Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Reported only in the right-wing media (GB News, Telegraph, Mail and Sun) is the decision by a tribunal that the ULEZ signs are unlawful and Penalty Charge Notices issued to the owner of a scaffolding firm are invalid.
What do you mean the £12.50 goes to TfL too. My point was that they could have gone for a ban with a high fine for driving a polluting car into the zone, but that would have been even more unpopular.
I think the fuss will die down even before Christmas. It was reported the site to check compliance fell over yesterday, suggesting loads of people never checked until the last second OR panicked because the right wing had implied everyone was going to have to pay.
I've seen many posts from people who have subsequently discovered they're not affected. I do wonder why so many left it so late to check though.
Meanwhile the supposed protesters all appeared to be middle aged white people with signs that also mentioned vaccines, 15 minute cities and/or per mile charging. Seems like nothing but bandwagon jumping (how many live or drive into London, or even own a car?), and if proven right they'll all get bored and move on in weeks.
What do you mean the £12.50 goes to TfL too. My point was that they could have gone for a ban with a high fine for driving a polluting car into the zone, but that would have been even more unpopular.
I don’t see that happening. Its now day 2 and everyone has done everything on day one. Feels like it’s mostly Bromley council doing it the most with protests, etc.
The legislation does create an offence but only if you do something to interfere with the scheme:
25(1) A person who, with intent to avoid payment of a charge imposed by a charging scheme or with intent to avoid being identified as having failed to pay such a charge,—
(a) interferes with any equipment, or with the functioning of any equipment, used for or in connection with charging under a charging scheme, or
(b) causes or permits the registration plate of a motor vehicle to be obscured, or
(c) makes or uses any false document,
is guilty of an offence.
(1A) A person who makes or uses any false document with intent to avoid payment of, or being identified as having failed to pay, a charge imposed by a charging scheme or a penalty charge is guilty of an offence.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under sub-paragraph (1) or (1A) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both.
An Act to establish and make provision about the Greater London Authority, the Mayor of London and the London Assembly; to make provision in relation to London borough councils and the Common Council of the City of London with respect to matters consequential on the establishment of the Greater...
www.legislation.gov.uk
There is provision for the creation of regulations to allow the creation of penalty charges:
12(1) Regulations may make provision for or in connection with the imposition and payment of penalty charges in respect of acts, omissions, events or circumstances relating to or connected with a charging scheme.
(2) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1) above may make provision for or in connection with setting the rates of penalty charges (which may include provision for discounts or surcharges).
An Act to establish and make provision about the Greater London Authority, the Mayor of London and the London Assembly; to make provision in relation to London borough councils and the Common Council of the City of London with respect to matters consequential on the establishment of the Greater...
www.legislation.gov.uk
I am presuming such regulations have been made (though I cannot find them from a very quick Google) as TfL's website is clear that penalty charges do apply in certain circumstances:
Penalty charges for ULEZ
London road user charging
We may issue a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) if you drive within the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) in a vehicle that does not meet the emissions standards and you do not pay the correct daily charge.
You may be issued with a PCN if:
Your vehicle does not meet ULEZ emissions standards and you are not exempt or registered for a 100% discount
Your vehicle does not meet the ULEZ emissions standards and you haven’t paid the correct charge by midnight on the third charging day after travelling in the zone
You paid the charge for an incorrect number plate (vehicle registration mark) or incorrect day of travel
You paid by post less than 10 days before your date of travel
Both UK and non-UK registered vehicles can get PCNs.
We may issue a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) if you drive within the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) in a vehicle that does not meet the emissions standards and you do not pay the correct daily charge.
tfl.gov.uk
The charge appears to be a flat £180 (reduced to £90 if paid within 14 days).
But other than that? A quick glance doesn't suggest that there are any other powers to do anything but levy a charge (though it seems that the power is quite broad as to how much the charge may be!).
The expansion goes into force tomorrow. As a Labour Party hater, I really hope Sadiq Khan loses the election next year (thats a poll for another thread) and Conservative wins and gets rid of ULEZ entirely when TfL have enough money as we know they don’t have much. Can easily put fares up on their services to help counter the problem of their money.
But the reason ULEZ is so unpopular we're told is because it punishes the poor. So why on earth would you suggest punishing the poor by putting up tube and bus fares?
What do you mean the £12.50 goes to TfL too. My point was that they could have gone for a ban with a high fine for driving a polluting car into the zone, but that would have been even more unpopular.
The £12-50 charge goes to TfL so it is Khan's cash cow to cover for his mismanagement of TfL.
A fine would not go to TfL so Khan has no interest in fines. There is a difference between a charge and a fine.
