Taxis and the congestion charge
 

On 04/07/2010 15:39, Neil Williams wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 09:38:24 +0100, "tim...."
wrote:

For the CC: No and they are never going to as it is a tax and they are not
obliged to pay it. The fact that TfL claim that it isn't a tax doesn't
change the fact that it is.

It is not a tax; it is a road toll. Do the embassies also not pay to,
for instance, cross the Dartford bridge?

I'm pretty sure it has been established in the past that UK diplomats do
pay bridge (etc) tolls abroad.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Taxis and the congestion charge
 

On 04/07/2010 18:26, Paul Terry wrote:
In message , Neil Williams
writes

It is not a tax; it is a road toll.

"Toll: A tax or duty paid for the use of a public road ..." (OED)

Do the embassies also not pay to,
for instance, cross the Dartford bridge?

The crossing is free for vehicles exempt from vehicle excise duty, so it
is quite possible that diplomats don't have to pay. However, it is a
rather different issue - there's no compulsion to use the Dartford
crossing, whereas most embassies can't avoid the Congestion Zone in the
course of their work, even if they think they can avoid paying for it.

I'm fairly sure I saw a big red thing in the zone which gave the
impression it might allow passengers on board.

At least one major embassy is fleeing central London, which will solve
the problem for them.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Taxis and the congestion charge
 

On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 13:41:00 +0100, Tom Barry
wrote:

1. CC income is ringfenced for transport spending, as understood by
anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the subject

I'm never quite sure about ringfencing - presumably other,
non-ringfenced money could be diverted away from transport, replaced
by ringfenced money, thus negating the effect?

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

Taxis and the congestion charge
 

tim.... wrote

Sorry, but ISTM that it being a sum of money to achieve a "policy
intention"
is that which makes it a tax.

Anyway the solution is simple.

If TfL are so sure that it's not a tax they should take the embassies
to
court, but they won't, because they think that they will lose


Diplomats can't be taken to court either, hence the publicity given to
their parking fines. Moreover the interpretation of VIENNA CONVENTION
Diplomatic Immunity would affect every nation in the world so by its
terms goes to the International Court "unless some other form of
settlement has been agreed upon by the parties within a reasonable
period".

Article 31 VIENNA CONVENTION

1. A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal
jurisdiction
of the receiving State. He shall also enjoy immunity from its civil and
administrative jurisdiction, except {...}


Article 34 VIENNA CONVENTION

A diplomatic agent shall be exempt from all dues and taxes, personal or
real, national, regional or municipal, except:

(a) indirect taxes of a kind which are normally incorporated in the
price
of goods or services;
[...]
(e) charges levied for specific services rendered;
==

So road and bridge tolls but not Vehicle Excise duty and probably not
the CC.

(same for the Embassy buildings, water and sewerage and rubbish
collection but not business rates).


--
Mike D