Legal challenges and congestion charging for 30 second journey leaving zone?
 

In principle I've been agreeing with the congestion charge, but that
was until I was caught in this trap. On an evening and outside zone
hours I would like to drive to my g/f's flat that's inside the zone by
about 100 yards drive. In the morning I would leave the private car
park, enter the zone to drive 30 seconds or even less on a deserted
side street to reach the zone exit and enter a dual lane main road
with no problems and not affecting the almost non-flow of traffic on
that particular road. Not believing that I'd have to pay 5 pounds for
the privilege of my negligible zone journey to exit the zone I've not
only one fine so far (unjust but I can live with it), but the prospect
of upwards of a thousands pounds or more. This is patently unjust and
I wonder how the scheme handles these cases. Any experiences? At a
pinch perhaps one would be elligible for a residents discount although
for someone technically not a resident, on the face of it probably
not.

From a legal standpoint, is anyone aware of any test cases so far that
challenge the reasonableness of a fixed charge? Charging the same of
someone making essentially a non journey and someone spending all day
driving in the zone, adding to not only congestion of traffic but also
that of street goers lungs from polution seems contestable and
unreasonable on the basis of any tests of reasonableness.

Perhaps the charging system should only charge if a driver is within
the zone for more than a certain period of time, and if entry to the
zone was not on file when recording a zone exit before a certain time
in the morning then no fee should be charged. This would probably not
reduce revenue much and be considerably more reasonable.

n.

Legal challenges and congestion charging for 30 second journey leaving zone?
 

Nick wrote:
In principle I've been agreeing with the congestion charge, but that
was until I was caught in this trap. On an evening and outside zone
hours I would like to drive to my g/f's flat that's inside the zone by
about 100 yards drive. In the morning I would leave the private car
park, enter the zone to drive 30 seconds or even less on a deserted
side street to reach the zone exit

This is not a "trap". You are driving on a public road inside the zone
during the hours of operation. Pay up and stop whingeing. If you don't
like it, get up earlier in the morning or use public transport.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Legal challenges and congestion charging for 30 second journey leaving zone?
 

Nick averred
In principle I've been agreeing with the congestion charge, but that
was until I was caught in this trap. On an evening and outside zone
hours I would like to drive to my g/f's flat that's inside the zone by
about 100 yards drive.

:-)) You were all in favour of the congestion charge, right up to the
moment when you found out it wasn't just Other People who were going to
have to pay it ...!

In the morning I would leave the private car
park, enter the zone to drive 30 seconds or even less on a deserted
side street to reach the zone exit and enter a dual lane main road
with no problems and not affecting the almost non-flow of traffic on
that particular road. Not believing that I'd have to pay 5 pounds for
the privilege of my negligible zone journey to exit the zone I've not
only one fine so far (unjust but I can live with it), but the prospect
of upwards of a thousands pounds or more. This is patently unjust and
I wonder how the scheme handles these cases. Any experiences? At a
pinch perhaps one would be elligible for a residents discount although
for someone technically not a resident, on the face of it probably
not.

From a legal standpoint, is anyone aware of any test cases so far that
challenge the reasonableness of a fixed charge? Charging the same of
someone making essentially a non journey and someone spending all day
driving in the zone, adding to not only congestion of traffic but also
that of street goers lungs from polution seems contestable and
unreasonable on the basis of any tests of reasonableness.

What a pity you didn't make that objection before you realised the
charge would apply to you. Then your objection wouldn't have been open
to the criticism of special pleading.

Perhaps the charging system should only charge if a driver is within
the zone for more than a certain period of time, and if entry to the
zone was not on file when recording a zone exit before a certain time
in the morning then no fee should be charged. This would probably not
reduce revenue much and be considerably more reasonable.


I too have an idea to make the scheme more reasonable. The congestion
charge should apply to the whole of central London, *except* the route
up Kennington Road and York Road, across Waterloo Bridge, through the
Aldwych, then up Kingsway and Woburn Place and so to Euston Station.

By an extraordinary coincidence I often drive along just that route
myself. But that hasn't influenced my opinion at all.

--
PeteM

Legal challenges and congestion charging for 30 second journeyleaving zone?
 

