Residents' Parking Permit - CO2 Emission-based charging
A UK Citizen
Permit at a rate based on my car's CO2 emission factor. Under what law
can it raise this revenue in this fashion?
This does not seem at all to be related to the original purpose or
duty assigned to the Council to manage traffic in its area. I would
suggest they acting *Ultra Vires*. I would suggest they do not have
the authority to make a distinction between cars for charging
purposes.
A parked car does not emit any CO2.
Robin
It would help if you stated which borough. (I cannot see that carries
any risk: you are not accusing them of anything.) But a good starting
point for you might be the account given in section 9 of the paper
prepared for Richmond which discussed the legality of such differential
charges for off-street parking etc - link below. The relevant text is
too long to
quote but in summary prays in aid sections 32, 45 and 122 of the Road
Traffic Regulation Act 1984, hence s80 of the Environment Act 1995, R v
London Boroughs Transport Committee ex p. Freight Transport Association
Ltd (1991), and the Local Government Act 2000.
http://cabnet.richmond.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.asp?ID=17822
PS
Sadly I don't live in Richmond - I just know/envy someone who does ;(
--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com
Alex Heney
<cjdro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I live in a borough in London which charges for a Residents' Parking
>Permit at a rate based on my car's CO2 emission factor. Under what law
>can it raise this revenue in this fashion?
>
The law that allows them to charge for residents parking permits.
What law do you believe might *prevent* them from doing this?
If there is no such law, then they can do it.
>This does not seem at all to be related to the original purpose or
>duty assigned to the Council to manage traffic in its area. I would
>suggest they acting *Ultra Vires*. I would suggest they do not have
>the authority to make a distinction between cars for charging
>purposes.
>
>A parked car does not emit any CO2.
>
Which is beside any point you may have regarding the legality.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
"I think not," said Descartes, and promptly disappeared.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Mark Goodge
typed:
>On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 10:00:05 +0100, A UK Citizen
><cjdro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I live in a borough in London which charges for a Residents' Parking
>>Permit at a rate based on my car's CO2 emission factor. Under what law
>>can it raise this revenue in this fashion?
>>
>
>The law that allows them to charge for residents parking permits.
>
>What law do you believe might *prevent* them from doing this?
>
>If there is no such law, then they can do it.
That's not the question. There's no dispute that they are permitted to
charge for residents parking permits. What is a matter of dispute is
whether they are permitted to charge different amounts to different
residents based on factors entirely unrelated to the service being
provided. Would they, for example, be permitted to charge more for yellow
cars than red cars, or be permitted to offer a discount for Fords while
imposing a surcharge on Fiats?
If the answer to that question is "no", then I find it hard to believe that
it would be permissible to charge more for cars which emit more CO2 when in
use than others. As the OP says, a parked car emits no CO2 at all.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Steve Walker
> On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 21:30:02 +0100, Alex Heney put finger to keyboard and
>> <cjdro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I live in a borough in London which charges for a Residents' Parking
>>> Permit at a rate based on my car's CO2 emission factor. Under what law
>>> can it raise this revenue in this fashion?
>>
>> The law that allows them to charge for residents parking permits.
>> What law do you believe might *prevent* them from doing this?
>> If there is no such law, then they can do it.
>
> That's not the question. There's no dispute that they are permitted to
> charge for residents parking permits. What is a matter of dispute is
> whether they are permitted to charge different amounts to different
> residents based on factors entirely unrelated to the service being
> provided. Would they, for example, be permitted to charge more for yellow
> cars than red cars, or be permitted to offer a discount for Fords while
> imposing a surcharge on Fiats?
I think that Alex's point is that they are allowed to do anything which they
are not prohibited from doing. Obviously that's open to Wednesbury
challenge if it's utterly silly.
But if for sound public health reasons a local authority wishes to
incentivise low-emission vehicles in their area, I can't see any obvious
reason why they cannot do so.
David McNeish
wrote:
> If the answer to that question is "no", then I find it hard to believe that
> it would be permissible to charge more for cars which emit more CO2 when in
> use than others. As the OP says, a parked car emits no CO2 at all.
Not sure about the legality, but they're certainly not unique.
Edinburgh started charging on a similar basis last year.
Jon Ribbens
> I think that Alex's point is that they are allowed to do anything which they
> are not prohibited from doing.
While that may be true for private individuals, for local authorities
I believe that to be completely untrue. They may only make decisions
upon the bases that they are permitted to do so.
Steve Walker
Sometimes, yes - parking is one area where there are certainly regulations
and standards which all LA's must abide by. But where that is applicable,
it is because there is a law which prohibits them from doing certain things
(as above). LA's do have a surprising amount of flexibility in how they
pursue their duties - for example the recent wave of semi-privatisations,
arm's-length buyouts, terminate-and-reengage pay reductions, mergers etc.
But returning to the point - if you know of a regulation which prevents
incentivised charging to encourage low-emission cars, the OP would doubtless
be grateful. Personally I suspect that there isn't one.
Jon Ribbens
> But returning to the point - if you know of a regulation which prevents
> incentivised charging to encourage low-emission cars, the OP would doubtless
> be grateful. Personally I suspect that there isn't one.
