Anger at Oyster cards 'rip-off' as millions hit for not 'touching out'
 

Anger at Oyster cards 'rip-off' as millions hit for not 'touching out'

Pippa Crerar and Andy McCorkell
7 Jan 2011

http://tinyurl.com/oyster-touch

Commuters are facing a multi-million-pound Oyster card “rip-off� as
record numbers are overcharged for journeys.

Passengers will pay charges of at least £67 million this year partly
because rail bosses have either failed to install barriers or leave
the gates open.

Millions who do not touch in or out must pay a new penalty fare of
£6.50 — up more than eight per cent on last year. Campaigners accused
train companies of deliberately leaving ticket barriers open or not
installing them simply to boost profits.

The claim comes days after most London commuters were hit by fare
rises of up to 12.8 per cent on trains and an average seven per cent
on the Tube.

Val Shawcross, chairwoman of the Assembly's transport committee, said:
“It is absolutely shocking that passengers are being fleeced in this
way.�

Figures obtained by the Standard show that rail and Tube passengers
are already paying about £5 million a month in maximum fares for
journeys where their cards are not properly swiped.

The maximum penalty charged to each person has gone up from £6 to
£6.50 — meaning the total cost including fines could top £67.1 million
this year. This is up from £56.9 million last year. The penalty fare
is the equivalent of riding from central London to a zone six station
such as Heathrow, even if a traveller only goes a couple of stops
within zone one.

Transport for London, which revealed the figures in response to a
Freedom of Information request, pointed the finger of blame at train
companies. It said: “The number of maximum fares incurred on National
Rail is significantly higher than TfL services because a large number
of stations do not have ticket barriers to act as a physical reminder
to touch in and out.

“We continue to urge train operating companies to increase the number
of barriers on their stations.� The train companies keep cash from the
penalty fares incurred on their network — in part to cover the cost of
the ticket.

The firms said they would only install more gates at smaller London
stations if these “represented value for money�. The main stations
already have them.

A spokesman for the Association of Train Operating Companies said:
“Every overground station that is not gated has Oyster validators
located near entrances and exits.

“Also, prominent advertising and regular announcements in stations
stress the importance of touching in and out to avoid the maximum
fare.�

The train companies and TfL have set up a task force to investigate
the issue. But Lib-Dem Assembly member Caroline Pidgeon said: “TfL and
the train companies are simply profiting from passengers, in addition
to hiking fares.

“Finger-pointing helps no one. They need to be looking at what changes
are needed to minimise the chances of these penalties, for example by
installing more barriers at stations.�

In addition, the rail firms are under pressure to give passengers
better information on touching in and out — and what will happen if
they don't.

They have also faced criticism that barriers are often left open or
that swipe machines are not working.

Jo deBank, of the passenger group London TravelWatch, said: “TfL needs
to look into this properly and work with National Rail to solve this.

“Ultimately we would like to see all stations gated and staffed
wherever possible.�

She urged Oyster users to reclaim overcharged amounts. “A tiny
percentage of people bother to claim, which gives the companies little
incentive to sort it out,� she said.

A spokeswoman for TfL said: “Oyster customers who fail to touch in and
out correctly on National Rail or the London Underground are charged a
maximum fare.

“Any customer who believes that they have been incorrectly charged
should contact the Oyster helpline.

“Automatic refunds will be arranged by TfL for passengers who are
unable to touch in and out correctly due to service disruptions.�

Exclusive figures show that in the 11 months to November, passengers
failed to touch in or out at the start or end of a journey 13.2
million times. The penalty charges for the period came to a total of
£56.9 million.

====

Anger at Oyster cards 'rip-off' as millions hit for not 'touching out'
 

"CJB" wrote in message
...

Passengers will pay charges of at least £67 million this year partly
because rail bosses have either failed to install barriers or leave
the gates open.

Or because passengers thought they'd just not touch out, hoping they'd save
some cash - and got caught out. But why post this this story again - it was
discussed first time round.

Or have you just been hit by a max cash fare yourself?

Paul S

Anger at Oyster cards 'rip-off' as millions hit for not 'touching out'
 

Owain wrote

On Jun 20, 6:32*pm, CJB wrote:
.... But Lib-Dem Assembly member Caroline Pidgeon said: ...
They need to be looking at what changes
are needed to minimise the chances of these penalties, for example by
installing more barriers at stations.”

