The Lemon Fool

We were having a discussion about ULEZ last night with some friends. One of then raised the query about businesses being able to claim back their charges under self assessment. When I checked HMRC website this seems to be the case, so far so good. But I suddenly thought the £12.20 ULEZ will presumably be paid directly into Khan;s coffers whilst any claim back of the charge will be paid by HMRC and therefore come out og general taxation ie anyone in the UK who pays income or any other type of tax will be reimbursing those due a refund. If I'm correct this is going to make for some interesting conversations up and down the country. I wouldn't be surprised if most self employed businesses who have to use their own transport will also pass on the charge to their customers which could mean two bites of the cherry even though they'd be taxed on their overall profit.
Was going to put on tax board but more interested in general feeling than deep discussion.

R6

There seems to be a lot of talk about this ULEZ thingy
- how UL do your E have to be before you go for free in the Z?

Are we talking half of cars? Most haulage?

That's not to say some scrotes won't claim they've had to pay it as justification for a rort but it's not clear from the stuff I've heard how wide spread it will hit. (I think I might be driving in London later in the year)

They'll claim it as an expense, so only taxable bit will be donated to filling the hole in TfL's coffers because they cant train tram drivers.

In the grand scheme of things it is small potatos, there are a lot of non compliant vehicles out there but that will diminish pretty quickly over the next few years.

What amazes me is the figure of 700,000 non compliant vehicles belonging to people living in the expanded zone. Presumably if they don't drive them across the boundary then they don't pay for that day?

DrFfybes wrote:They'll claim it as an expense, so only taxable bit will be donated to filling the hole in TfL's coffers because they cant train tram drivers.

In the grand scheme of things it is small potatos, there are a lot of non compliant vehicles out there but that will diminish pretty quickly over the next few years.

What amazes me is the figure of 700,000 non compliant vehicles belonging to people living in the expanded zone. Presumably if they don't drive them across the boundary then they don't pay for that day?

I think if you live inside, you have to pay as soon as you start driving.

I imagine buying a compliant car - 15 years old? - would be cheaper than paying the charge, and that's the idea.

A friend of mine replaced his old car because he was offerred a real bargain of a HYbrid vehicle from a neighbour. At first he was quite pleased, but now he is kicking himself because the scrapage scheme was announced shortly afterwards!

Rhyd6 wrote:We were having a discussion about ULEZ last night with some friends. One of then raised the query about businesses being able to claim back their charges under self assessment. When I checked HMRC website this seems to be the case, so far so good. But I suddenly thought the £12.20 ULEZ will presumably be paid directly into Khan;s coffers whilst any claim back of the charge will be paid by HMRC and therefore come out og general taxation ie anyone in the UK who pays income or any other type of tax will be reimbursing those due a refund. If I'm correct this is going to make for some interesting conversations up and down the country. I wouldn't be surprised if most self employed businesses who have to use their own transport will also pass on the charge to their customers which could mean two bites of the cherry even though they'd be taxed on their overall profit.
Was going to put on tax board but more interested in general feeling than deep discussion.

R6

It's a travel cost, and works the same as any other business expense. From computer and stationary to manpower to PR/advertising to brexit red tape.

The incentive to avoid it is there for businesses just as for individuals. The incentive for a business that regularly enters the zone will be so huge as to be a no-brainer.

Its 10% of vehicles, mainly diesels before 2015 (its 2005 for petrol), you pay if you drive anywhere in Greater London https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra- ... ssion-zone includes a numberplate checker. Hours of fun planing back routes that avoid the cameras.

JohnB wrote:Its 10% of vehicles, mainly diesels before 2015 (its 2005 for petrol), you pay if you drive anywhere in Greater London https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra- ... ssion-zone includes a numberplate checker. Hours of fun planing back routes that avoid the cameras.

Chum of mine used to live just inside the zone, his vehicle was not compliant, there was a lone camera nearby on his route out of he city which would catch him going out but not coming in. It was OK if he was going to be home for a few days, as it was his works van and he'd prefer to keep it on his drive especially to load kit in and out of it. If he timed it correctly he could tuck in behind a bus or lorry and dodge being spotted by the ANPR camera.

There are zones all over the place now:

Bath
Birmingham
Bradford
Bristol
Greater Manchester (under review)
Portsmouth
Sheffield
Tyneside - Newcastle and Gateshead
Glasgow.

A mate of mine was in Sheffield for a week for an event recently, a city he is wholly unfamiliar with. The event was in the city centre but he was staying outside to save hotel costs, and driving his non-compliant work van. He didn't know about the zone in advance, and in the stress and confusion of navigating a strange city, he missed the signs. Yes, every day. Result: £350 in fines and charges...

He tried to contact someone to complain/plead but couldn't get to actually speak to someone, and the fine uplift was about to kick in, so he just paid.

DM

Antwerp has a ULEZ, and even if your foreign car comes within the standard, you have to jump through hoops registering the fact with a city-based website. And we have the roads with time-based closure, or the proposed Oxford scheme where locals get certain numbers of free passes

All these schemes make it very hard to go anywhere without detailed research in advance, as who can read the signage at road speeds

JohnB wrote:Antwerp has a ULEZ, and even if your foreign car comes within the standard, you have to jump through hoops registering the fact with a city-based website. And we have the roads with time-based closure, or the proposed Oxford scheme where locals get certain numbers of free passes

All these schemes make it very hard to go anywhere without detailed research in advance, as who can read the signage at road speeds

If you think it's bad here, look at France - where you'll need to purchase a 'Crit'Air' sticker for your car well in advance of your journey if your route includes many major towns and cities.

Six weeks in advance, in fact. And, no, you can't buy one after you've arrived in France.