Well, that's my point. I suspect that there must be a regulation which
says they *may* take emissions into account, otherwise it is unlawful
for them to take emissions into account. But I have no idea if there
is such a regulation.
Peter Crosland
news:2a02ce2a-3162-4ba3...@h17g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
You need to obtain and read the traffic regulation order under which the
permits are issued. If this does not provide for differential charging on
the basis is of CO2 emissions I would suggest they are not permitted.
Peter Crosland
Kim Bolton
A UK Citizen wrote:
Find out the councillor's addresses, and pop round to them to see what
cars are parked outside their houses. Go to a Council meeting and see
who turns up in what.
If low-emission isn't good enough for them....write an embarrassing
letter.
--
from
Kim Bolton
A UK Citizen
wrote:
Yes, that was my point and question: what right do they have to make
differential charge? None as far as I can see.
LB Camden is the borough in question.
Most owners of the real gas-guzzlers in Camden park can afford to park
off-street, so Camden cannot exercise this charge fairly across the
board.
Petrol consumption and CO2 emission is completely unrelated to parking
or traffic management. It might make more sense if they were to charge
a differential amount for the kerb length of one's car, charging a
Smart car far less than a Bentley, for example.But they haven't chosen
that method to differentiate.
If this were extended to other areas where the Local Authority is
active they might invent higher Council Tax charges on businesses
selling tobacco or booze. Or higher charges to walk your Rottweiler in
the public park than your Chihuahua.
Yes, LB Richmond has dropped this altogether.
A UK Citizen
> On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 10:00:05 +0100, A UK Citizen
>
>
> If there is no such law, then they can do it.
>
I don't think so. Their sovereignty is surely very different from
Parliament's and Central Government's. They have to have specially
specifically denominated and delegated powers to be able to do
anything.
Mark Goodge
typed:
>Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> On 2011-07-09, Steve Walker <spam...@beeb.net> wrote:
>>> I think that Alex's point is that they are allowed to do anything which
>>> they are not prohibited from doing.
>>
>> While that may be true for private individuals, for local authorities
>> I believe that to be completely untrue. They may only make decisions
>> upon the bases that they are permitted to do so.
>
>Sometimes, yes -
No, currently it's always. Local authorities have no general power of
competence. That will change with the passage of the Localism Bill, though.
>parking is one area where there are certainly regulations
>and standards which all LA's must abide by. But where that is applicable,
>it is because there is a law which prohibits them from doing certain things
>(as above). LA's do have a surprising amount of flexibility in how they
>pursue their duties - for example the recent wave of semi-privatisations,
>arm's-length buyouts, terminate-and-reengage pay reductions, mergers etc.
They have a lot of flexibility where flexibility is granted to them. And
there are a lot of situations where this is the case.
>But returning to the point - if you know of a regulation which prevents
>incentivised charging to encourage low-emission cars, the OP would doubtless
>be grateful. Personally I suspect that there isn't one.
I think that the most likely challenge to such a policy would be that it
amounts to a tax rather than a charge. Councils are permitted to charge for
the provision of various services, including the issue of parking permits.
But they are not allowed to impose a tax of any kind. A charge which, while
ostensibly a charge for a service, is set at levels which differ from
customer to customer on arbitrary grounds which are entirely unrelated to
the provision of the service could well be deemed to be a tax.
A UK Citizen
> Mark Goodge wrote:
> But if for sound public health reasons a local authority wishes to
> incentivise low-emission vehicles in their area, I can't see any obvious
> reason why they cannot do so.
The belief that a high level of CO2 emission is "unhealthy" is nothing
pure religion. Catholics, Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists should all pay
higher income taxes because they are more likely to be "traitors" than
CoE Protestants, Atheists get a rebate -Bah! what nonsense.
If local authorities are truly allowed to raise income in such a
manner, I can only wait for and speculate on what other absurd
regulations they may decide to introduce. Local Authorities must be
checked at all times.
Roland Perry
2011, Steve Walker <spam...@beeb.net> remarked:
>But if for sound public health reasons a local authority wishes to
>incentivise low-emission vehicles in their area, I can't see any obvious
>reason why they cannot do so.
I'm not sure what the immediate public health risks are from CO2. Surely
you'd be more worried about particulates, nitrogen oxides and
hydrocarbons?
--
Roland Perry
Steve Walker
I'm not a scientist, but I assume they use that because CO2 is a reasonable
proxy measure for general emission / pollution. The same measure is used
for incentivising low-emission cars through taxation at national level.
Steve Walker
> On 9 July, 23:25, "Steve Walker" <spam-t...@beeb.net> wrote:
>> Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> But if for sound public health reasons a local authority wishes to
>> incentivise low-emission vehicles in their area, I can't see any obvious
>> reason why they cannot do so.
>
> The belief that a high level of CO2 emission is "unhealthy" is nothing
> pure religion.
We could have a separate debate on climate change, but it's not really
relevant here. There are people who sincerely believe that smoking isn't
particularly harmful, that it's good for children to explore their sexuality
with the help of an adult, or that road speed limits are a dangerous
distraction from real safety awareness, etc.
Public policy at the present time is based upon mitigating climate change by
reducing emissions, and you can't opt out because you believe it's a
mistaken view.
Lordgnome
"Steve Walker" <spam...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:97s87n...@mid.individual.net...