.. But the extra money raised would pay: "for more than 260 new buses
on
London’s streets, or fund the significant expansion of the cycle hire
scheme, or alternatively reduce fare rises.”

.. That would be a good thing wouldn't it?

.. She seemed quite keen when it came to embassies paying the
congestion
charge.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/unpaid-co...nd-fines-by-em
bassies-set-to-break-50m-barrier-22939.html


Which is a fine example of "I don't have any principle, they are
foreigners and we want their money".

A reasoned argument that the congestion charge isn't a tax would be
interesting (Embassies don't have to pay taxes).

I recall a Tory who argued that the Community charge aka "Poll Tax"
should be removed from the RPI "because, like income tax and unlike VAT
and rates, it was a direct tax,".

Which was a reasoned argument, if weird.

--
Mike D

Anger at Oyster cards 'rip-off' as millions hit for not 'touching out'
 

On Jun 21, 4:12*pm, "Michael R N Dolbear" wrote:

A reasoned argument that the congestion charge isn't a tax would be
interesting (Embassies don't have to pay taxes).

The one being used, which is debatable, is that it is a road toll,
which is a fee for using a road or roads, and not a tax.

Neil

Anger at Oyster cards 'rip-off' as millions hit for not 'touching out'
 

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 07:25:59 -0700 (PDT), Neil Williams
wrote:

On Jun 21, 4:12*pm, "Michael R N Dolbear" wrote:

A reasoned argument that the congestion charge isn't a tax would be
interesting (Embassies don't have to pay taxes).

The one being used, which is debatable, is that it is a road toll,
which is a fee for using a road or roads, and not a tax.

Neil

The US embassy is relying on the statement made by Ken Livingston that
the congestion charge was a tax - he was so excited that he let his
mouth run away when the tax was first introduced
--
Cheers

Peter

(Reply to address is a spam trap - pse reply to the group)

Anger at Oyster cards 'rip-off' as millions hit for not 'touching out'
 

Peter wrote
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 07:25:59 -0700 (PDT), Neil Williams
wrote:

On Jun 21, 4:12*pm, "Michael R N Dolbear" wrote:

A reasoned argument that the congestion charge isn't a tax would
be
interesting (Embassies don't have to pay taxes).

The one being used, which is debatable, is that it is a road toll,
which is a fee for using a road or roads, and not a tax.

The US embassy is relying on the statement made by Ken Livingston
that
the congestion charge was a tax - he was so excited that he let his
mouth run away when the tax was first introduced

Interesting.

Has anyone produced a reasoned argument about the difference between a
tax and a toll ?

--
Mike D

Anger at Oyster cards 'rip-off' as millions hit for not 'touching out'
 

In message 01cc34f6$316c92e0$LocalHost@default, at 18:30:08 on Mon, 27
Jun 2011, Michael R N Dolbear remarked:
The US embassy is relying on the statement made by Ken Livingston
that the congestion charge was a tax - he was so excited that he let
mouth run away when the tax was first introduced

Interesting.

Has anyone produced a reasoned argument about the difference between a
tax and a toll ?

Tolls are rarely charged on routes you *have* to use, there's normally a
"long way round". Which doesn't exist for the US Embassy, being inside
the zone. So it's a lot more like car tax, than say the Dartford Toll.
Wouldn't they get a 90% residents' discount anyway?
--
Roland Perry

Anger at Oyster cards 'rip-off' as millions hit for not 'touching out'
 

On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 08:12:49PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message 01cc34f6$316c92e0$LocalHost@default, at 18:30:08 on Mon, 27
Jun 2011, Michael R N Dolbear remarked:
Has anyone produced a reasoned argument about the difference between a
tax and a toll ?
Tolls are rarely charged on routes you *have* to use, there's normally a
"long way round". Which doesn't exist for the US Embassy, being inside
the zone. So it's a lot more like car tax, than say the Dartford Toll.

That's OK, there are exceptions to the "there's another way round"
argument, such as the Skye bridge, before it was nationalised.

--
David Cantrell | top google result for "internet beard fetish club"

Good advice is always certain to be ignored,
but that's no reason not to give it -- Agatha Christie

Anger at Oyster cards 'rip-off' as millions hit for not 'touching out'
 

In message , at 15:06:26
on Wed, 29 Jun 2011, David Cantrell remarked:

Tolls are rarely charged on routes you *have* to use, there's normally a
"long way round". Which doesn't exist for the US Embassy, being inside
the zone. So it's a lot more like car tax, than say the Dartford Toll.