Khan has no interest in cleaner air, he is just using ULEZ to raise money for TfL to try and cover up his own incompetence.
The suggestion was why not go with a total ban instead of a charge, therefore if they did switch to a total ban and therefore a fine for not adhering to the ban I would expect legislation would need to reflect that plan instead of the current one.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The £12-50 charge goes to TfL so it is Khan's cash cow to cover for his mismanagement of TfL.
A fine would not go to TfL so Khan has no interest in fines. There is a difference between a charge and a fine.
Khan has no interest in cleaner air, he is just using ULEZ to raise money for TfL to try and cover up his own incompetence.
What incompetance? That the government decided not to subsidise public transport and would rather cut taxes on fuel duty. The TfL finances issue is a combination of changes in travel patterns following the pandemic and a switch to home-working alongside the government removing any subsidy.
The suggestion was why not go with a total ban instead of a charge, therefore if they did switch to a total ban and therefore a fine for not adhering to the ban I would expect legislation would need to reflect that plan instead of the current one.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
What incompetance? That the government decided not to subsidise public transport and would rather cut taxes on fuel duty. The TfL finances issue is a combination of changes in travel patterns following the pandemic and a switch to home-working alongside the government removing any subsidy.
Which for many people encouraged them onto the Underground.
So there was no direct discouragment to using the services. Just enforcement of rules put in by the government and advised by the WHO, which it is thought encouraged many people back out. Unless you have direct evidence otherwise?
I can't believe people are serious when they say there should be no charge and these vehicles should be completely banned. Actually I think many of those people are being insincere if not down right duplicitous.
If that was the plan then the pushback would have been significantly worse. The stories of a little old granny that lives just across the London border that drives over once a year for Christmas write themselves. Why oh why, says the grandmother of 6, can't I pay a small charge - not much more than a tube fare, to see my family. It's a terrible injustice.
TFL finances could certainly be a thread of it's own and having worked for a company much smaller than TFL, there's various ways the books can be spun. Having said that central government have repeatedly told TFL to make their own money - of course Shapps suggested a higher and wider congestion charge which Khan wrongly (in my view) rejected. TFL wanted to build some flats on a tube car park (to you know, earn this money they were told to earn) but then Grant Shapps himself vetoed the plan
The tories are playing people for fools here. Trying to play both sides. It's a shame that many people can't see it. Telling cities they have to get air quality to within legal limits and then campaigning against them actually doing anything about it.
The tories are playing people for fools here. Trying to play both sides. It's a shame that many people can't see it. Telling cities they have to get air quality to within legal limits and then campaigning against them actually doing anything about it.
A letter published in 2020 is circulating on social media as evidence that the proposed ULEZ expansion was ordered by the government.
fullfact.org
While a funding agreement between the government and Transport for London in 2020 did state that proposals to expand ULEZ should be brought forward, the Department for Transport says this referred to existing plans to extend the boundary as far as the North and South Circular Roads, not the expansion across all of Greater London which is set to take place later this month.
There's more detail in the link for those interested.
Then there's the issue of the "doctored" research, following Imperial's conclusion that the scheme would make little to no difference to air quality....
It's not only the Tories playing people for fools here, is it?
I think the fuss will die down even before Christmas. It was reported the site to check compliance fell over yesterday, suggesting loads of people never checked until the last second OR panicked because the right wing had implied everyone was going to have to pay.
I've seen many posts from people who have subsequently discovered they're not affected. I do wonder why so many left it so late to check though.
Meanwhile the supposed protesters all appeared to be middle aged white people with signs that also mentioned vaccines, 15 minute cities and/or per mile charging. Seems like nothing but bandwagon jumping (how many live or drive into London, or even own a car?), and if proven right they'll all get bored and move on in weeks.
A lot of people put things off. I myself am concerned about the pressure ULEZ puts on the price of second hand but compliant cars.
Dangerous generalisation there. I am one of those who protested. I am pro vaccines - fair enough I cannot have some because of my allergy and luckily my immune system is very strong - currently !. Most of those I spoke to where quite well informed and expected to drive in Greater London.
Pay per mile is bound to happen. It has to exist - how else do you tax the actual use of electric cars, ICE cars get a tax on use in the form of quite high tax on Petrol and Diesel. There is a lot of central government revenue at stake there. The crime will be if ICE owners have to pay BOTH fuel tax and pay per mile.
The suggestion was why not go with a total ban instead of a charge, therefore if they did switch to a total ban and therefore a fine for not adhering to the ban I would expect legislation would need to reflect that plan instead of the current one.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
What incompetance? That the government decided not to subsidise public transport and would rather cut taxes on fuel duty. The TfL finances issue is a combination of changes in travel patterns following the pandemic and a switch to home-working alongside the government removing any subsidy.