> But returning to the point - if you know of a regulation which prevents
> incentivised charging to encourage low-emission cars, the OP would
> doubtless
> be grateful. Personally I suspect that there isn't one.
>
and what it emits elsewhere is not within the domain of any traffic order
relating to parking. That applies even if one believes that CO2 is harmful.
Personally, I'd like a bit more. It helps the plants grow!
Les.
Roland Perry
>reducing emissions, and you can't opt out because you believe it's a
>mistaken view.
But it's not a "public health" issue, and if we are talking about a
genuine desire to reduce CO2, they should be looking at the car's annual
mileage, as well as its rate of emitting CO2.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
>> you'd be more worried about particulates, nitrogen oxides and
>> hydrocarbons?
>
>I'm not a scientist, but I assume they use that because CO2 is a reasonable
>proxy measure for general emission / pollution. The same measure is used
>for incentivising low-emission cars through taxation at national level.
There is widespread confusion about the "emissions" issue, with many
people claiming that reducing CO2 reduces "pollution". But the two
things are independent - indeed it was once the case (maybe they've
fixed it now) that engineering solutions to the toxic emissions issue
made engines overall less fuel efficient, which increase the CO2.
The way that toxic emissions are regulated is through MOT tests, and
rules about the 'EURO category' of engine which can be fitted according
to the age of the vehicle.
--
Roland Perry
S
wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 01:00:31 +0100, Steve Walker put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
> >Jon Ribbens wrote:
> >>> I think that Alex's point is that they are allowed to do anything which
> >>> they are not prohibited from doing.
>
> >> While that may be true for private individuals, for local authorities
> >> I believe that to be completely untrue. They may only make decisions
> >> upon the bases that they are permitted to do so.
>
> >Sometimes, yes -
>
> No, currently it's always. Local authorities have no general power of
> competence. That will change with the passage of the Localism Bill, though.
>
> >parking is one area where there are certainly regulations
> >and standards which all LA's must abide by. But where that is applicable,
> >it is because there is a law which prohibits them from doing certain things
> >(as above). LA's do have a surprising amount of flexibility in how they
> >pursue their duties - for example the recent wave of semi-privatisations,
> >arm's-length buyouts, terminate-and-reengage pay reductions, mergers etc.
>
> They have a lot of flexibility where flexibility is granted to them. And
> there are a lot of situations where this is the case.
>
> >But returning to the point - if you know of a regulation which prevents
> >incentivised charging to encourage low-emission cars, the OP would doubtless
> >be grateful. Personally I suspect that there isn't one.
>
> I think that the most likely challenge to such a policy would be that it
> amounts to a tax rather than a charge. Councils are permitted to charge for
> the provision of various services, including the issue of parking permits.
> But they are not allowed to impose a tax of any kind.
Council tax?
Btw, my employer charges for parking spaces according to salary
bands.
Roland Perry
<e962c3a6-c704-4c6b...@u28g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, at
13:10:03 on Sun, 10 Jul 2011, S <s_pick...@yahoo.com> remarked:
>>Councils are permitted to charge for
>> the provision of various services, including the issue of parking permits.
>> But they are not allowed to impose a tax of any kind.
>
>Council tax?
They also charge VAT on some things (for example filing planning
notices), and impose PAYE on their staff; but I think that rather misses
the point. Those are taxes which Westminster has specifically made them
responsible for collecting. What they can't do is invent new taxes by
themselves.
But it makes a good soundbite, like this in today's news:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-14076970
The Dean of St Barnabas, Father Michael Brown described possible
charges [for Sunday parking outside his church] as "an unfair
tax on churchgoers"
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
>On Jul 10, 8:40 am, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>wrote:
>>
>> I think that the most likely challenge to such a policy would be that it
>> amounts to a tax rather than a charge. Councils are permitted to charge for
>> the provision of various services, including the issue of parking permits.
>> But they are not allowed to impose a tax of any kind.
>
>Council tax?
Council tax is imposed by central government. Councils merely set the local
rate and collect it. And they're not free to set differential rates of
council tax on any basis other than the valuation banding.
>Btw, my employer charges for parking spaces according to salary
>bands.
Which you presumably agree to in your contract of employment. Residents
have no such contract with their council regarding parking permits.
Roland Perry
14:10:02 on Sun, 10 Jul 2011, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>Council tax?
>
>Council tax is imposed by central government. Councils merely set the local
>rate and collect it. And they're not free to set differential rates of
>council tax on any basis other than the valuation banding.
Now there's a thought... lower council tax for low carbon homes. I
wonder if they'd be up for that. Probably not, as the higher parking fee
is probably more to do with revenue gathering than actually saving the
planet (and space heating in homes and offices vastly outnumbers
car-generated carbon in any case).
>>Btw, my employer charges for parking spaces according to salary
>>bands.
>
>Which you presumably agree to in your contract of employment.
I wonder what the legislation says when the council imposes a "workspace
parking fee", which Nottingham City is piloting. Can that over-ride
existing employment contracts, and for example allow the employer to
pass on the approx £1/day fee to the employees regardless?
--
Roland Perry
Alex Heney
It works the other way around, even for public authorities.
*Some* public bodies do have laws specifying that they are only
allowed to do a very restricted range of things. But town/county
councils are not among those.