Nick wrote:

In principle I've been agreeing with the congestion charge, but that
was until I was caught in this trap. On an evening and outside zone
hours I would like to drive to my g/f's flat that's inside the zone by
about 100 yards drive. In the morning I would leave the private car
park, enter the zone to drive 30 seconds or even less on a deserted
side street to reach the zone exit and enter a dual lane main road
with no problems and not affecting the almost non-flow of traffic on
that particular road.

At what point, when it isn't deserted and you join a queue (thereby
contributing to that queue and hence the reason for the charge), should
you start paying?

At what distance should your current 100 yards become untenable as an
excuse? 200 yards? 400 yards? A mile? A free journey directly out from
any point in the zone if you start there when the charge kicks in?

Easiest answer: park your car outside of the zone overnight or, and this
is the nub, don't drive. It's the large numbers of cars on the roads
both within and without the zone that caused the charge in the first
place, just because you're skirting the edges doesn't mean you are not
part of the problem.

Sounds like a whinge if you ask me. Suck it up and pay.

Legal challenges and congestion charging for 30 second journey leaving zone?
 

"Richard J." wrote in message ...
Nick wrote:
In principle I've been agreeing with the congestion charge, but that
was until I was caught in this trap. On an evening and outside zone
hours I would like to drive to my g/f's flat that's inside the zone by
about 100 yards drive. In the morning I would leave the private car
park, enter the zone to drive 30 seconds or even less on a deserted
side street to reach the zone exit

This is not a "trap". You are driving on a public road inside the zone
during the hours of operation. Pay up and stop whingeing. If you don't
like it, get up earlier in the morning or use public transport.

lol. A predicted response as the post was bound to hit a nerve in
certain camps, but thanks for the feedback and your view none the
less.

I should say that IMHO the charge concept is fine and I agree in
principle. Anything that helps to improve efficiency of PT, car
journeys in/through town when necessary and perhaps improve air
quality and noise can only be a good thing, but the black and white
view of "your tyre crossed the line and so you have to pay 5 quid or
get a fine" is faulty.

No matter how vehemently one may be a fan of the CC, the reality is
that being expected to pay over a thousand pounds a year for the right
to travel a few yards down a deserted side road is by any standards
unreasonable, most particularly when the same cost buys the right to
travel for over 10 hours a day and create all manner of havoc if a CC
user so desired. The charge is after all a congestion charge, and
where a 30 second zone journey is the start of a route driving away
from town on roads well below capacity and where one doesn't even get
the chance to add to any congestion for the 5 quid a day (and this is
most likely not because the CC has been effective on the said route),
it can hardly be considered good value for money.

It's a case of where a potentially good project has a flawed
implementation, and whilst grasping the general concept of what's
required, fails to then go further to consider and address its
limitations and problems. I'm sure that with perhaps some additional
expert advice, Ken's minions at TfL can come up with improvements if
they put their collective minds to it, but I'm not holding my breath
on that one.

With regards to public transport, and as with anything, personally I
believe in using the best tool for the job. Obstinately blind to any
downside there are certainly those with the mindset that because they
paid their car tax they're going to use the car to replace even a 2
minute walk to the postbox, and there are equally those who will
always use PT. If there's spare time to be absorbed then fine, but I
prefer to make use of the transport option that makes the most sense
overall and that in general gets me from A to B in the least time in
order for me to be as productive as possible outside of travel time.
Typically PT is good for travelling into town but for travelling on
the periphery, and even before the CC was introduced, with the absense
of any good acceptable alternative the car is typically the most
efficient and sensible choice.

n.

Legal challenges and congestion charging for 30 second journey leaving zone?
 

"Richard J." wrote in message ...
Nick wrote:
In principle I've been agreeing with the congestion charge, but that
was until I was caught in this trap. On an evening and outside zone
hours I would like to drive to my g/f's flat that's inside the zone by
about 100 yards drive. In the morning I would leave the private car
park, enter the zone to drive 30 seconds or even less on a deserted
side street to reach the zone exit

This is not a "trap". You are driving on a public road inside the zone
during the hours of operation. Pay up and stop whingeing. If you don't
like it, get up earlier in the morning or use public transport.

Or walk. 100 yards isn't far. Or cycle (an under-rated mode if
people use it properly).

