should you lose (and I suspect you will).

 

Entirely up to you and good luck whichever way you go!

[awf]

PD, BTB,

 

Thanks for all the advice so far.

 

I would only consider suing for unfair charges (for failure to pay- just as I would sue a bank though I failed to keep the right amount of money and went into unauthorised overdraft).

 

However, I am rather more interested in getting a response from them on what the CC actually is in their terms. I'm interested to see if they deny it is a service or not (since both TFL and the Mayor is so keen to propagate the myth that it is a service- hence 'pressworthy').

 

I'd like to see them drop it, but failing that if the appeal loses I shall have to pay (as I would now if I didn't appeal).

 

With regards to my own forray into the C-zone, I did not lose money, but something more valuable- time. Certainly I think there is an interesting test case for someone with more money than me- would it be possible to prove that TFL have failed in there 'service' of the congestion zone if the zone in question is still congested (which it most certainly is from my experience)?

[green_and_mean]

PD, BTB,

 

With regards to my own forray into the C-zone, I did not lose money, but something more valuable- time. Certainly I think there is an interesting test case for someone with more money than me- would it be possible to prove that TFL have failed in there 'service' of the congestion zone if the zone in question is still congested (which it most certainly is from my experience)?

 

The aim of the 'service' is to reduce congestion and as a result speed up essential journeys. Research has proven this is being acheived and Tfl will produce evidence to back this up. Tfl cannot be held accountable for events such as accidents beyond their control which still cause congestion.

[patdavies]

The aim of the 'service' is to reduce congestion and as a result speed up essential journeys. Research has proven this is being acheived and Tfl will produce evidence to back this up. Tfl cannot be held accountable for events such as accidents beyond their control which still cause congestion.

 

This si not a pop at you g_and _m, but recent anecdotal evidence is that since the expansion of the zone, the congestion has worsened.

 

This is because residents in areas like Kensington and Chelsea may as well drive into the 'old' zone as it no longer costs them anything extra.

[green_and_mean]

This si not a pop at you g_and _m, but recent anecdotal evidence is that since the expansion of the zone, the congestion has worsened.

 

This is because residents in areas like Kensington and Chelsea may as well drive into the 'old' zone as it no longer costs them anything extra.

 

Thats why I said they will 'produce' evidence, I did not say it would be true!!

[InformedSearcher]

Hmm I've read this thread with interest ...

Regarding the US embassy - if their vehicles exist on the PE (persistant offender list) then they will be removed if found on the public highway. I, personally live in North London and if I'm going to venture into the CC zone I go by tube because I'll probably be having copious amounts of alcohol. There again there were many who contend their buisnesses are going to suffer but in reality are we saying for the (tenner as it is now) will charge their customers as they'll not be using public transport? People who are having work done know full well that the charges exist and expect to be charged for it I'm sure. If anyone reading this here can tell me of free parking in inner London I'll be well appreciative of it but as I see it the area is quite small and heck do you really want to queue for ages in traffic to go where you want to go to? In other countries public transport might be seen as 'lower class' but here in London that's never been the case. Personally i'm dammed sure if I wanted to visit a large store and pick up something bulky I'd rather have it delievered for free.

To be honest there's little reason to enter into central London by vehicle unless you are working there or live there. If you live there then it's easy to get the discount if you are legitimate and that means not using your mate to try and get discount for you. I consider myself to be a reasonablely straight person. If I did drive into central London (which I reiterate I don't) I'd expect to pay both for CC and parking. In my numerous visits I've seen parking charges that quite honestly scare the hell out of me. If I could afford those then I'd be able to afford the aditional tenner for CC too.

I'm sorry but above the need to have a vehicle for work or live in that area there's no excuse for venturing there using your own car. Maybe others see my philosophy on this totally different but there again we all have our own agendas. The only other issue is that you bought a vehicle and it was clamped or removed and those charges were from a previous owner. In that case you have a point I guess but as I know it they only take off public highways. Anyhow you could always just call and ask just in case they'll tell you there (data protection act prevailing!) are outstanding charges. If your vehicle does get removed decide on 'large' gentlemen seeing the previous owner to extract the cash from them because they in fact cheated you (and you end up carrying the can) and maybe have to wait to get your vehicle back! LOL

Michael

[InformedSearcher]

Hmm, just looking again at this thread....

How the hell can anyone compare running someone over with parking/congestiuon charges? BTW running someone over is a good get out if you want to bump someone off. Like murder is life but running them over purposefully is like 5 years!

I again apologise but I see there are criminal acts and civil disobedience that cannot be compared. In the end to think one could wantonly park or do what they like with parking and bus lanes and even yelloe junction markings is just a blatant disrespect for stuff there to protect us.

I drive to work through places like Harlesdon - anyone gone through there? Double parking on a main road is a problem. I doubt many there have a valid driving license let alone insureance. If you disrespect the basics of transport law then why have any laws?