There are also of course restrictions on councils in that they have a
number of duties, and they should not do things which interfere with
those duties.
But in general, even for councils, if there is no law specifying they
cannot do it, then they can.
Alex Heney
They have the power to charge for parking permits.
*What* they charge, and how they differentiate (if at all) is left
entirely to them AFAICS.
Alex Heney
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 21:30:02 +0100, Alex Heney put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>
>>On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 10:00:05 +0100, A UK Citizen
>><cjdro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I live in a borough in London which charges for a Residents' Parking
>>>Permit at a rate based on my car's CO2 emission factor. Under what law
>>>can it raise this revenue in this fashion?
>>>
>>
>>The law that allows them to charge for residents parking permits.
>>
>>What law do you believe might *prevent* them from doing this?
>>
>>If there is no such law, then they can do it.
>
>That's not the question.
What isn't?
I made two separate points in three paragraphs, and although you have
responded after the last, your response *appears* only to be relevant
to the first.
>There's no dispute that they are permitted to
>charge for residents parking permits. What is a matter of dispute is
>whether they are permitted to charge different amounts to different
>residents based on factors entirely unrelated to the service being
>provided. Would they, for example, be permitted to charge more for yellow
>cars than red cars, or be permitted to offer a discount for Fords while
>imposing a surcharge on Fiats?
>
As I said in the final two paragraphs. If there is no law preventing
them then they can do it.
>If the answer to that question is "no", then I find it hard to believe that
>it would be permissible to charge more for cars which emit more CO2 when in
>use than others. As the OP says, a parked car emits no CO2 at all.
>
As far as I am aware, there is no law preventing them from charging
differential amounts for any reason at all so long as it doesn't fall
under any of the anti-discrimination laws.
Alex Heney
Whereas I would suggest that unless it says differential charging is
not permitted (or says it is only permitted on certain grounds), then
it *is* permitted.
The relevant statute is, I believe The Road Traffic Regulation Act
1984, section 45(2).
This appears to allow the authority to charge pretty well as they
like, given that in general, they make the orders referred to
themselves.
45(2)(b) says:
==============================
b) except in the case of a public service vehicle, may make such
charge in connection with the issue or use of the permit, of such
amount and payable in such manner, as the authority by whom the
designation order was made may by order prescribe.
===============================
David McNeish
> I wonder what the legislation says when the council imposes a "workspace
> parking fee", which Nottingham City is piloting. Can that over-ride
> existing employment contracts, and for example allow the employer to
> pass on the approx £1/day fee to the employees regardless?
No, it's a cost for the employer to bear. Though I wouldn't have
thought many people's employment contracts actually give them a right
to free workplace parking.
John Briggs
>
> This does not seem at all to be related to the original purpose or
> duty assigned to the Council to manage traffic in its area. I would
> suggest they acting *Ultra Vires*.
The doctrine of ultra vires, as applied to local authorities, is
somewhat mysterious in origin, and probably has no real validity.
(The speculation is that it grew up because most town clerks were
solicitors.)
--
John Briggs
Jon Ribbens
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 01:35:01 +0100, Jon Ribbens
><jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>>Well, that's my point. I suspect that there must be a regulation which
>>says they *may* take emissions into account, otherwise it is unlawful
>>for them to take emissions into account. But I have no idea if there
>>is such a regulation.
>
> It works the other way around, even for public authorities.
>
> *Some* public bodies do have laws specifying that they are only
> allowed to do a very restricted range of things. But town/county
> councils are not among those.
That is incorrect I'm afraid. Councils may only do those things that
they are explicitly permitted to by law. "... local councils are able
to act only where empowered to do so by legislation ... Any action
that local councils take without specific statutory backing can be
struck down by the courts on the grounds that it is 'beyond their
powers' ('ultra vires')":
http://www.parliament.uk/Templates/BriefingPapers/Pages/BPPdfDownload.aspx?bp-id=SN05687
There is a bill currently going through parliament (the "Localism
Bill") which may effectively change this by giving councils a "general
power of competence", but it is not yet passed:
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/localism.html
Roland Perry
<c7cab93e-4d72-4a62...@h11g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, at
23:30:02 on Sun, 10 Jul 2011, David McNeish <davi...@gmail.com>
remarked:
>> I wonder what the legislation says when the council imposes a "workspace
>> parking fee", which Nottingham City is piloting. Can that over-ride
>> existing employment contracts, and for example allow the employer to
>> pass on the approx £1/day fee to the employees regardless?
>
>No, it's a cost for the employer to bear. Though I wouldn't have
>thought many people's employment contracts actually give them a right
>to free workplace parking.
At the very least, if the employer allocates parking (sometimes even
putting up nameplates) and has never charged, that would become part of
the employment contract I'd have thought. I have worked for companies
where workplace parking has been specifically put into the contract
(because it needed to be restricted to a very few).
On the other hand, I've read about other employers who have introduced
charging for employees (with classic permit systems or barriers) and
it's not been opposed as being a contract issue. FWIW, suddenly
introducing charging has often shown that what it achieves is merely to
displace the parking to nearby residential streets. It'll be interesting
to see how the Nottingham scheme works, as the City itself is quite
compact and doesn't have much on-street parking. The huge Boots site
straddles the border - so guess what they are planning:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/8475925.stm
--
Roland Perry
Mark
wrote:
And personnally I think taxation based on the car's CO2 output imposed
/after/ you have bought the car is pointless. Once you have a car you
are not going to change it just because of some artibary tax.
