Congestion charge conflict - Any thoughts?

[samuel23]

I am in conflict with the london congestion charge people Transport for London. On Friday (25th Aug) one of my employees took a vehicle into London. He 'thinks' he went into the zone, but isn't sure. He also 'thinks' that it was just before the cut off time of 18:30. I phoned cclondon and asked them to check. Guess what - they can't!!! They say I have to pay the charge - now �10 because the idiot employee didn't tell me until today, or gamble that the vehicle wasn't in the zone. If it did enter the zone then the cameras will eventually generate a fine that will be �100 for non payment. How can they not check, but send me a fine for being in the zone and not paying? Anyone else come across this anomaly?

[fountain]

If they wanted to they could check, but they won't because it would undermine their system. The cameras that pick up number plates aren't 100% accurate. So plenty of people enter the zone, pay the charge, but never actually got their plate recorded by the cameras. This particularly applies to those people who only drive a short distance in the zone.
So if the information you want was available, loads of people would check to make sure their vehicle was recorded in the zone. If it wasn't - no need to pay. TfL don't want this.

[JudgeJ]

I think we need to examine this from a different angle.

When driving (and when involved in many other activities) you have certain responsibilities. Your employee must be aware of the Congestion Charge boundaries and operating times. (If he was not, large signs posted at each crossing point inform him). He is not sure whether he entered the zone during its operational period.

I (and more importantly, TfL) would suggest that it is his responsibility to be aware of his movements in the same way as it is his responsibility to make sure he is covered by insurance and has a valid driving licence.

You are now seeking to shift that responsibility to TfL. What you are suggesting is that it is up to them to let you know whether the vehicle was liable to a charge or not and unless they tell you � and indeed prove it to you - you ought not to pay the charge and they should not issue a penalty notice. The penalty charge (which is not, incidentally, a fine � only courts can issue fines) is for failing to pay the original Congestion Charge in time, not for incurring the charge in the first place.

It would be unreasonable to expect Tescos to provide photographic evidence of you picking up all your goods when you come to pay, to establish whether you have put anything into your pocket. The onus is on you to declare all goods at the checkout and pay for them. Failure to do so renders you liable to prosecution for theft. This may result in a higher �penalty� than the original cost of the goods and photographic evidence may be produced at that stage to enforce that penalty. Nobody I know would consider this an �anomaly�.

So it is with the congestion charge. It is up to the driver to declare his liability and make the payment. If he does not a penalty charge notice will be issued and this will contain the photographic evidence to support the penalty charge.

[samuel23]

judgej ~ a very comprehensive answer thanks, but the point I'm making is; if the technology is there for capturing the registration details in the first place and it's also available to enable the issuing excess charges for non payment (which I personally would call a fine by any other name, no matter how you dress it up. It's still a payment levied in respect of a failure to pay the initial cost) then surely it doesn't take great a leap of imagination to expect the technology to be able to help ~ which is what I was asking for. I'm a company director and not about to lose sleep over the cost of one cclondon charge, but I do resent the fact that I am expected to pay regardless. Why should the onus be on the motorist? This charge has done nothing to help congestion, has put up the cost of delivering into the city, and is nothing short of another tax for those living in the city. it's simply a money generating scheme for the mayor, who incidently is a greedy SOB that is now going to cast his net wider and include more people in his money grabbing clutches.
Ooops pardon me ~ I'll get off my soap box now. lol Sorry but the point I'm making is that the technology is there, but it just seems that instead of also using it to help, they just want to use it to grab easy money. A one sided arrangement that, no matter how you dress it up, is sneaky and amounts to a snub for the end user.

[NORMANTHEDOG]

if you were a little less angry and spoke to the person on the phone at ccl with some respect,i would think they would have told you,we,as a company have asked this same question many times, over the phone and have allways been told the answer.mind you we do have a account with them for our vehicles

[Paul22118]

Samuel. the Judge's answer is as usual clear and accurate. But your answer does reflect that all is not well in your 'state' and Norman spots this immediately.
You may interpret the nature of the penalty whatever way you choose and indeed deride and rubbish the properly elected person you consider to be the root cause of your problem. However, you would be better off ensuring that your drivers know where they are and have some responsibility towards vehicle movements. I cannot remember whther I crossed the Dartford Bridge or not? Where does this line of reasoning end.
I see this as analogous of a speeding offence. It happened, one was stopped and taken to court. If the police provde the case then job done. If they cannot you win and get costs. The congestion charge is either paid or contested. I understand that this is not a tnatrum over ten pounds but the machinery to contest is there. Use it or pay.
Please read this comment in the spirit that it was written i.e. as devils advocate.