I can't believe people are serious when they say there should be no charge and these vehicles should be completely banned. Actually I think many of those people are being insincere if not down right duplicitous.
If that was the plan then the pushback would have been significantly worse. The stories of a little old granny that lives just across the London border that drives over once a year for Christmas write themselves. Why oh why, says the grandmother of 6, can't I pay a small charge - not much more than a tube fare, to see my family. It's a terrible injustice.
TFL finances could certainly be a thread of it's own and having worked for a company much smaller than TFL, there's various ways the books can be spun. Having said that central government have repeatedly told TFL to make their own money - of course Shapps suggested a higher and wider congestion charge which Khan wrongly (in my view) rejected. TFL wanted to build some flats on a tube car park (to you know, earn this money they were told to earn) but then Grant Shapps himself vetoed the plan
The tories are playing people for fools here. Trying to play both sides. It's a shame that many people can't see it. Telling cities they have to get air quality to within legal limits and then campaigning against them actually doing anything about it.
I would say road pricing has to come into existence. The tax on Petrol and Diesel catered for that in the past but electric cars cannot be taxed that way because the same fuel (electricity) is used for running peoples homes. What I suspect is that once road pricing comes in then people driving ICE cars will pay twice as I will be amazed if the tax on Petrol and Diesel is dropped.
Central government has spent years reducing the support local authorities get. Can argue it is fair the locals pay for what benefit from in their own area BUT it has lead to financial difficulties at a number of local authorities. Its been a big financial cut.
A letter published in 2020 is circulating on social media as evidence that the proposed ULEZ expansion was ordered by the government.
fullfact.org
There's more detail in the link for those interested.
Then there's the issue of the "doctored" research, following Imperial's conclusion that the scheme would make little to no difference to air quality....
It's not only the Tories playing people for fools here, is it?
I think where TfLs hand has been forced is by the legal requirement to improve air quality. I really think the legal process is taking over.
I think some of the research may turn out to be flawed/biased. But a simple point I would make is we have come a long way in terms of air quality.
Back in the 50s Smog and the clean air act.
Lead being removed from Petrol (circa 1970 S).
We are on a road of diminishing returns - should we really be bothered by what is left ?.
And if health is so important then why do there continue to be so many stabbings ?. Easy answer is that it is not easy to enforce knife laws so screw law abiding citizens who conveniently travel round London with their id on their car !. Meanwhile those wearing hoodies are free to carry (and use) knives, jump ticket gates and sell drugs etc etc.
My strongest bug bear is the increase in car usage driven by car culture. Nobody in authority seems to attempt to stem the tide of out of town shopping. But they are quite happy to let ordinary people (usually the poorer) pay for their obstinate lack of foresight.
I can't see how per-mile-charging is going to be introduced. Too many cars with differing levels of technology, and no recognised standards, and anything you needed to get fitted would be open to abuse. So perhaps you decide that by 2030 you can only sell a vehicle with the necessary tech onboard, and then give xxx years until all cars have it.
And still you'll have people finding ways to hack the technology.
I am pretty sure they'll just impose taxes on the vehicles, and when EVs are a lot cheaper, it will be quite possible to increase the tax on them without massively increasing the prices.
You're right the Government needs an alternative revenue stream, and it can't really be on electricity supply, so they'll find something.
Don't forget we have the congestion charge also. EVs may be green, but they still cause congestion as much as an ICE vehicle. That doesn't require a per-mile-charging system to be developed.
I can't see how per-mile-charging is going to be introduced. Too many cars with differing levels of technology, and no recognised standards, and anything you needed to get fitted would be open to abuse. So perhaps you decide that by 2030 you can only sell a vehicle with the necessary tech onboard, and then give xxx years until all cars have it.
And still you'll have people finding ways to hack the technology.
I am pretty sure they'll just impose taxes on the vehicles, and when EVs are a lot cheaper, it will be quite possible to increase the tax on them without massively increasing the prices.
You're right the Government needs an alternative revenue stream, and it can't really be on electricity supply, so they'll find something.
Don't forget we have the congestion charge also. EVs may be green, but they still cause congestion as much as an ICE vehicle. That doesn't require a per-mile-charging system to be developed.
However ANPR could deliver much of the same without being reliant on another system (cars), especially given that for most rural roads there would be little benefit from charging between settlements.
For example if you've got village A, B and C along a length of road you'd just have cameras as you reach the village (where I live with a population of nearly 10,000 would need just 6 to cover all the roads entering the settlement, whilst another nearby village with half the population would need just 4) so you get charged for entering or exiting each village and a small charge for traveling between the two.
For larger places you may set up zones (say upto a mile across).
