Congestion Charge 24hr window - please help break this down for me!

AdrianC

steedoc wrote: »

i) people have immense trouble understanding my basic objection to my penalty, evidenced by the large quantity of chaff I have had to dodge throughout the discussion.

No, we understand your objection. We just don't think it even remotely valid.

-The CZ signage is visible and clearly shows when you are entering the zone

Lovely, but the reason the signage was raised was to counter the "accidentally enter" argument.

-I do not object to making the payment in a timely manner, either on the day of entering the zone or shortly after.

Umm, actually, yes, that's exactly what you're doing.

-There is no equivalence between using a zone where there is an understanding that one will pay 'after the fact', and charges to do with parking

Yes, there is.

ii) The substantive part of my complaint is that there is no good reason for TfL to impose a short time window to pay the congestion charge

And you seem to have conveniently forgotten that it is not just TfL, and that the window is fairly consistent nationally.
You also seem to have forgotten to tell us how long you think IS fair.

The only poster who has come close to addressing the issue is Adrian, who hypothesized that the window has to set this tight as otherwise people would forget. This is the single only piece of logic generated back to me throughout the discussion, so thanks Adrian.

My pleasure, but I've just been back through this thread, and I didn't.

I have demonstrated that for first-time users of the system, seeing as there is no logical reason to assume a tight time window (30hrs)

And, again, "30hr" is the absolute bare minimum. What you actually mean is "midnight at the end of the next charging day after the day of entry". That could easily be 89 hours after entering the zone, one charging day in five, even before considering bank holidays and Xmas/NY. But using the absolute bare minimum time possible helps your appeal to sympathy, doesn't it?

and because the payment window is not publicised on the congestion charge website landing page

It's one click away, behind the clearly labelled "payment" link. In bold.

Further, because no good reason for the short payment window has been provided, one has to assume that TfL is acting in bad faith

You're VERY fond of assumptions, aren't you?

Dean000000

via Imgflip Meme Generator

Nearly_Old

steedoc wrote: »

I have demonstrated that for first-time users of the system, seeing as there is no logical reason to assume a tight time window (30hrs), and because the payment window is not publicised on the signs or on the congestion charge website landing page, this PCN is not so much a penalty charge, but a BLANKET charge for hundreds and thousands of motorists every year, who are acting reasonably.

Having re-read all the posts I seem to have missed this "demonstration". The TFL figures show that 95% of users conform to the payment requirements this demonstrates a very high level of conformance.


The payment window is actually from say 3 weeks (but could be longer) prior to the date of use and midnight on the first charging day after the day the CZ was entered. Midnight on the day after is not arbritrary as it is set in the legal orders for the CZ which were subject to both statutory and public consultations. None of the consultations raised any objections that would have required a public inquiry - the 30 hours was therefore accepted as being reasonable. The charging was not arbritrarily introduced by TFL as when there was a proposal in 2017 to increase the PCN from £130 to £160 there had to be a further round of public and statutory consultations https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/appendix_b_-_report_to_the_mayor_-_pcn_consultation_2017_final_003.pdf


Again no consultees asked for a public inquiry so another demonstration that TFL's proposals were considered to be reasonable and the legal orders were subsequently amended.

Hermione_Granger

Nearly_Old wrote: »

Having re-read all the posts I seem to have missed this "demonstration". The TFL figures show that 95% of users conform to the payment requirements this demonstrates a very high level of conformance.

And of the 5% that don't pay on time (or don't pay at all), I wonder how many of them were from foreign registered vehicles and diplomatic vehicles where the keepers didn't have any intention of paying.
There were over 2600 non paid penalties issued to diplomatic vehicles in 2017 and if the number of unpaid charges for foreign vehicles is anything like the Dartford toll (on average, well over 1/4 million foreign vehicles fail to pay the toll each year), there will be a great many of these.

steedoc

wow I thought that was all fairly conclusive, but it seems there are a few bugs that still need to be ironed out.

AdrianC wrote: »

No, we understand your objection. We just don't think it even remotely valid.

- Great argument, I'm flawed by this logic.

AdrianC wrote: »

Lovely, but the reason the signage was raised was to counter the "accidentally enter" argument.

I didn't make that argument, and I'm not trying to make that argument, so I don't see how it's relevant

AdrianC wrote: »

Umm, actually, yes, that's exactly what you're doing.

Nope, I have no objection to paying shortly after - which in any reasonable view is 48hrs.

AdrianC wrote: »

Yes, there is.

Again, no there isn't. Parking is paid for upfront, meals are paid for simultaneously the service is received.

The congestion charge is paid - after - (especially if you don't have a smart phone) it has been used.

AdrianC wrote: »

And you seem to have conveniently forgotten that it is not just TfL, and that the window is fairly consistent nationally.

Adrian, two questions, please tell me where there is a congestion zone in place outside London, ie "nationally"? Please tell me where there is a time window of 30hrs for payment after using a service nationally. Please don't refer to the ***ing Dartford tunnel, it's a one-off exception which is nothing to do with congestion zones, and hardly something to prove a "national" precedent.

