Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Barnet residents are taking their council to court over parking/polution charges
Do all the councillors pay the same rate as the residents?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
You can but I won't be joining you. I think they're doing a good thing given the state of their finances and the fact that they're not allowed to increase council tax.
-
Permalink Reply by stuart on
-
i am simply putting the subject into the disscusion circle, my only gripe is that i pay to pollute but drivers in parts of the borough without cpz's continue to pollute without paying.
When is the council going to have the balls to do something about it.
-
-
By law they can only introduce a CPZ when residents ask for one. I know that Ridge Rd et al in Stroud Green are asking. They'll get there, after all, it's money for transport costs that they would otherwise have to pay from general taxation.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
they can only introduce a CPZ when residents ask for one
And therein lies the rub. How many residents does it take to trigger a change to a CPZ? Answer: just one or two.
Without the prospect of a CPZ, residents do not write in to the council requesting no change. The council is so keen on CPZs that they seize upon any requests for a CPZ no matter how few and, even if they represent a small minority.
I know that Ridge Rd et al in Stroud Green are asking.
But how many are asking? What proportion of the road are those? Only a few requests are enough to trigger a "consultation" and the wheeling out of the pre-prepared plans to CPZ an area. The "consultations" are interpreted flexibly and the benefit of any doubt will be given towards CPZification. Eg. the cpz-ing of the Oakfield Road bridge.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
An interesting hypothesis, Clive. And one which - like many hypotheses - could be tested by investigation, evidence and analysis.
Alternatively, we could follow your model. Begin with a firm conclusion and then either: (a) skip the investigation/evidence/analysis stage; or (b) look for evidence which can be presented to support it.
Ironically, this is precisely what you - rightly - criticise the Council for doing in certain instances.
-
-
As the charges are going up .Extend the CPZ times eg 24hrs 7 days aweek, fed up not been able to park my car after 6pm ,
-
-
I got the impression from my rant a couple of weeks ago that not many people were in favour of the CPZ hours being expanded. Was I wrong?
-
Permalink Reply by Anette on
-
Jane, could not agree more!!!!! How do we go about requesting increased CPZ time? If it only takes one or two to get one, surely they'll be happy to extend times if we ask..?
-
-
To the best of my knowledge, Stuart, councillors pay the same as other residents. Which will depend on where a councillor happens to live. So councillors who live in CPZs pay the rates according to their model of car. If they don't live in a CPZ area, they don't pay. Same applies to Pay 'n' Display bays.
The only difference - and it's a significant one - is that there are a very small number of free bays available at River Park House and a larger number at the Civic Centre. So councillors attending meetings there don't pay.
About Barnet, I assume you're referring to this news item in the Evening Standard which reports Barnet residents pooling their own funds to seek a Judicial Review. And the remarks by Cllr Brian Coleman who is evidently a man with a notable level of sensitivity and charm.
I don't know the specific legal issues Barnet residents hope to raise, but clearly there are some under the present legislation. Councils have not got freedom to charge what they like. For one thing, they aren't legally permitted run a deficit on their Parking Account. So if the income is falling and they're heading into the red, they have the choice of cutting costs or increasing charges to bring it back into the black. Councils, are allowed, entirely legally, to run and spend a surplus from the Parking Account for transport related "prescribed" services.
Even so, a central legal question appears to be whether or not a council can deliberately plan an increase in its Parking Account surplus for the sole or main purpose of raising extra income which will be used to backfill cuts elsewhere by spending more on these "prescribed" purposes.
If this is the basis of the proposed legal challenge in Barnet, then every other council raising its charges in similar circumstances will be watching closely. So will other residents' groups elsewhere who may well be considering similar action.
Above all, so will Government Ministers. Because if a Judicial Review succeeds in Barnet then - depending on the specific grounds - it may offer a precedent. Which - I assume - will mean councils of all political colours asking for a change in the law.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor. Resident in The Hale CPZ)
-
-
Thank you Alan for the workings of the council, I misunderstood, I thought all monies raised through cpz's should to go into transport projects only.
So why don't ALL car owners in our borough pay this tax ?
Why don't we see audited accounts in our yearly balance booklet we receive when we get our new council tax bill ?
-
-
My apologies, Stuart, if I was unclear. As I understand the legal position, you were right, and basically any surplus can only be spent on transport related purposes. The relevant legislation is Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. (Link here. Though it's not entirely clearly because of several amendments and references to other documents.)
But as Clive Carter has pointed out, this still gives local councils considerable room to manoeuvre. So while a council can't simply use the surplus just as it wishes - for example, shift part of it to Parks - it could, say, be legitimately used to "backfill" more potholes in the roads. Which may free-up some pothole repair money to be spent elsewhere.
But a different legal question arises when local councils, facing appalling Government cuts, respond by raising their parking charges, And not because the Parking Account is looking wobbly, but for the sole or main purpose of generating a large additional surplus as a means of mitigating the cuts.
"So why don't ALL car owners in our borough pay this tax?"
Because there is no such legal power for a council to impose a tax on every car in its area.
(Just to be completely clear, I'm not offering this as a legal opinion. I'd be delighted if any lawyer members of HoL want to correct me.)
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