Details here: https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motori ... ch-cities/

HTH,

Watis

Indeed, I wonder if they make it apply on the E40 from Dunkirk to the Belgian border. If so I suspect punishment of the UK because of the B-word.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-emiss ... by_country, and there will be a test later

dionaeamuscipula wrote:A mate of mine was in Sheffield for a week for an event recently, a city he is wholly unfamiliar with. The event was in the city centre but he was staying outside to save hotel costs, and driving his non-compliant work van.

An experience that might just deter him from that kind of grossly antisocial behaviour in future.

If so, you've just documented a positive result of the scheme.

UncleEbenezer wrote:

dionaeamuscipula wrote:A mate of mine was in Sheffield for a week for an event recently, a city he is wholly unfamiliar with. The event was in the city centre but he was staying outside to save hotel costs, and driving his non-compliant work van.

An experience that might just deter him from that kind of grossly antisocial behaviour in future.

If so, you've just documented a positive result of the scheme.

That's harsh, uncle!

Are you suggesting that people shouldn't drive to events?

Or only if they have a non-compliant vehicle?

The positive result in this case is to swell the coffers of Sheffield Council by £350. No emissions were reduced by the scheme.

Watis

Watis wrote:

UncleEbenezer wrote:
An experience that might just deter him from that kind of grossly antisocial behaviour in future.

If so, you've just documented a positive result of the scheme.

That's harsh, uncle!

Are you suggesting that people shouldn't drive to events?

Or only if they have a non-compliant vehicle?

The positive result in this case is to swell the coffers of Sheffield Council by £350. No emissions were reduced by the scheme.

Watis

isn't the point that that you reduce the emissions OR get hit with charges to discourage you from doing it again?
Perhaps I'm confused... It does happen

Watis wrote:

UncleEbenezer wrote:
An experience that might just deter him from that kind of grossly antisocial behaviour in future.

If so, you've just documented a positive result of the scheme.

That's harsh, uncle!

Are you suggesting that people shouldn't drive to events?

He said the event was in Sheffield city centre.

That opens numerous options, like
- Stay nearby. In my experience, the norm for events of more than one day away from home: it helps a lot with the social aspects!
- Use public transport
- Use compliant private transport

Or only if they have a non-compliant vehicle?

Using any car in that kind of case is antisocial. A non-compliant car may tend to be the most antisocial.

The positive result in this case is to swell the coffers of Sheffield Council by £350. No emissions were reduced by the scheme.
Watis

Hmm, you even quoted my reply to that nonsense. At the risk of repeating myself:

An experience that might just deter him from that kind of grossly antisocial behaviour in future.

servodude wrote: isn't the point that that you reduce the emissions OR get hit with charges to discourage you from doing it again?
Perhaps I'm confused... It does happen

It is the point, the problem is that using ANPR enforcement means that anyone accidentally transgressing the rules doesn't find out for a fortnight, and consequently is likelt to face a large number of offences.

Paul

DrFfybes wrote:

servodude wrote:isn't the point that that you reduce the emissions OR get hit with charges to discourage you from doing it again?
Perhaps I'm confused... It does happen

It is the point, the problem is that using ANPR enforcement means that anyone accidentally transgressing the rules doesn't find out for a fortnight, and consequently is likely to face a large number of offences.

Exactly, and the same happens with speed cameras where you can accumulate many tickets because you do not realise that you are collecting them.

The rule used to be that the punishment fits the crime. And the marginal increase in emissions from one vehicle doing a few miles is trivial.

We should adopt the US practice where a camera ticket is not enforceable unless there is a clear image of the driver's face, thereby identifying him or her. But of course we do not really have a Bill of Rights or a presumption of innocence here in the UK.

dionaeamuscipula wrote:There are zones all over the place now:

Bath
Birmingham
Bradford
Bristol
Greater Manchester (under review)
Portsmouth
Sheffield
Tyneside - Newcastle and Gateshead
Glasgow.

DM

Does Waze or any of the other navigation apps have early warnings when you're approaching a charge zone in a similar way to warning about approaching average speed zones and the like?

Dicky99 wrote:Does Waze or any of the other navigation apps have early warnings when you're approaching a charge zone in a similar way to warning about approaching average speed zones and the like?

unless its changed since July when i was last regularly driving into Bath - no...

UncleEbenezer wrote:

dionaeamuscipula wrote:A mate of mine was in Sheffield for a week for an event recently, a city he is wholly unfamiliar with. The event was in the city centre but he was staying outside to save hotel costs, and driving his non-compliant work van.

An experience that might just deter him from that kind of grossly antisocial behaviour in future.

If so, you've just documented a positive result of the scheme.

He will for sure never take a non-compliant vehicle into a low emission zone ever again, so yes, it will have a long term positive effect. As it happens MrsDM was also at the event. After 16 years we changed her non-compliant car for a compliant one this year, compliance was a major factor in the choice of vehicle, so there is another.

The specifics of the event, which involves children, early starts, and sporting equipment, make the use of public transport quite challenging. The event is prestigious but has a qualifying window and a qualification method that promotes uncertainty about attendance amongst some but not all potential attendees until quite late in the process; Sheffield is not particularly well served with rooms in the city centre; making cancellable bookings is often impossible or more expensive; and the event is very busy, so it is often a better choice to go for a hotel further out and commute in. Having said that, the equivalent event is probably going to be held in London this year, and with the additional costs of cars in London and the considerably better transport infrastructure, we will - if we qualify - travel entirely by public transport.

My car (purchased in 2015) is not compliant. Last week we needed to take it somewhere where the most direct route would have taken us through a low emission zone. I use Google Maps as my sat-nav of choice, and there is, as far as I can tell, no way of using it to check if a particular route would infringe the zone or not.

DM