PhilD

--

Legal challenges and congestion charging for 30 second journey leaving zone?
 

Legal challenges and congestion charging for 30 second journey leaving zone?
 

chris harrison wrote in message ...
Nick wrote:

In principle I've been agreeing with the congestion charge, but that
At what point, when it isn't deserted and you join a queue (thereby
contributing to that queue and hence the reason for the charge), should
you start paying?

Yep, I'd raise the same questions too if pushing the point you're
trying to make. A charge isn't the problem perse, but more that I
don't get my 5 pounds worth. 25 pence would be more reasonable. SE1.
Deverill street joins bartholomew street and you leave the zone. In
case it wasn't clear, it's not 100 yards into the zone (maybe 100 is
even an over estimate), but 100 yards on a side street that's not used
as a rabbit run or anything else and that leaves the zone and filters
into a free flowing dual lane road that leads out of town. Fairly soon
leave the main road to use some side streets that avoid New Cross
bottlenecks and within just a few minutes one is rapidly approaching
deptford and soon into Blackheath. It's opposite to the way of most
other cars. There is no congestion nor ever likely to be except in
exceptional cases. Give me PT that can do it so quickly as the car and
I'd take it but unless we take to the skies it's not an option. That
said our garden is more than big enough to take a helicopter without
taking out the trees and squirrels in the process and so if anyone
knows of a cheap helitaxi then maybe that's the solution.

At what distance should your current 100 yards become untenable as an
excuse? 200 yards? 400 yards? A mile? A free journey directly out from
any point in the zone if you start there when the charge kicks in?

Easiest answer: park your car outside of the zone overnight or, and this
is the nub, don't drive. It's the large numbers of cars on the roads
both within and without the zone that caused the charge in the first
place, just because you're skirting the edges doesn't mean you are not
part of the problem.

Sounds like a whinge if you ask me. Suck it up and pay.

hehe, sounds like a whinge about cars causing the problem in the first
place :)

I've been used to taking PT from SE3 into my office in CW and
previously an office opposite Cannon Street station. Generally PT was
OK. Of course trains were typically late or cancelled (although the
DLR was good) but with years of conditioning to have low expectations
of the rail service one could always say that the service met them.
The only car I'd ever take was someone elses if I hopped into one of
the private hire Mercs parked in Walbrook to get a comfy ride home if
it was late and I was shattered. Driving into town on a morning would
be madness.

The don't drive argument really wears a bit thin after a while, and
where should one stop? Would you advocate taking it to its logical
conclusion and banning cars inside the M25, returning side streets
where there's no public transport to parks, gardens and shelters for
the homeless. Opening up cycle lanes so that people can get on their
bikes and get a more healthy lifestyle and more of a sense of shared
community rather than being isolated in their mostly metal pods of a
morning? Damn, this actually starts to sound like a great idea. That
and concreting over the Thames and we could really be onto something
here. Of course the CC employees at TfL would be out of a job, but oh
well and never mind, any anyway maybe they could take up studying the
cycle lanes.

Unfortunately of course in the real world the don't drive argument
isn't practical, at least not yet and probably not for some
considerable time to come. Easy for people to say who don't need to
get from A to B not only within a reasonable timeframe but in good
shape and awake, but on the route in question getting up earlier,
which would be needed not just to avoid the charge but to take public
transport as it's comparatively sucky, and taking PT would be more
traumatic than the car, even with the cloud of having to pay the CC.

Ho hum, 5 quid a day isn't a killer but in this case I'd rather give
it to a cause where it might do some good.

Legal challenges and congestion charging for 30 second journey leaving zone?
 

PeteM wrote in message ...
Nick averred
In principle I've been agreeing with the congestion charge, but that
was until I was caught in this trap. On an evening and outside zone
hours I would like to drive to my g/f's flat that's inside the zone by
about 100 yards drive.

:-)) You were all in favour of the congestion charge, right up to the
moment when you found out it wasn't just Other People who were going to
have to pay it ...!

Hehe, not really as I've paid it before on the one or two occasions
where I had to drive into the Zone. The Zone is fine and probably does
some good. No one likes to have to pay up but there are alternatives
for getting into town.