It be be more fair to charge based on the size of the car which is at
least rated to the amount of parking space you need.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
Roland Perry
Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Mark <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> remarked:
>>But it's not a "public health" issue, and if we are talking about a
>>genuine desire to reduce CO2, they should be looking at the car's annual
>>mileage, as well as its rate of emitting CO2.
>
>And personnally I think taxation based on the car's CO2 output imposed
>/after/ you have bought the car is pointless. Once you have a car you
>are not going to change it just because of some artibary tax.
And if you do change, it's likely to be for a newer car whose
manufacture has a vast carbon footprint.
>It be be more fair to charge based on the size of the car which is at
>least rated to the amount of parking space you need.
Most normal cars are pretty much the same length (look at a car park one
day and see how they all stick out almost the same). Here's a list
compiled by a ferry company, and almost all the cars are between 4 and 5
metres long (and only one model of SMART car less than 3.4m).
<http://www.premierholidays.co.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/140578/veh
icletype.pdf>
--
Roland Perry
Martin Bonner
> There is widespread confusion about the "emissions" issue, with many
> people claiming that reducing CO2 reduces "pollution". But the two
> things are independent - indeed it was once the case (maybe they've
> fixed it now) that engineering solutions to the toxic emissions issue
> made engines overall less fuel efficient, which increase the CO2.
Not unless they've done so very recently (I'm no longer involved in
vehicle engine software), and I think it unlikely. In a very general
sense, if you require an engineering design to optimize one thing
(emissions), it necessarily has an impact on all the others (fuel
economy, capital cost, maintenance cost, durability).
Mark Goodge
typed:
>On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 23:10:09 +0100, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>There's no dispute that they are permitted to
>>charge for residents parking permits. What is a matter of dispute is
>>whether they are permitted to charge different amounts to different
>>residents based on factors entirely unrelated to the service being
>>provided. Would they, for example, be permitted to charge more for yellow
>>cars than red cars, or be permitted to offer a discount for Fords while
>>imposing a surcharge on Fiats?
>>
>
>As I said in the final two paragraphs. If there is no law preventing
>them then they can do it.
And, as has been pointed out by several people, that's not the case.
Councils don't have a general power of competance; unlike the rest of us
they can only do things they are empowered by law to do rather than being
permitted to anything not prohibited. And, in any case, one thing that
councils are explicitly prohibited from doing (and will be prohibited from
doing even after the passage of the Localism Bill which does grant a
general power of competance) is to impose a tax, or anything which looks
like a tax, without authority from central government.
>>If the answer to that question is "no", then I find it hard to believe that
>>it would be permissible to charge more for cars which emit more CO2 when in
>>use than others. As the OP says, a parked car emits no CO2 at all.
>>
>
>As far as I am aware, there is no law preventing them from charging
>differential amounts for any reason at all so long as it doesn't fall
>under any of the anti-discrimination laws.
If the charge isn't related to the provision of the service then it would
be very likely to be considered a tax, and hence unlawful.
Roland Perry
Sun, 10 Jul 2011, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> remarked:
>As far as I am aware, there is no law preventing them from charging
>differential amounts for any reason at all so long as it doesn't fall
>under any of the anti-discrimination laws.
But what we need to be looking for is a law that *allows* them to do
differential pricing, and for which criteria. If it's simply cost
recovery (which is what councils normally say when challenged) it's
difficult to see why it costs more to issue and police a permit for a
3-litre car compared to a 1-litre.
--
Roland Perry
Tired
"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:taeh179qer2310l2u...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 10:00:05 +0100, A UK Citizen
> <cjdro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I live in a borough in London which charges for a Residents' Parking
>>Permit at a rate based on my car's CO2 emission factor. Under what law
>>can it raise this revenue in this fashion?
>>
>
>
> What law do you believe might *prevent* them from doing this?
>
A local authority can only act on the powers granted by Parliament. Ie, the
reference to 'ultra vires'. These powers are outlined in the LGA. There is a
caveat to all this though. The LGA 2000 gave councils the power to promote
the economic/social/environmental 'wellbeing' .
It is the 'wellbeing' which some authorities have interpreted as the right
to do pretty much anything they want.
Tired
"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6vjh171fbackfmek1...@news.markshouse.net...
> On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 21:30:02 +0100, Alex Heney put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>>On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 10:00:05 +0100, A UK Citizen
>><cjdro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I live in a borough in London which charges for a Residents' Parking
>>>Permit at a rate based on my car's CO2 emission factor. Under what law
>>>can it raise this revenue in this fashion?
>>>
>>
>>The law that allows them to charge for residents parking permits.
>>
>>What law do you believe might *prevent* them from doing this?
>>
>>If there is no such law, then they can do it.
>
> charge for residents parking permits. What is a matter of dispute is
> whether they are permitted to charge different amounts to different
> residents based on factors entirely unrelated to the service being
> provided. Would they, for example, be permitted to charge more for yellow
> cars than red cars, or be permitted to offer a discount for Fords while
> imposing a surcharge on Fiats?