That's OK, there are exceptions to the "there's another way round"
argument, such as the Skye bridge, before it was nationalised.

That's one of the exceptions I had in mind when I typed 'normally'.

Although there was a "long way round" using ferries (eg from Mallaig).
I'm not sure ferries count as toll roads.
--
Roland Perry

Anger at Oyster cards 'rip-off' as millions hit for not 'touching out'
 

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 03:30:02PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:06:26
on Wed, 29 Jun 2011, David Cantrell remarked:
Tolls are rarely charged on routes you *have* to use, there's normally a
"long way round". Which doesn't exist for the US Embassy, being inside
the zone. So it's a lot more like car tax, than say the Dartford Toll.
That's OK, there are exceptions to the "there's another way round"
argument, such as the Skye bridge, before it was nationalised.
That's one of the exceptions I had in mind when I typed 'normally'.
Although there was a "long way round" using ferries (eg from Mallaig).
I'm not sure ferries count as toll roads.

Well, you certainly have to pay for it, so it's still a charge to get
from A to B. And it's bloody expensive too - current fares are GBP21.20
for a car one way, *plus* GBP4.05 per person.

--
David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence

Seven o'clock in the morning is something that
happens to those less fortunate than me

Anger at Oyster cards 'rip-off' as millions hit for not 'touching out'
 

"Roland Perry" wrote:

In message 01cc34f6$316c92e0$LocalHost@default, at 18:30:08 on Mon, 27
Jun 2011, Michael R N Dolbear remarked:

The US embassy is relying on the statement made by Ken Livingston that
the congestion charge was a tax - he was so excited that he let mouth
run away when the tax was first introduced

Interesting.

Has anyone produced a reasoned argument about the difference between a
tax and a toll ?

Tolls are rarely charged on routes you *have* to use, there's normally a
"long way round". Which doesn't exist for the US Embassy, being inside the
zone. So it's a lot more like car tax, than say the Dartford Toll.
Wouldn't they get a 90% residents' discount anyway?

No one's forcing the Americans to drive. (OK, well apart from the friendly
folks at Al Qaeda.)

Anger at Oyster cards 'rip-off' as millions hit for not 'touching out'
 

"Peter" wrote:
The US embassy is relying on the statement made by Ken Livingston that
the congestion charge was a tax - he was so excited that he let his
mouth run away when the tax was first introduced

I don't recall this, and a quick search didn't find a reference to it
online - can anyone provide a source for this?

More recently, Boris certainly let his mouth run away from him and referred
to it as a tax when discussing the future of the now-defunct Western
Extension of the zone.

Anger at Oyster cards 'rip-off' as millions hit for not 'touchingout'
 

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011, Mizter T wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote:

In message 01cc34f6$316c92e0$LocalHost@default, at 18:30:08 on Mon, 27
Jun 2011, Michael R N Dolbear remarked:

The US embassy is relying on the statement made by Ken Livingston that
the congestion charge was a tax - he was so excited that he let mouth run
away when the tax was first introduced

Interesting.

Has anyone produced a reasoned argument about the difference between a
tax and a toll ?

Tolls are rarely charged on routes you *have* to use, there's normally a
"long way round". Which doesn't exist for the US Embassy, being inside the
zone. So it's a lot more like car tax, than say the Dartford Toll. Wouldn't
they get a 90% residents' discount anyway?

No one's forcing the Americans to drive. (OK, well apart from the friendly
folks at Al Qaeda.)

Yet another reason they should not have declined by design for an armoured
space hopper.

tom

--
The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right. -- Lord Hailsham

Anger at Oyster cards 'rip-off' as millions hit for not 'touching out'
 

Roland Perry wrote

at 18:30:08 on Mon, 27 Jun 2011, Michael R Dolbear me@ remarked:

The US embassy is relying on the statement made by Ken Livingston
that the congestion charge was a tax - he was so excited that he
let
mouth run away when the tax was first introduced

Interesting.

Has anyone produced a reasoned argument about the difference between
a
tax and a toll ?