What a pity you didn't make that objection before you realised the
charge would apply to you. Then your objection wouldn't have been open
to the criticism of special pleading.

Agree with you totally on that, it's a pity indeed, but as the
circumstance didn't apply this wasn't an option. Oh well.

I too have an idea to make the scheme more reasonable. The congestion
charge should apply to the whole of central London, *except* the route
up Kennington Road and York Road, across Waterloo Bridge, through the
Aldwych, then up Kingsway and Woburn Place and so to Euston Station.

By an extraordinary coincidence I often drive along just that route
myself. But that hasn't influenced my opinion at all.

:) Not really that extraordinary and I think we guessed that by the
second line but thanks for the clarification ;)

There probably are routes out of town that one could say are congested
but I didn't think that the charge was to try and combat those. Really
I'd have expected that the charge should be getting those that drive
into town, and to catch people that entered overnight to record those
that are travelling on major arteries through town. This would be
reasonable whether or not there was congestion, but being charged to
actually drive out of town on clear routes seems unreasonable and is
perhaps the biggest flaw in the system.

Another modification to the scheme might be to only charge if there
was congestion, and this is something that is technically entirely
feasible to do although of course less of a deterrent because people
would chance their luck on there being none, but if there was no
congestion the payment could be carried over until next time.

n.

Legal challenges and congestion charging for 30 second journey leaving zone?
 

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:17:31 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

Nick wrote:
In principle I've been agreeing with the congestion charge, but that
was until I was caught in this trap. On an evening and outside zone
hours I would like to drive to my g/f's flat that's inside the zone by
about 100 yards drive. In the morning I would leave the private car
park, enter the zone to drive 30 seconds or even less on a deserted
side street to reach the zone exit

This is not a "trap". You are driving on a public road inside the zone
during the hours of operation.

Precisely. Your use of the car within the zone means you become liable
to pay the charge.

You cannot allow small exceptions to the rules because it is the thin
end of a very big wedge which would eventually undermine the basis of
the scheme.
--
Paul C
Admits to Working for London Underground!

Legal challenges and congestion charging for 30 second journey leaving zone?
 

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote in message
For about half your £1000, you can buy a Brompton folding bike that you
can leave in your boot or under a desk etc. Then you can park your car
outside the CC Zone and whizz to your girlfriend.

You will also find other uses for it...

Thanks Helen, an excellent suggestion.

Nick

Legal challenges and congestion charging for 30 second journey leaving zone?
 

In message , Nick
writes
A charge isn't the problem perse, but more that I
don't get my 5 pounds worth. 25 pence would be more reasonable.

I have some sympathy for this view. The one and only time I've had to
pay a CC was to retrieve my car from a car park on a Tuesday evening,
where it had been since Sunday (no CC), and drive it about a quarter of
a mile on an empty road to Euston. Of course, the next ten miles on
non-CC roads was a nightmare.
--
Roland Perry

Legal challenges and congestion charging for 30 second journey leaving zone?
 

Legal challenges and congestion charging for 30 second journey leaving zone?
 

In message , Steve
writes
Yes, that was the point of the charge, i.e. to increase the movement of
transport in the zone. To argue that because the road was clear you should
not pay is nonsensical.

I'm arguing that it's inequitable for me to pay the whole charge to
drive a very short distance (on a road that pre-congestion-charge was
just as empty) as someone who is using the central roads all day.
--
Roland Perry

Legal challenges and congestion charging for 30 second journey leaving zone?
 

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:24:38 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , Steve
writes
Yes, that was the point of the charge, i.e. to increase the movement of
transport in the zone. To argue that because the road was clear you should
not pay is nonsensical.

I'm arguing that it's inequitable for me to pay the whole charge to
drive a very short distance (on a road that pre-congestion-charge was
just as empty) as someone who is using the central roads all day.

It is inequitable. The Congestion Charge at present is pretty crude.

Maybe the technology and move towards a metered approach?


Rob.
--
rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk

Legal challenges and congestion charging for 30 second journey leaving zone?
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , Steve
writes
Yes, that was the point of the charge, i.e. to increase the movement of
transport in the zone. To argue that because the road was clear you
should
not pay is nonsensical.