I recall having an accident with my car. An elderly lady decided it was okay to just emerge without due regard for me. The insurers were so ultra inquisitive about the scenario. If I'd done what has been mentioned here and the accident happened I'd simply not have won. In my case I did, like within 3 days her insurers admitted full liability.

If I'd decided to stop in a box junction and someone hit me I'd lose simply because I should not have been there (if driving straight ahead) and the same goes for if I were parked illegally. The moral is simply remember it's not how clever you are but how much you respect the law.

Michael

[awf]

Who said anything about running someone over?

 

I don't think Kengestion would have an Embassy car seized (how have they racked up £100k's of fines?). Think! Diplomatic row! America would simply up the bureaucratic-anti on their side of the pond anytime he or British diplomats wanted to visit. Plus they'd probably move their embassy outside of London and heavens Kengestion doesn't want that! Why does he spend half the year gallivanting around the globe trying to attract Brazillians and Indians to the Kengested city of London. If he really wanted to solve congestion all he would have to do is limit the amount of new buildings (you know those tall ones he likes) and amount of business that can set up shop in the capital.

 

Force business down the M3, M4, M40 corridors- oh but then less tax so...

 

In fact I really wish he would have their cars clamped because he would kick off a major storm that he would not have the influence or charisma to control.

 

 

Also I'd like to see the day millions of car owners decide to stop driving and jump on the tube for their commute. I am currently forced to use the tube myself now and much as you may enjoy the smell of someone's sweaty armpit in your face for several stops... I don't.

 

I'm sorry but London Public Transport is not the wonderful thing you make it out to be. Other countries have amazing standards of public transport but London is on par with somewhere like South Africa or Canada, not Europe for instance. If they were willing to invest the time and money it's possible, I've seen it, but they are not committed to long term improvements. British Governments are only committed to the point it makes the current party look good- and that is short term and short sighted.

[green_and_mean]

Also I'd like to see the day millions of car owners decide to stop driving and jump on the tube for their commute. I am currently forced to use the tube myself now and much as you may enjoy the smell of someone's sweaty armpit in your face for several stops... I don't.

 

Have you considered how long a car commute to London would take if the thousands that DO take public transport drove to work. I would expect you would get to work just in time to head home!! I don't like sitting next to smelly people but what ****es me off even more is being stuck on a bus with 60 people on, behind a queue of cars all with one driver in just because they think they are above using public transport.

[awf]

but what ****es me off even more is being stuck on a bus with 60 people on, behind a queue of cars all with one driver in just because they think they are above using public transport.

 

So what you're saying is, the bus lanes don't work then? Or the bus drivers aren't sticking to them?

 

Given the choice I drive, not because I am above public transport (as I said I'm taking it now), but because I want to be in control of my journey and I want to have the opportunity to get to my destination quicker (though it doesn't always work out -just as public transport doesn't).

 

Public transport makes sense, drivers have to be alert to a million and one things including signs, peds, cyclists, buses, cameras etc... which takes much more effort than sitting or standing for an hour and a half reading a newspaper (as I am currently doing- when crowding permits).

 

The problem, as I stated, is government and mayoral policies. Public transport has the potential to be functional, efficient, cost saving and relaxing.. unfortunately neither the Mayor, TfL or the government seem to want that (don't read their press releases, read their policies, private meetings and between the lines).

[InformedSearcher]

Hmm, I guess I've started something here that's really not to do with consumer spending but political illusion? I should have added in my original message that I actually usually derive to work. Yes, I'm alone in the car and dependant on my route it's either 8.5 or 11.5 miles. I would add that my return journey is normally at around (before) 7am and on the A406 avoiding Central London entirely.

My real point is simply that if I were to work in Central London (deemed one of the top 3 expensive places to live) I'd use public transport. This is practicality to be honest. My personal problems sten at weekends when my working hours don't quite correspond with LUL trading times.

The other point is that of the congestion charge. So we cannot disagree that Central London is ultra expensive so why do people think (considering it's such a small area) they are being penalised for using their own vehicle? Is this not akinto when the M25 was built. No one actually expected businesses to sprout up (Merry Christmas btw there and no pun intended) with that motorways build.

I guess I'd consider Central London the same as me going to a casino. There is the 'public' area and a 'VIP' area (where they charge rather than allow free thingies!). S okay, when I am lucky I can trade up. Before we go into the issues about Central London I would ask the simple question - How many in this thread actually live in it? If they do work then their clients are aware it ain't free and if you work in it you are probably on a good number. One of those sad times I like politicians!

In my own world I see people who are on benefits telling me they have a car. Do we really want to go down the track of how circa £47.50 (of basic state benefit) per week can possibly pay for your everyday expenses, your food and water and clothes, .... and car?! If we do can someone tell me how you cannot be 'anorexic' if running (let alone buy!!!) a car?

I think I came from an era where the school I went to had 1200 pupils and '3' cars arrived (and they were thought of as 'posh'). Nowadays we have a school with 1200 pupils and 250 cars turn up for 'em!

 

Michael