Tolls are rarely charged on routes you *have* to use, there's
normally a
"long way round". Which doesn't exist for the US Embassy, being
inside
the zone. So it's a lot more like car tax, than say the Dartford
Toll.
Wouldn't they get a 90% residents' discount anyway?

I googled [tolls taxes distinction diplomat ext:pdf]

And got a US law review discussion about a 2007 New York congestion
charge proposal - Tax or user fee.

http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/j...3.1/Powell.pdf

Lots of footnotes, though the proposition that classification as tax or
not is that of the local legal system rather than autonomous to the
Vienna Conventions is ill supported.

But the argument that fire brigade services can be charged for even if
only available, not used and that the reduction in congestion is a
similar general benefit seems a fair one.


--
Mike D

Anger at Oyster cards 'rip-off' as millions hit for not 'touching out'
 

In message
, at
13:05:45 on Sat, 2 Jul 2011, Owain
remarked:
Tolls are rarely charged on routes you *have* to use, there's normally a
"long way round". Which doesn't exist for the US Embassy, being inside
the zone. So it's a lot more like car tax, than say the Dartford Toll.
Wouldn't they get a 90% residents' discount anyway?

Not if they're resident in the Embassy - it's on US territory.

Does that matter in this case? They are resident in London, even if that
bit of London isn't (for some purposes) GB.

Or is the resident's discount a misnomer, and really something like a
"Council tax payer's discount"?
--
Roland Perry

Anger at Oyster cards 'rip-off' as millions hit for not 'touching out'
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message 01cc34f6$316c92e0$LocalHost@default, at 18:30:08 on Mon, 27
Jun 2011, Michael R N Dolbear remarked:
The US embassy is relying on the statement made by Ken Livingston that
the congestion charge was a tax - he was so excited that he let mouth
run away when the tax was first introduced

Interesting.

Has anyone produced a reasoned argument about the difference between a
tax and a toll ?

Tolls are rarely charged on routes you *have* to use, there's normally a
"long way round". Which doesn't exist for the US Embassy, being inside the
zone. So it's a lot more like car tax, than say the Dartford Toll.
Wouldn't they get a 90% residents' discount anyway?

I believe that a toll is money collected to pay for the construction and
upkeep of the asset being used.

The Dartford Toll, and the PFI concession under which the Queen Elizabeth II
Bridge was built, ended on 31 March 2002 because enough money had been
collected to pay off the construction debts for bridge and tunnels and to
accumulate a suitable maintenance fund. The existing Dartford River Crossing
Ltd company was liquidated and a new company took control of the crossing on
behalf of the Highways Agancy and they collect a crossing *charge* which
goes to the government in full for redistribution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartford_crossing

So at Dartford it's definitely not a toll, and may well be a tax ...

--
DAS

Anger at Oyster cards 'rip-off' as millions hit for not 'touching out'
 

On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 21:14:55 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message
, at
13:05:45 on Sat, 2 Jul 2011, Owain
remarked:
Tolls are rarely charged on routes you *have* to use, there's normally a
"long way round". Which doesn't exist for the US Embassy, being inside
the zone. So it's a lot more like car tax, than say the Dartford Toll.
Wouldn't they get a 90% residents' discount anyway?

Not if they're resident in the Embassy - it's on US territory.

It isn't, many embassies are actually on Crown land. The privileges
enjoyed by diplomats and consequentially their "offices" etc. derive
from article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
1961:-
1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the
receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the
head of the mission.
2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate
steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or
damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or
impairment of its dignity.
3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property
thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from
search, requisition, attachment or execution.

A U.S. lawyer's view
[http://law.jrank.org/pages/20420/ext...oriality.html]
re "extraterritoriaity":-

"A theory in international law explaining diplomatic immunity on the
basis that the premises of a foreign mission form a part of the
territory of the sending state. This theory is not accepted in English
law (thus a divorce granted in a foreign embassy in England is not
obtained outside the British Isles for purposes of the Recognition of
Divorces Act 1971). Diplomatic immunity is based either on the theory
that the diplomatic mission personifies—and is entitled to the
immunities of—the sending state or on the practical necessity of such
immunity for the functioning of diplomacy."

Does that matter in this case? They are resident in London, even if that
bit of London isn't (for some purposes) GB.

Or is the resident's discount a misnomer, and really something like a
"Council tax payer's discount"?

