Why does London have higher PCN charges?

[menigma]

Right, I misunderstood your post. I thought you mentioned spreadsheets in relation to the TMA. My bad. I am sure there are literally thousands of spreadsheets in council parking offices as we speak.

 

I am just interested if there is a reason and if so what is the official line, especially as Ruth Kelly works for me and you, not the other way round.

[lamma]

Right, I misunderstood your post. I thought you mentioned spreadsheets in relation to the TMA. My bad. I am sure there are literally thousands of spreadsheets in council parking offices as we speak.

 

I am just interested if there is a reason and if so what is the official line, especially as Ruth Kelly works for me and you, not the other way round.

 

yes I do mean in relation to TMA 2004 - as per the comment on differential charging. I am sure there is a commonly sourced one used as the pro forma, preparations for TMA 2004 have been going on a long time.. ask your Council for a copy.

 

the official line will be as it always has been, its not for revenue but to ease traffic flow. How many cases have cropped up on here where the warden/CEO has waived the opportunity to write a ticket as the driver was about to move the vehicle and free up a space.....

[green_and_mean]

How many cases have cropped up on here where the warden/CEO has waived the opportunity to write a ticket as the driver was about to move the vehicle and free up a space.....

 

Why would anyone come on here asking for advice after being moved on? If it was common place to get moved on rather than get a penalty who would bother parking legally?? I expect if a survey was done you would find those that received a fine to be less likely to do the same thing again where as those that got moved on would risk parking in the same place.

The idea is not just to free up traffic at the point of the PCN issue, but to encourage people to change their parking habits long term and get higher compliance.

[menigma]

 

the official line will be as it always has been, its not for revenue but to ease traffic flow.

 

Thats the answer as to why there are PCNs, not as to why they are dearer in London.

[lamma]

I have answered that already - councils can set their own fee/price levels.

 

"because the can they do"

[menigma]

No they cannot set the price. If they were free to set their own, you think Westminister would 'only' charge £120. The penalty bands are set by the Secretary of State and councils choose which levels to implement and if you look at the TMA 2004 London is seperately specified with higher rate bands and I want to know why.

 

For the third time my question, which you have not answered is, why does London have higher PCN charges than the rest of the country?

[lamma]

see (their cpital letters - am not shouting, just cut and pasting)

DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ACT 2004

THE SECRETARY OF STATE’S STATUTORY GUIDANCE TO LOCAL

AUTHORITIES ON THE CIVIL ENFORCEMENT OF PARKING

CONTRAVENTIONS

FEBRUARY 2008

 

especially this part

"In London, charges will be set by the London local authorities acting

jointly and by Transport for London (in respect of GLA roads), with the

approval of the Mayor (and provided that the Secretary of State does not

object). Outside London, the charges must accord with guidelines set by the Secretary of State"

you will also have chase through some of the SIs.

 

because they can....and did.

[menigma]

Thanks. Thats the answer I had been looking for. I was not being awkward by questioning your posts, but with all respect 'because they can and do' is not a particularly helpful answer bearing in mind I opened the thread because I did not know why they are higher in London. Now that I know, it still stinks as unfair.

 

Again, thanks for the info.

[lamma]

No offense taken at all. We are all here to learn and exchange information - apart from the always blazingly obvious posts from the PPCs themselves trying to shore up their 'cause'.

You are correct to push and I commend you for it.

It is the only way to bottom things out and it makes the forum more effective and the knowledge it captures more valuable - again apart from the blazingly obvious PPC posts. Which is one of the reasons they put them here namely to pollute the information

 

"They do because they can" was really me saying something on a couple of levels about councils and the way they operate...I am sure you can fill in the blanks...

[green_and_mean]

No they cannot set the price. If they were free to set their own, you think Westminister would 'only' charge £120. The penalty bands are set by the Secretary of State and councils choose which levels to implement and if you look at the TMA 2004 London is seperately specified with higher rate bands and I want to know why.

 

For the third time my question, which you have not answered is, why does London have higher PCN charges than the rest of the country?

 

 

I did actually answer your question on the 6th may! London charges are set by the London Councils and the Mayor however... he Secretary of State may give notice to the Mayor of London that he objects to the levels of charges on the grounds that some or all of them are excessive. The LAs set the charges as I stated before they are different because they came to a different figure that they thought applicable. I'm sure a £20 may be a deterent in a sleepy village but would not be effective in London where parking can easily cost £20 per day.

[menigma]

Yes, I admit I got hung up on the Sec of State angle. My error. Thank you for your post.

 

However, I must object to your reasoning about the levels of penalties.

 

To argue that the top level is £120 because we in London (because we are obviously so wealthy) would find the £70 maximium that everyone else in the UK pays as too low a deterrant and encourage illegal parking is utter tosh. £70 is more than half a normal family's weekly shop.

 

Jeez G&M, how much do you earn?

[green_and_mean]

Yes, I admit I got hung up on the Sec of State angle. My error. Thank you for your post.

 

However, I must object to your reasoning about the levels of penalties.

 

To argue that the top level is £120 because we in London (because we are obviously so wealthy) would find the £70 maximium that everyone else in the UK pays as too low a deterrant and encourage illegal parking is utter tosh. £70 is more than half a normal family's weekly shop.

 

Jeez G&M, how much do you earn?

 

Don't forget that with discount its only half of that, I know its still a lot but people still take the risk. Its a shame that PCNs cannot be earnings related, to some people in their posh cars (that cost more than I paid for my house!) a PCN is pocket money whilst to others like you say it can be a days wages.

[menigma]

I have very little sympathy with chancers when it comes to parking just as much as I have very little sympathy with PA's (CEO's) who rather than just saying 'next time you may get a ticket' when the situation permits, fall over themselves to issue tickets to people genuinely delayed in a P&D and otherwise law abiding. Alowing CEO's a right to excercise a modicum of common sense might help. Might explain to a degree why blue badges are so blatantly abused.

 

I agree with the earning aspect of fines. It occurs in Finland. I remember reading the boss of Nokia being fined something like a 100,000 euros for speeding and I will admit I have witnessed drivers of expensive cars shouting abuse at PA's because thay seem to believe their BMW is above the rules. A £10,000 fine may change their attitude. However, they are the exception to the rule.

Edited May 8, 2008 by menigma
unfinished post

[patdavies]

Its a shame that PCNs cannot be earnings related, to some people in their posh cars (that cost more than I paid for my house!) a PCN is pocket money whilst to others like you say it can be a days wages.

 

 

Whose earnings? The owner? More than a tad unfair if he/she was not driving at the time but has loaned the car.

 

As an example. Assume that I earn 5 times my wife's salary. If she gets a PCN in her car, then she pays £X. If she borrows my car and contravenes in exactly the same way, the penalty is £ 5X. That might be an interesting one for the Human Rights lawyers

[green_and_mean]

Whose earnings? The owner? More than a tad unfair if he/she was not driving at the time but has loaned the car.

 

As an example. Assume that I earn 5 times my wife's salary. If she gets a PCN in her car, then she pays £X. If she borrows my car and contravenes in exactly the same way, the penalty is £ 5X. That might be an interesting one for the Human Rights lawyers

 

Obviously it would never happen but if it did for some bizare reason the whole law would have to be changed including who was liable.