>
> that
> it would be permissible to charge more for cars which emit more CO2 when
> in
> use than others. As the OP says, a parked car emits no CO2 at all.
Promoting the environmental well being of the area could be used as a
justification for variable charges based on emissions.
Tired
>> On 2011-07-09, Steve Walker <spam...@beeb.net> wrote:
>>> I think that Alex's point is that they are allowed to do anything which
>>> they are not prohibited from doing.
>>
>> While that may be true for private individuals, for local authorities
>> I believe that to be completely untrue. They may only make decisions
>
> Sometimes, yes
As i understood it, that is 'Always'.
Tired
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 01:00:31 +0100, Steve Walker put finger to keyboard
> and
> typed:
>
>>Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> On 2011-07-09, Steve Walker <spam...@beeb.net> wrote:
>>>> I think that Alex's point is that they are allowed to do anything which
>>>> they are not prohibited from doing.
>>>
>>> While that may be true for private individuals, for local authorities
>>> I believe that to be completely untrue. They may only make decisions
>>> upon the bases that they are permitted to do so.
>>
>
> No, currently it's always. Local authorities have no general power of
> though.
>
As i mentioned up the thread, they do have a general power of promoting the
well being of the area:
"Promotion of well-being.
(1)Every local authority are to have power to do anything which they
consider is likely to achieve any one or more of the following objects-
(a)the promotion or improvement of the economic well-being of their area,
(b)the promotion or improvement of the social well-being of their area, and
(c)the promotion or improvement of the environmental well-being of their
area.
(2)The power under subsection (1) may be exercised in relation to or for the
benefit of-
(a)the whole or any part of a local authority's area, or
(b)all or any persons resident or present in a local authority's area.
(3)In determining whether or how to exercise the power under subsection (1),
a local authority must have regard to their strategy under section 4.
(4)The power under subsection (1) includes power for a local authority to-
(a)incur expenditure,
(b)give financial assistance to any person,
(c)enter into arrangements or agreements with any person,
(d)co-operate with, or facilitate or co-ordinate the activities of, any
person,
(e)exercise on behalf of any person any functions of that person, and
(f)provide staff, goods, services or accommodation to any person.
(5)The power under subsection (1) includes power for a local authority to do
anything in relation to, or for the benefit of, any person or area situated
outside their area if they consider that it is likely to achieve any one or
more of the objects in that subsection.
(6)Nothing in subsection (4) or (5) affects the generality of the power
under subsection (1)."
Tired
"John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:kLpSp.27017$NX1....@newsfe18.ams2...
So no local authority has been prosecuted as a result of acting ultra vires?
That ultra vires has not been part of deliberations of judicial reviews of
local authority actions either?
Steve Firth
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 10:40:02 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> In message <97t8bb...@mid.individual.net>, at 10:10:02 on Sun, 10 Jul
>> 2011, Steve Walker <spam...@beeb.net> remarked:
>>> Public policy at the present time is based upon mitigating climate change by
>>> reducing emissions, and you can't opt out because you believe it's a
>>> mistaken view.
>>
>> But it's not a "public health" issue, and if we are talking about a
>> genuine desire to reduce CO2, they should be looking at the car's annual
>> mileage, as well as its rate of emitting CO2.
>
> And personnally I think taxation based on the car's CO2 output imposed
> /after/ you have bought the car is pointless. Once you have a car you
> are not going to change it just because of some artibary tax.
>
> It be be more fair to charge based on the size of the car which is at
> least rated to the amount of parking space you need.
Well that could also be amusing. A Ford Explorer is shorter than a Mondeo
estate. The Jeep Grand Cherokee is smaller than many saloons and
hatchbacks. The new Range Rover Evoque is smaller than a Focus.
So that would reduce all of the anti 4x4 greenies to frothing hysteria.
Go for it!
Mark
wrote:
>In message <sqml175gg2pkpvvjt...@4ax.com>, at 12:20:02 on
>Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Mark <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> remarked:
>
>>>But it's not a "public health" issue, and if we are talking about a
>>>genuine desire to reduce CO2, they should be looking at the car's annual
>>>mileage, as well as its rate of emitting CO2.
>>
>>And personnally I think taxation based on the car's CO2 output imposed
>>/after/ you have bought the car is pointless. Once you have a car you
>>are not going to change it just because of some artibary tax.
>
>And if you do change, it's likely to be for a newer car whose
>manufacture has a vast carbon footprint.
Very true.
>>It be be more fair to charge based on the size of the car which is at
>>least rated to the amount of parking space you need.
>
>Most normal cars are pretty much the same length (look at a car park one
>day and see how they all stick out almost the same). Here's a list
>compiled by a ferry company, and almost all the cars are between 4 and 5
>metres long (and only one model of SMART car less than 3.4m).
>
><http://www.premierholidays.co.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/140578/veh
>icletype.pdf>
When I am driving my large estate car it certainly /feels/ a lot
bigger than average. In a car park my car often does not fit when the
majority of cars do.
Mark
But it won't (promote the environmental well being).
Roland Perry
<1892023883332076958.461158%steve%-mallo...@news.individual.net>, at
12:50:02 on Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
remarked:
>> It be be more fair to charge based on the size of the car which is at
>> least rated to the amount of parking space you need.