Anger at Oyster cards 'rip-off' as millions hit for not 'touching out'
 

On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 22:22:41 +0100, "D A Stocks"
wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message 01cc34f6$316c92e0$LocalHost@default, at 18:30:08 on Mon, 27
Jun 2011, Michael R N Dolbear remarked:
The US embassy is relying on the statement made by Ken Livingston that
the congestion charge was a tax - he was so excited that he let mouth
run away when the tax was first introduced

Interesting.

Has anyone produced a reasoned argument about the difference between a
tax and a toll ?

Tolls are rarely charged on routes you *have* to use, there's normally a
"long way round". Which doesn't exist for the US Embassy, being inside the
zone. So it's a lot more like car tax, than say the Dartford Toll.
Wouldn't they get a 90% residents' discount anyway?

I believe that a toll is money collected to pay for the construction and
upkeep of the asset being used.

The Dartford Toll, and the PFI concession under which the Queen Elizabeth II
Bridge was built, ended on 31 March 2002 because enough money had been
collected to pay off the construction debts for bridge and tunnels and to
accumulate a suitable maintenance fund. The existing Dartford River Crossing
Ltd company was liquidated and a new company took control of the crossing on
behalf of the Highways Agancy and they collect a crossing *charge* which
goes to the government in full for redistribution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartford_crossing

So at Dartford it's definitely not a toll, and may well be a tax ...

I refer the honourable newsnaut to the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act
1988 which contains multiple references to the relevant "tolls".

Anger at Oyster cards 'rip-off' as millions hit for not 'touching out'
 

In message , at 22:22:41 on Sat, 2 Jul
2011, D A Stocks remarked:
Has anyone produced a reasoned argument about the difference between a
tax and a toll ?

Tolls are rarely charged on routes you *have* to use, there's
normally a "long way round". Which doesn't exist for the US Embassy,
being inside the zone. So it's a lot more like car tax, than say the
Dartford Toll. Wouldn't they get a 90% residents' discount anyway?

I believe that a toll is money collected to pay for the construction
and upkeep of the asset being used.

The Dartford Toll, and the PFI concession under which the Queen
Elizabeth II Bridge was built, ended on 31 March 2002 because enough
money had been collected to pay off the construction debts for bridge
and tunnels and to accumulate a suitable maintenance fund. The existing
Dartford River Crossing Ltd company was liquidated and a new company
took control of the crossing on behalf of the Highways Agancy and they
collect a crossing *charge* which goes to the government in full for
redistribution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartford_crossing

So at Dartford it's definitely not a toll, and may well be a tax ...

I didn't realise the "toll" period at Dartford was over. I remember when
it was owned by the two county councils, and the money they took didn't
even pay off the interest for building the tunnels. Maybe it should have
been a bridge from the beginning if it's taken that much money so
quickly!

But that's provided a useful definition, and as the Congestion Charge is
for roads which were built and paid for in some cases generations ago,
it seems to take it out of the "toll" category. Indeed, as the money is
supposed to go towards public transport, they aren't even claiming it's
to pay for the roads. (Yes, I know some public transport uses the
roads).
--
Roland Perry

Anger at Oyster cards 'rip-off' as millions hit for not 'touchingout'
 

On 2011\07\03 08:19, Roland Perry wrote:

I didn't realise the "toll" period at Dartford was over. I remember when
it was owned by the two county councils, and the money they took didn't
even pay off the interest for building the tunnels. Maybe it should have
been a bridge from the beginning if it's taken that much money so quickly!

But that's provided a useful definition, and as the Congestion Charge is
for roads which were built and paid for in some cases generations ago,
it seems to take it out of the "toll" category. Indeed, as the money is
supposed to go towards public transport, they aren't even claiming it's
to pay for the roads. (Yes, I know some public transport uses the roads).

When you consider what the traffic jams are like when the tube is on
strike, spending the congestion charge on public transport is every bit
as logical as spending the Dartford toll money on paying off the debt
from building the crossing.

Anger at Oyster cards 'rip-off' as millions hit for not 'touching out'
 

In message , at 09:09:50 on
Sun, 3 Jul 2011, Basil Jet remarked:

I didn't realise the "toll" period at Dartford was over. I remember when
it was owned by the two county councils, and the money they took didn't
even pay off the interest for building the tunnels. Maybe it should have
been a bridge from the beginning if it's taken that much money so quickly!

