Jump to content

TfL FOI Disclosure of criteria

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5030 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

I’ve not been here for a while, missed you all!


I came across this today; it makes a very interesting piece of reading for me personally, and might for others dealing with TfL and congestion charge issues too. I can't see that anyone else has posted it here.



mySociety Blog Archive TfL Criteria for Assessing Congestion Charge Appeals Available via WhatDoTheyKnow


So, TfL have finally been forced to publish, after persuading the Information Commission to agree with them, and it being overturned by the Tribunal. (Walmsley in reverse?)


Well done to the individual that was persistent and to mysociety.org for publicising it.


I took a case to all the way to a Review at the sham ‘appeals facility’, and the adjudicator did state quite firmly that they felt that this secret document should be freely available to the public – about whom the decisions were being made, if there were standard criteria we should know what they are (of course). Also, they said that the adjudicators would very much like a copy of it too!!!!! They were fishing in the dark like the rest of us.


I discover that my instance is on the REJECT list even though their website indicated that it would be considered at the time.


I’ve not gone away, still fighting my corner. Every little helps.

Why aren't we revolting?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It occurs to me that every local authority must have a similar document, and can also be required to disclose it under a FOI request. These should be collated. Anyone up for it?


This would answer many questions on this forum, and provide a really interesting comparison of the different approaches.


I think I'll tell Baroness Walmsley about this one: ACCEPT

Says paid:

Either the customer’s evidence or search on system shows that they paid for wrong VRM because

they either paid for a different vehicle or there was an error made in recording the vehicle

registration number they paid for regardless of payment channel and receipt purchased meets relevant PND requirements of 6.2.


This rule includes all types of VRM entry errors regardless of character length or transposition.


(Mistakes such as entering your car make or model are now to be accepted i.e. paid for Jaguar

instead of their actual VRM)


All the way to the Court of Appeal.... for why? Obstinacy?

Why aren't we revolting?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only but also....

It seems that Local Authorities have 'Selected Partners' that don't have to pay CC! (P34)

Some animals are more equal than others....

Some pigs have their noses in troughs, again.

Why aren't we revolting?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...