>
>Well that could also be amusing. A Ford Explorer is shorter than a Mondeo
>estate. The Jeep Grand Cherokee is smaller than many saloons and
>hatchbacks. The new Range Rover Evoque is smaller than a Focus.
When I used to attract criticism for driving a classic Range Rover, on
the grounds of hogging road space, I was happy to point out it was
shorter than a Mondeo!
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
2011, Tired <n...@no.com> remarked:
>Promoting the environmental well being of the area could be used as a
>justification for variable charges based on emissions.
Based on Nitrogen Oxides, particulates etc perhaps, but CO2 has no
direct effect upon the local area. (I'm assuming we are looking for
something more directly local than alleged long term global effects).
--
Roland Perry
S
> On 2011-07-09, Steve Walker <spam-t...@beeb.net> wrote:
>
> > I think that Alex's point is that they are allowed to do anything which they
> > are not prohibited from doing.
>
> While that may be true for private individuals, for local authorities
> I believe that to be completely untrue. They may only make decisions
Local authorities may even have a legal obligation to fight global
warming and reduce CO_2 emissions.
Roland Perry
>>Most normal cars are pretty much the same length (look at a car park one
>>day and see how they all stick out almost the same). Here's a list
>>compiled by a ferry company, and almost all the cars are between 4 and 5
>>metres long (and only one model of SMART car less than 3.4m).
>>
>><http://www.premierholidays.co.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/140578/veh
>>icletype.pdf>
>
>When I am driving my large estate car it certainly /feels/ a lot
>bigger than average. In a car park my car often does not fit when the
>majority of cars do.
I think some of that is the psychology of being able to see the rear
quarters, but not being able to see many car boots. Remember that they
will often be sharing a floor pan. Width is more often an issue - I was
at the station recently and a chap in a Mercedes S-Class was having
difficulty getting his door open. But even that car's only 5.2m long.
My Volvo estate is the same length as the equivalent saloon, and the
classic "antique dealer's hearse" Volvo estates are only 4.7m long.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
<00410542-8d1f-42c7...@10g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, at
18:20:02 on Mon, 11 Jul 2011, S <s_pick...@yahoo.com> remarked:
>Local authorities may even have a legal obligation to fight global
>warming and reduce CO_2 emissions.
If they do (which is perhaps unlikely) then encouraging use of a
residents parking bay is surely better than having the vehicle owner
driving around looking for somewhere else to park. And the bigger the
vehicle, the less you want it driving around.
--
Roland Perry
Alex Heney
wrote:
>In message
Their argument would be that they are discouraging the purchase and
use of such vehicles.
Roland Perry
Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> remarked:
>>>Local authorities may even have a legal obligation to fight global
>>>warming and reduce CO_2 emissions.
>>
>>If they do (which is perhaps unlikely) then encouraging use of a
>>residents parking bay is surely better than having the vehicle owner
>>driving around looking for somewhere else to park. And the bigger the
>>vehicle, the less you want it driving around.
>
>Their argument would be that they are discouraging the purchase and
>use of such vehicles.
And it's a very poor argument. I'd like to see their figures that show
what the objective is and why they think the higher parking fee achieves
it.
--
Roland Perry
Mark
wrote:
>In message
Equally they might argue that not allowing vehicles to park at all
would discourage car use. An argument that I would not accept,
however.
Ian Jackson
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>And it's a very poor argument. I'd like to see their figures that show
>what the objective is and why they think the higher parking fee achieves
>it.
Whether it's a poor argument or not, it's not going to be held
Wednesbury unreasonable. The OP is tilting at windmills.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Adam Funk
> I wonder what the legislation says when the council imposes a "workspace
> parking fee", which Nottingham City is piloting. Can that over-ride
> existing employment contracts, and for example allow the employer to
> pass on the approx £1/day fee to the employees regardless?
Hmm, did tenants get to pass the council tax on to landlords as a rent
reduction when the tax was changed from ownership to occupancy?
Going back to the original topic, I understand the point of using
taxes to encourage people to buy less polluting cars, but reducing
parking and congestion charges for them is ridiculous. An electric
car [setting aside for the minute the arguments about efficiency &
merely displacing the pollution somewhere else] with one person in it
at peak times is wasting just as much road space as any other car, and
just as much parking space during the day.
Roland Perry
Jul 2011, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
>On 2011-07-10, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> I wonder what the legislation says when the council imposes a "workspace
>> parking fee", which Nottingham City is piloting. Can that over-ride
>> existing employment contracts, and for example allow the employer to
>> pass on the approx £1/day fee to the employees regardless?
>
>Hmm, did tenants get to pass the council tax on to landlords as a rent
>reduction when the tax was changed from ownership to occupancy?
I don't know, but back in the day I did hear tales of landlords where
the protected rent was less than what the landlord was paying in rates.
That can't possibly have been equitable.
--
Roland Perry
Percy Picacity
news:52yXv9b7...@perry.co.uk:
>
> I don't know, but back in the day I did hear tales of landlords
> where the protected rent was less than what the landlord was
> paying in rates. That can't possibly have been equitable.