Whilst that would allow some "free" journeys they would mostly be within local areas and probably not for much distance along a busy road or cost to keep locations. For example it could be possible for some to get close to the local school, but if they drove within (say) 300m they would be picked up by an ANPR and charged.
As such a lot of travel will be subject to payments without having to track the exact mileage.
Of course it could be possible to have a two tier system, one where your car/phone gives detailed information for which you are charged a lower rate and the other being by ANPR for a higher charge rate (so for most people it was cheaper to use their phone/car - but there an option not to, for example you've got a flat phone battery or you want to pay more).
Also 5 'visits' to the ULEZ over the pass week with a non-compliant car, and my auto-pay account is yet to register any activity. I've certainly once driven passed a mobile camera car in full view of it. (I was aware of it on subsequent visits, and the road being a dual carriageway, managed to hide behind high sided vehicles).
Also 5 'visits' to the ULEZ over the pass week with a non-compliant car, and my auto-pay account is yet to register any activity. I've certainly once driven passed a mobile camera car in full view of it. (I was aware of it on subsequent visits, and the road being a dual carriageway, managed to hide behind high sided vehicles).
If I recall correctly they had a one month grace period when it was expanded last time, it wasn't really advertised by TFL though. Would be surprised if they didn't do something similar this time.
I crossed the "border" when driving a few times this morning; my area is one that has quite a few roads that are within Greater London but to which the Ulez doesn't apply. It's my understanding that the boundary of the Ulez is now the same as the Lez which has been in place for over 15 years now. One thing I noticed was the overwhelming lack of signage to make people aware that it was now in force. At at least one road which entered the area it still only had the old "Low emissions ZONE" signage rather than the newer signage which has "LEZ ULEZ" on a green background. There were also places that only had the signage on one side of the road. Can they enforce this if you entered the zone in these places and didn't pay; it seems the signage in many places is inadequate or incorrect?
I crossed the "border" when driving a few times this morning; my area is one that has quite a few roads that are within Greater London but to which the Ulez doesn't apply. It's my understanding that the boundary of the Ulez is now the same as the Lez which has been in place for over 15 years now. One thing I noticed was the overwhelming lack of signage to make people aware that it was now in force. At at least one road which entered the area it still only had the old "Low emissions ZONE" signage rather than the newer signage which has "LEZ ULEZ" on a green background. There were also places that only had the signage on one side of the road. Can they enforce this if you entered the zone in these places and didn't pay; it seems the signage in many places is inadequate or incorrect?
I gather many councils in Greater London are refusing to put the ULEZ signs up. Also there seems to have been a case won by a businessman arguing that the signs do not make it clear that a charge has to be paid if you pass. In other words there are no legal signs for the ULEZ one way or another. Not been thought out very well in my view.
If I recall correctly they had a one month grace period when it was expanded last time, it wasn't really advertised by TFL though. Would be surprised if they didn't do something similar this time.
They really need to advertise that then. It's ok for me if that's the case, but others I work with are just paying daily (similar to the Dart Charge) and there is no way to check if that money has been 'used' as such. So they are handing £62.50 a week to TfL without it being necessary (if we are in a grace period that is)
My council has said that "The council did not permit or enter into an agreement with Sadiq Khan or Transport for London to install signage or cameras in the borough. The Mayor instead resorted to using powers under the Greater London Authority Act (GLA) 1999 to directly erect this equipment" so it sounds like regardless of whether any council [in Greater London, as they don't have the power to install equipment in the neighbouring counties] is happy to allow signage to be installed, TfL has the power to install them anyway. Additionally, a lot of equipment, seem to have been installed on top of traffic lights, which is why they are so vulnerable to vandalism because most traffic lights are much lower down. TfL controls all permanent traffic lights within Greater London, even on non-TfL roads.
I think the issue is the most of councils outside Greater London are refusing to install warning signage for motorists approaching the ULEZ:
The RAC has raised concerns over the refusal by councils to install warning signs for the expanded Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez).
The expansion, effective from Tuesday, imposes a daily charge of £12.50 on some vehicles entering London.
Six out of the seven councils neighbouring the capital have not signed an agreement with Transport for London (TfL) to install warnings signs.
I gather many councils in Greater London are refusing to put the ULEZ signs up. Also there seems to have been a case won by a businessman arguing that the signs do not make it clear that a charge has to be paid if you pass. In other words there are no legal signs for the ULEZ one way or another. Not been thought out very well in my view.
Experts say the green and white signs marking the beginning of the Ulez area are legally non-compliant as they do not explicitly warn drivers of the charge - which could prompt challenges from drivers.
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
tfl.gov.uk
fullfact.org
www.bbc.co.uk