AdrianC wrote: »

You also seem to have forgotten to tell us how long you think IS fair.

48hrs minimum

AdrianC wrote: »

My pleasure, but I've just been back through this thread, and I didn't.

Oh sorry maybe it was the lame duck

AdrianC wrote: »

And, again, "30hr" is the absolute bare minimum. What you actually mean is "midnight at the end of the next charging day after the day of entry". That could easily be 89 hours after entering the zone, one charging day in five, even before considering bank holidays and Xmas/NY. But using the absolute bare minimum time possible helps your appeal to sympathy, doesn't it?

If you're designing a system to be fair, it has to be fair in the limit cases. The law doesn't work under the principle of 'oh it's fair for most people so that's ok if a few people get screwed'. get a clue.

AdrianC wrote: »

It's one click away, behind the clearly labelled "payment" link. In bold.

good, so again, I safely say that the Tfl haven't publicized the information on the information landing page on their website. And therefore are not doing their half of the bargain.

steedoc

Nearly_Old wrote: »

Having re-read all the posts I seem to have missed this "demonstration". The TFL figures show that 95% of users conform to the payment requirements this demonstrates a very high level of conformance.


The payment window is actually from say 3 weeks (but could be longer) prior to the date of use and midnight on the first charging day after the day the CZ was entered. Midnight on the day after is not arbritrary as it is set in the legal orders for the CZ which were subject to both statutory and public consultations. None of the consultations raised any objections that would have required a public inquiry - the 30 hours was therefore accepted as being reasonable. The charging was not arbritrarily introduced by TFL as when there was a proposal in 2017 to increase the PCN from £130 to £160 there had to be a further round of public and statutory consultations https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/appendix_b_-_report_to_the_mayor_-_pcn_consultation_2017_final_003.pdf


Again no consultees asked for a public inquiry so another demonstration that TFL's proposals were considered to be reasonable and the legal orders were subsequently amended.

The fact that 95% of people (if that figure is correct) conform to paying in under 30 hrs, just shows that most people who use the congestion zone do so regularly. ie, they live in London. Therefore, by definition, they are not first-time users.

The subject of my complaint is that the 30hr window is an attack on first-time (perhaps provincial) users of the Zone. The figures do nothing to counter this complaint.

Were first time users who live outside the capital consulted? It doesn't matter, all you are saying is that, it's not arbitrary, it's just, the way it is. Again, devoid of any reasoning.

The fact you can pay before is irrelevant, because someone might have an unexpected trip to make into the zone on the day - and the system has to be fair to THAT person - not the weirdo who plans a drive into London 30 days in advance of the fact and pays the congestion charge then.

AdrianC

steedoc wrote: »

The fact that 95% of people (if that figure is correct) conform to paying in under 30 hrs, just shows that most people who use the congestion zone do so regularly. ie, they live in London. Therefore, by definition, they are not first-time users.

That's another rather massive leap of logic...

FWIW, I used to do quite a bit of work for a guy who was always racking up MASSIVE CC fines, bus lane fines, parking fines. He lived inside the South Circular, in SW London. He simply couldn't be bothered, and paid the fines eventually. Mostly, when they were on the way to court.

Were first time users who live outside the capital consulted?

I don't think you quite understand how public consultations work...

The fact you can pay before is irrelevant, because someone might have an unexpected trip to make into the zone on the day

Really. Is that what happened to the OP or to you?

George_Michael

steedoc wrote: »

Nope, I have no objection to paying shortly after - which in any reasonable view is 48hrs.

Not quite.
In your view, 48hrs is reasonable. In the view of just about every other poster on here, the time already allowed is reasonable or are you so arrogant that you honestly think that your opinion is the only reasonable one? (and that's a rhetorical question as I think all of the reasonable people using this forum already know the answer).

AdrianC

What do you mean by "48hrs"?


Do you mean a hard 48hrs from the time of liability? If we take an average liability time through the charging day, is not even 12hrs longer than the current "end of next charging day".


If you mean the end of two charging days after the liability, ie just one charging day extra, then that wouldn't have made any difference in your original scenario.

George_Michael

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

And of the 5% that don't pay on time (or don't pay at all), I wonder how many of them were from foreign registered vehicles and diplomatic vehicles where the keepers didn't have any intention of paying

There's an even more important figure to take into account when looking at the 5% of users who didn't pay on time:
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/appendix_b_-_report_to_the_mayor_-_pcn_consultation_2017_final_003.pdf

This review found that the volume of PCNs raised for TLRN and Congestion Charge contraventions in has been rising since 2011. It also found that the rate of repeat offending has been growing during the same period. In 2011 almost 60 percent of CC PCNs and 34 percent of TLRN PCNs were issued to repeat offenders. By 2016 this number increased to 64 per cent for the CC and 38 percent for TLRN PCNs

So of all the penalties for non payment issued in 2016, 64% of them were issued to repeat offenders.
Once you factor in the foreign vehicles and diplomatic non payers, the number of tickets issued to first time users who didn't understand the system is only a tiny fraction compared to those who seemed to understand it perfectly.