I'm arguing that it's inequitable for me to pay the whole charge to
drive a very short distance (on a road that pre-congestion-charge was
just as empty) as someone who is using the central roads all day.
--

If leeway was given to people going a hundred yards inside the zone then the
people going two hundred yards would whinge. If the rules were relaxed to
allow them to get away with it that means that the zone is reduced in size.
The people a hundred yards inside that boundary would also whinge and the
boundary gets moved again and eventually we end up with the original
situation.

All such measures are inequitable to some. However in order to resolve a
problem a line has to be drawn somewhere, that line was drawn at a given
point on the ground and made obvious to all. You crossed it knowingly.

Legal challenges and congestion charging for 30 second journey leaving zone?
 

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:30:32 +0000, Robert Woolley
wrote:

It is inequitable. The Congestion Charge at present is pretty crude.

Maybe the technology and move towards a metered approach?

Why? The charge is arguably more aimed at preventing avoidable
journeys, of which many are short.

If someone has a need to drive around *all day* within the Zone, and
are willing to pay all the other charges associated with this (parking
etc), they probably have a genuine need for their vehicle.

This is the reason, incidentally, why there is no season ticket/block
booking facility (other than for residents). It is supposed to be as
inconvenient/expensive as possible - not to be made easy.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
is a valid email address, but is sent to /dev/null.
Try my first name at the above domain instead if you want to e-mail me.

Legal challenges and congestion charging for 30 second journey leaving zone?
 

In message , Cast_Iron
writes
that line was drawn at a given
point on the ground and made obvious to all. You crossed it knowingly.

sigh Yes, London is full GO AWAY. (And I have).
--
Roland Perry

Legal challenges and congestion charging for 30 second journey leaving zone?
 

Neil Williams wrote:
wrote:

It is inequitable. The Congestion Charge at present is pretty crude.

Maybe the technology and move towards a metered approach?

Why? The charge is arguably more aimed at preventing avoidable
journeys, of which many are short.

If someone has a need to drive around *all day* within the Zone, and
are willing to pay all the other charges associated with this (parking
etc), they probably have a genuine need for their vehicle.

This is the reason, incidentally, why there is no season ticket/block
booking facility (other than for residents). It is supposed to be as
inconvenient/expensive as possible - not to be made easy.

And that's bad policy! Making it expensive is OK, because at least TfL
get the money - but making it inconvenient is just stupid - businesses
lose much of the benefit that the congestion charge would have brought,
and TfL get nothing.

Legal challenges and congestion charging for 30 second journey leaving zone?
 

Legal challenges and congestion charging for 30 second journeyleaving zone?
 

Steve writes:
Yes, that was the point of the charge, i.e. to increase the movement of
transport in the zone. To argue that because the road was clear you should
not pay is nonsensical.

So it's not a "congestion" charge then - it's yet another road use
charge. Better tell Ken to change the name...

--
Jonathan Marten, SCM Team Engineer VSP at GMP, UK
Sun Microsystems

"Progress is not expedited by frequent requests for progress reports"

Legal challenges and congestion charging for 30 second journeyleaving zone?
 

Jonathan Marten - Volume Systems Products UK wrote:
Steve writes:
Yes, that was the point of the charge, i.e. to increase the movement of
transport in the zone. To argue that because the road was clear you should
not pay is nonsensical.

So it's not a "congestion" charge then - it's yet another road use
charge.

Nah, that just means that it's working.

--
Steven O'Neill
www.bridgetolls.org

Legal challenges and congestion charging for 30 second journey leaving zone?
 

Personally I would drive further into the zone and make a day of it. You
have paid for a days worth after all. Its surprising how much congestion you
could make in a single car especially if you treat it as a day out. Take
some sandwiches and fizzy drink!

Next time, get your £5 worth. And if WE are really lucky perhaps you can
chalk up mad Ken as road kill!

(I'm not anti congestion charge, with a little more thought, and perhaps a
sliding scale over a wider area it will be good, but mad Ken is not the man
to direct it, we need someone who is actually living on the same planet as
the rest of us )


I.