>
I don't agree. There is an argument that people should not be able to
make a profit on buying residential buildings and letting them out, and
that rent should only act as some temporary assistance pending the
transfer of the property to someone who needs housing or to a social
landlord. Not such a popular idea nowadays, of course.
--
Percy Picacity
Roland Perry
Wed, 13 Jul 2011, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> remarked:
>> I don't know, but back in the day I did hear tales of landlords
>> where the protected rent was less than what the landlord was
>> paying in rates. That can't possibly have been equitable.
>
>I don't agree. There is an argument that people should not be able to
>make a profit on buying residential buildings and letting them out, and
>that rent should only act as some temporary assistance pending the
>transfer of the property to someone who needs housing or to a social
>landlord. Not such a popular idea nowadays, of course.
Never popular with people who had a mortgage on the property I expect.
And why would it ever be right to rent at a loss, as well as paying the
rates there's also maintenance to do, insurance to pay for etc.
--
Roland Perry
Stuart A. Bronstein
> Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> remarked:
>>> I don't know, but back in the day I did hear tales of
>>> landlords where the protected rent was less than what the
>>> landlord was paying in rates. That can't possibly have been
>>> equitable.
>>
>>I don't agree. There is an argument that people should not be
>>able to make a profit on buying residential buildings and
>>letting them out, and that rent should only act as some
>>temporary assistance pending the transfer of the property to
>>someone who needs housing or to a social landlord. Not such a
>>popular idea nowadays, of course.
>
> Never popular with people who had a mortgage on the property I
> expect. And why would it ever be right to rent at a loss, as
> well as paying the rates there's also maintenance to do,
> insurance to pay for etc.
I've seen it happen that rent received is less than mortgage and
other obligations of the landlord. People do this because they
believe the value of the property will go up enough to make it worth
their while.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Roland Perry
20:40:02 on Wed, 13 Jul 2011, Stuart A. Bronstein
<spam...@lexregia.com> remarked:
>>why would it ever be right to rent at a loss, as
>> well as paying the rates there's also maintenance to do,
>> insurance to pay for etc.
>
>I've seen it happen that rent received is less than mortgage and
>other obligations of the landlord.
When I said "at a loss" there, it was when there's no mortgage. (ie
rates paid by landlord alone are more than the rent).
>People do this because they believe the value of the property will go
>up enough to make it worth their while.
I'm not sure how many people deliberately aim to make a loss when
there's a mortgage involved, because you have a negative cashflow. If
the rental is by force of circumstances perhaps.
--
Roland Perry
Mark
wrote:
>In message <Xns9F21801CB4C2Bs...@130.133.4.11>, at
Maybe it would be to offset profits made elsewhere.
Unrestricted rents seem to have "helpful" fuel the ridiculous rise in
house prices since they make buying more worthwhile.
Roland Perry
Thu, 14 Jul 2011, Mark <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> remarked:
>>I'm not sure how many people deliberately aim to make a loss when
>>there's a mortgage involved, because you have a negative cashflow. If
>>the rental is by force of circumstances perhaps.
>
>Maybe it would be to offset profits made elsewhere.
Unless there's an equivalent to a poverty trap operating, it's not
sensible to deliberately reduce your profits so as to pay less tax.
You'll still have less money in your pocket at the end.
>Unrestricted rents seem to have "helpful" fuel the ridiculous rise in
>house prices since they make buying more worthwhile.
Rents haven't risen as much as house prices, so should be more
attractive than taking out a mortgage.
At my previous house I was paying at about 5% (a reasonable fixed rate
pre-crunch), whereas the monthly rental value would have been about 60%
of that (had the mortgage been 100%, interest-only). A 25yr repayment
mortgage would have been about twice the rental value.
Those ratios are typical of properties in the town where I live.
--
Roland Perry
Mark
wrote:
>In message <709t17dcee5eehh5h...@4ax.com>, at 09:20:03 on
>Thu, 14 Jul 2011, Mark <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> remarked:
>
>>>I'm not sure how many people deliberately aim to make a loss when
>>>there's a mortgage involved, because you have a negative cashflow. If
>>>the rental is by force of circumstances perhaps.
>>
>>Maybe it would be to offset profits made elsewhere.
>
>Unless there's an equivalent to a poverty trap operating, it's not
>sensible to deliberately reduce your profits so as to pay less tax.
>You'll still have less money in your pocket at the end.
But the landlord may decide that the potential rise in house prices is
worth making a loss on the rent. During the boom there were people
buying houses and leaving them empty.
>>Unrestricted rents seem to have "helpful" fuel the ridiculous rise in
>>house prices since they make buying more worthwhile.
>
>Rents haven't risen as much as house prices, so should be more
>attractive than taking out a mortgage.
But it's not just house prices that matter. Interest rates are also
important here. Rents tend to rise over the years due to inflation
whereas mortgage payments normally remain fixed or only fluctuate due
to interest rate changes.
>At my previous house I was paying at about 5% (a reasonable fixed rate
>pre-crunch), whereas the monthly rental value would have been about 60%
>of that (had the mortgage been 100%, interest-only). A 25yr repayment
>mortgage would have been about twice the rental value.
>
>Those ratios are typical of properties in the town where I live.
Around here rentals a considerably more than mortgage payments AFAIK.
And with rentals you never stop paying.