But that's provided a useful definition, and as the Congestion Charge is
for roads which were built and paid for in some cases generations ago,
it seems to take it out of the "toll" category. Indeed, as the money is
supposed to go towards public transport, they aren't even claiming it's
to pay for the roads. (Yes, I know some public transport uses the roads).

When you consider what the traffic jams are like when the tube is on
strike, spending the congestion charge on public transport is every bit
as logical as spending the Dartford toll money on paying off the debt
from building the crossing.

It's logical, but it's not spending *on* the roads themselves.

Maybe the M6 Toll is a more contemporary example of a road where the
money collected is going towards the provision of the road itself.

In Nottingham they are beginning to take registrations for the workplace
parking levy (~£250/yr/space). The money there is going towards the new
tram line, not roads, and especially not more parking spaces in the
City! So perhaps it's a pure "parking space tax". Discuss.
--
Roland Perry

Anger at Oyster cards 'rip-off' as millions hit for not 'touching out'
 

"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 22:22:41 +0100, "D A Stocks"
wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message 01cc34f6$316c92e0$LocalHost@default, at 18:30:08 on Mon, 27
Jun 2011, Michael R N Dolbear remarked:
The US embassy is relying on the statement made by Ken Livingston that
the congestion charge was a tax - he was so excited that he let mouth
run away when the tax was first introduced

Interesting.

Has anyone produced a reasoned argument about the difference between a
tax and a toll ?

Tolls are rarely charged on routes you *have* to use, there's normally a
"long way round". Which doesn't exist for the US Embassy, being inside
the
zone. So it's a lot more like car tax, than say the Dartford Toll.
Wouldn't they get a 90% residents' discount anyway?

I believe that a toll is money collected to pay for the construction and
upkeep of the asset being used.

The Dartford Toll, and the PFI concession under which the Queen Elizabeth
II
Bridge was built, ended on 31 March 2002 because enough money had been
collected to pay off the construction debts for bridge and tunnels and to
accumulate a suitable maintenance fund. The existing Dartford River
Crossing
Ltd company was liquidated and a new company took control of the crossing
on
behalf of the Highways Agancy and they collect a crossing *charge* which
goes to the government in full for redistribution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartford_crossing

So at Dartford it's definitely not a toll, and may well be a tax ...

I refer the honourable newsnaut to the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act
1988 which contains multiple references to the relevant "tolls".


Schedule 6 of The Act defines the period for which said tolls can be
collected, which ended as described above.

--
DAS

Anger at Oyster cards 'rip-off' as millions hit for not 'touching out'
 

On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 09:56:05 +0100, "D A Stocks"
wrote:

"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 22:22:41 +0100, "D A Stocks"
wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message 01cc34f6$316c92e0$LocalHost@default, at 18:30:08 on Mon, 27
Jun 2011, Michael R N Dolbear remarked:
The US embassy is relying on the statement made by Ken Livingston that
the congestion charge was a tax - he was so excited that he let mouth
run away when the tax was first introduced

Interesting.

Has anyone produced a reasoned argument about the difference between a
tax and a toll ?

Tolls are rarely charged on routes you *have* to use, there's normally a
"long way round". Which doesn't exist for the US Embassy, being inside
the
zone. So it's a lot more like car tax, than say the Dartford Toll.
Wouldn't they get a 90% residents' discount anyway?

I believe that a toll is money collected to pay for the construction and
upkeep of the asset being used.

The Dartford Toll, and the PFI concession under which the Queen Elizabeth
II
Bridge was built, ended on 31 March 2002 because enough money had been
collected to pay off the construction debts for bridge and tunnels and to
accumulate a suitable maintenance fund. The existing Dartford River
Crossing
Ltd company was liquidated and a new company took control of the crossing
on
behalf of the Highways Agancy and they collect a crossing *charge* which
goes to the government in full for redistribution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartford_crossing

So at Dartford it's definitely not a toll, and may well be a tax ...

I refer the honourable newsnaut to the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act
1988 which contains multiple references to the relevant "tolls".


Schedule 6 of The Act defines the period for which said tolls can be
collected, which ended as described above.

In which case you might be looking at an official "charge" (in reality
still a toll for using a bridge or a tunnel) not a tax :-
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...chedule/2/made
[The A282 Trunk Road (Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Charging Scheme)
Order 2008]