"Nick" wrote in message
om...
In principle I've been agreeing with the congestion charge, but that
was until I was caught in this trap. On an evening and outside zone
hours I would like to drive to my g/f's flat that's inside the zone by
about 100 yards drive. In the morning I would leave the private car
park, enter the zone to drive 30 seconds or even less on a deserted
side street to reach the zone exit and enter a dual lane main road
with no problems and not affecting the almost non-flow of traffic on
that particular road. Not believing that I'd have to pay 5 pounds for
the privilege of my negligible zone journey to exit the zone I've not
only one fine so far (unjust but I can live with it), but the prospect
of upwards of a thousands pounds or more. This is patently unjust and
I wonder how the scheme handles these cases. Any experiences? At a
pinch perhaps one would be elligible for a residents discount although
for someone technically not a resident, on the face of it probably
not.

From a legal standpoint, is anyone aware of any test cases so far that
challenge the reasonableness of a fixed charge? Charging the same of
someone making essentially a non journey and someone spending all day
driving in the zone, adding to not only congestion of traffic but also
that of street goers lungs from polution seems contestable and
unreasonable on the basis of any tests of reasonableness.

Perhaps the charging system should only charge if a driver is within
the zone for more than a certain period of time, and if entry to the
zone was not on file when recording a zone exit before a certain time
in the morning then no fee should be charged. This would probably not
reduce revenue much and be considerably more reasonable.

n.

Legal challenges and congestion charging for 30 second journey leaving zone?
 

In terms of legal cases, here's something I'd love to hear your
opinions on:

Was driving just outside the congestion charging zone, and had to turn
the car around. Dipped into a small alley, came out and went on my way
in the opposite direction. I didn't know if I'd been in the zone or
not when I u-ied the car (was a little bit lost). So... simple enough,
called up TFL and this is how the conversation went:

Me : Excuse me, I don't know what to do, I may have entered the
congestion charging zone, but I can't be sure. Can you tell me if I
have been or not?

TFL: I'm sorry, but we don't have that information.

Me : Really? Ok... so what should I do? I mean, I don't want to waste
£5 if I haven't been in the zone.

TFL: Well, if you don't pay and you were in the zone you will be
charged £40.

Me : So you can't tell me if I've been in the zone or not, but if I
have, and I don't know like you, unless I pay now, I lose £40, and of
course, you're not going to refund me the £5 if I haven't been in the
zone?

TFL: I'm sorry sir.

Now, from a legal standpoint, where does this leave you and me, the
driver? This is flagrant double standards. The REAL reason they
can't/don't want to tell you is that their rate of detection might
only be 75%ish. So, to not lose 25% of their potential revenue, what
do they do? Scare tactics. £10 if you pay after 10, no monthly billing
(again, 25% loss here cos they can only charge what they've detected),
no information for people like me who call and aren't sure if they've
been in the zone or not. I'm sure from a jurisprudence perspective,
this is illegal.

I think it's time someone took TFL to court and addressed these
issues. I'm happy to pay my charge, but it's anathema to me to have to
pay for a service I may have not used under duress.

Legal challenges and congestion charging for 30 second journey leaving zone?
 

On 4 Dec 2003 07:27:03 -0800, deja user wrote:
Me : Excuse me, I don't know what to do, I may have entered the
congestion charging zone, but I can't be sure. Can you tell me if I
have been or not?

TFL: I'm sorry, but we don't have that information.

snip

Now, from a legal standpoint, where does this leave you and me, the
driver? This is flagrant double standards. The REAL reason they
can't/don't want to tell you is that their rate of detection might
only be 75%ish.

That may or may not be true but I expect the real reason they can't
tell you is the information isn't available in real time at the
call centre. The system probably works by generating a list of
recorded number plates and comparing it at the end of the day with
the list that paid.

David

Legal challenges and congestion charging for 30 second journey leaving zone?
 

deja user wrote:
In terms of legal cases, here's something I'd love to hear your
opinions on:

Was driving just outside the congestion charging zone, and had to turn
the car around. Dipped into a small alley, came out and went on my way
in the opposite direction. I didn't know if I'd been in the zone or
not when I u-ied the car (was a little bit lost).

You mean you were not paying sufficient attention to see whether there were
any "C" signs at the entrance to this "alleyway"? Are you sure you didn't
go through any red lights or down one-way streets the wrong way as well?

