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

George_Michael

steedoc wrote: »

The reason people think it's reasonable is that they use the service regularly, and they know how to work it.

It was making an incorrect assumption that got you into the mess you are in and you've just made another incorrect assumption.


I have never driven into central London so I don't use the service regularly but I still think that well in excess of 24 hours to pay for a service already provided is more than ample and if I didn't have a clue as to how long I had to pay, I would make very sure that I found out as soon as possible.

steedoc

Nearly_Old wrote: »

It is not arbritary as the dictionary definition of arbitrary is:


1. based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."an arbitrary decision"

synonyms: capricious, whimsical, random, chance, erratic, unpredictable, inconsistent, wild, hit-or-miss, haphazard, casual;


The system was based on a rational choice using experience from existing systems, and was also then subjected to statutory and public consultation before the legal orders were made. Public consultation is open to all members of the public it is up to each individual to decide whether they want to make a representation, this is why protesters can make objections to a new highway even if they live hundreds of miles away. It was definitely not a random choice or personal whim or inconsistent, etc. This is the reason why it is not an arbritrary requirement.

What a lot of hot air.

You can say it's reasonable and un-arbitrary until the cow come home, but I note that you are unable to provide me a single reason.... NB the fact that a load of bureaucrats once decided something does not constitute a reason

George_Michael

steedoc wrote: »

Are people living under fascist regimes making 'a mistake'? Just because the authorities have an iron grip over my eighty pounds doesn't mean they are right or correct.

But they are right and correct as by entering the congestion charging zone you agreed to pay for it in the time stated in the terms and condition for this and you had the option to read up on those conditions before using the charging zone.
You might not like it but this doesn't mean that it is morally or legally wrong.

If it wasn't right or correct, don't you think someone would have successfully challenged in in court before now?

steedoc

Scrapit wrote: »

I go home every day, not 1 in 3 days. Duh.
Also can we expand how living near the congestion zone makes you better at googling it?

People who live near to the zone are more likely to have prior knowledge about the system from friends relatives and colleagues. Likewise, people who live near the zone are more likely to pop into it and then go home.

Neither of these things are true for people who are visiting the Zone from the provinces at 5.30pm.

steedoc

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

I’m disappointed. Steve said the current payment rules wouldn’t be in place for much longer but I’ve just checked and they still are. I’m heading into central London on Friday and was hoping to use the new payment flexibility he promised. It looks like I’ll have to try and track down some internet on Saturday.

Very funny duck. Unlike you, I don't expect things to be done in 30hrs. So, I'll give policy makers a chance to review my protest before I start manually removing pc terminals from the Darlington HQ

steedoc

George_Michael wrote: »

But they are right and correct as by entering the congestion charging zone you agreed to pay for it in the time stated in the terms and condition for this and you had the option to read up on those conditions before using the charging zone.
You might not like it but this doesn't mean that it is morally or legally wrong.

If it wasn't right or correct, don't you think someone would have successfully challenged in in court before now?

Again, the fact that someone hasn't successfully challenged the status quo does not mean the status quo is right and correct, logic 101.

No, I did not enter a contract to pay within 30hrs, I entered in to a contract to pay in a reasonable time span of three days. In order to enter a contract I would have had to read a notice on a sign or a website landing page - and there is no such notice - which I have proven to the thread time and time again. This area of contract law is well understood in parking situations. get a clue?

brianposter

Scrapit wrote: »

If you don't pay within 1 day why would you in 3?

This really takes the biscuit for an idiotic response. Many people would pay simply because they had found the facilities to pay.

Have people become so ignorant that they do not understand the realities of travelling ?

AdrianC

steedoc wrote: »

No, I did not enter a contract to pay within 30hrs, I entered in to a contract to pay in a reasonable time span of three days.

And who did you agree that contract with?

In order to enter a contract I would have had to read a notice on a sign or a website landing page - and there is no such notice - which I have proven to the thread time and time again. This area of contract law is well understood in parking situations. get a clue?

Umm, wasn't it you saying that parking was different...?

Apart from anything else, let's not forget that this is more akin to council parking or yellow lines - with legislative backing - than it is to private car park penalty charges.

unforeseen

steedoc wrote: »

Again, the fact that someone hasn't successfully challenged the status quo does not mean the status quo is right and correct, logic 101.

No, I did not enter a contract to pay within 30hrs, I entered in to a contract to pay in a reasonable time span of three days. In order to enter a contract I would have had to read a notice on a sign or a website landing page - and there is no such notice - which I have proven to the thread time and time again. This area of contract law is well understood in parking situations. get a clue?

You didn't enter into a contract. Legislation stipulated that you will pay by midnight of the following day otherwise you would face a penalty.

steedoc

AdrianC wrote: »

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.

I mean 48 hours from the end of the charging period, so if I enter zone at 5.30pm on a Thursday I will be able to pay my dues at 5pm on Saturday. That seems fair(er) to me.