So... simple enough,
called up TFL and this is how the conversation went:

Me : Excuse me, I don't know what to do, I may have entered the
congestion charging zone, but I can't be sure. Can you tell me if I
have been or not?

TFL: I'm sorry, but we don't have that information.
snip

I'm sure from a jurisprudence perspective, this is illegal.

Why are you sure? What law do you think is being broken?

I think it's time someone took TFL to court and addressed these
issues. I'm happy to pay my charge, but it's anathema to me to have to
pay for a service I may have not used under duress.

Not sure where the duress comes in. You failed to notice whether you
entered the zone. Hardly TfL's fault.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Legal challenges and congestion charging for 30 second journey leaving zone?
 

"Richard J." wrote in message ...
deja user wrote:
In terms of legal cases, here's something I'd love to hear your
opinions on:

Was driving just outside the congestion charging zone, and had to turn
the car around. Dipped into a small alley, came out and went on my way
in the opposite direction. I didn't know if I'd been in the zone or
not when I u-ied the car (was a little bit lost).

You mean you were not paying sufficient attention to see whether there were
any "C" signs at the entrance to this "alleyway"? Are you sure you didn't
go through any red lights or down one-way streets the wrong way as well?

So... simple enough,
called up TFL and this is how the conversation went:

Me : Excuse me, I don't know what to do, I may have entered the
congestion charging zone, but I can't be sure. Can you tell me if I
have been or not?

TFL: I'm sorry, but we don't have that information.
snip

I'm sure from a jurisprudence perspective, this is illegal.

Why are you sure? What law do you think is being broken?

I think it's time someone took TFL to court and addressed these
issues. I'm happy to pay my charge, but it's anathema to me to have to
pay for a service I may have not used under duress.

Not sure where the duress comes in. You failed to notice whether you
entered the zone. Hardly TfL's fault.

I agree with Richard, although I do understand if you are lost in
London it may be all too easy to make a mistake, take the wrong
turning and enter the zone. It is TfL's responsibility to put the
correct signs at the zone boundary. However, it is the driver's
responsibility to learn the meaning of ALL traffic signs - and keep an
eye out for them. Not noticing them, or not knowing the meaning is no
defence.

TfL would not be able to confirm whether you had entered the zone
unless your number plate was read by a camera. But you were still
liable for the charge from the moment you crossed the boundary,
whether you were photographed or not.

Legal challenges and congestion charging for 30 second journey leaving zone?
 

You mean you were not paying sufficient attention to see whether there were
any "C" signs at the entrance to this "alleyway"? Are you sure you didn't
go through any red lights or down one-way streets the wrong way as well?

While I don't appreciate the tone of your reply, when I get lost
sometimes (and I still do in parts of London), I'm not 100 focused on
looking for the "C" signs. Fortunately, I do keep an eye out for red
lights and one-way signs, pedestrians etc. I don't think the "C" ranks
on the same scale in terms of importance. I'm sure if you took a look
around the zone, there would not be 100% complete coverage if you were
taking the very small roads into account.

I'm sure from a jurisprudence perspective, this is illegal.

Why are you sure? What law do you think is being broken?

I said jurisprudence, maybe I was using the wrong word. Basically in
principle, I am confident that this is illegal (to say to someone that
they have to pay up or pay a fine, but if they have not used the
service, that they're entitled to no refund). I was expecting the lady
to say she'd make a note on the account, and if it turned out I hadn't
used the service I'd receive a refund on my credit card.

I think it's time someone took TFL to court and addressed these
issues. I'm happy to pay my charge, but it's anathema to me to have to
pay for a service I may have not used under duress.

Not sure where the duress comes in. You failed to notice whether you
entered the zone. Hardly TfL's fault.

Touche. If I were to adopt the same line of argument, I could argue
that TfL have not put up a sufficient number of notices etc that I as
a driver, while paying due attention to pedestrians, red lights, and
one-way-signals could take notice of the "C". Of course, that's just
me being childish in response to your rather sarcastic reply. Duress
is that if you don't pay now, you pay £40 later, even if you don't
know whether you've been in the zone or not.

I think the system is good, but monthly billing, and a fairer approach
towards matters of the above mentioned nature are in order. We're
innocent till proven guilty in this country, why should I have to pay
a charge for a service I may not have used?