Sheffield Congestion Charge From Feb 27th 2023

[Planner1]

1 hour ago, sheffbag said:

I'll be honest, if i received a notice and i hadnt been in the areas over 40 i would appeal requesting SCC prove I was travelling in air deemed illegal by the courts.

I understand your point, but the contravention will be that a chargeable vehicle is within the designated restricted area without paying the required fee.

 

What the air quality actually is at that precise location or point in time won’t be relevant to the contravention.

 

However, it will be interesting to see how the adjudicators deal with appeals on grounds like that.

[Planner1]

18 hours ago, hackey lad said:

Free push bikes for councillors 

The council already have a pool of bikes that staff and councillors can use.

[Planner1]

1 hour ago, sheffbag said:

Since you dismiss govt literature are inconclusive when it doesn't suit you then Instead of quoting a newspaper report of a "council spokeswoman" Why not quote the actual Clean air charging scheme - https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2023-02/sheffield-clean-air-zone-charging-order-2023.pdf

"In the event that net proceeds are generated from the Scheme over the opening ten year period, these proceeds would be applied, in such proportions as may be decided by the Council, to directly or indirectly facilitate the achievement of relevant local transport policies in Sheffield's Transport Strategy and the Sheffield City Region Transport Strategy in accordance with the following high level spending objectives:

• supporting the delivery of the ambitions of the Scheme and promoting cleaner air;

• supporting active travel and public transport use;

• supporting zero emission and sustainable infrastructure and actions in and around the city to improve air quality 

so not just Sustainable transport schemes after all, but hey ho, its a council spokeswoman so probably wasnt briefed correctly or just forgot (using your examples of reasoning for council misinformation)

 

I'll be honest, if i received a notice and i hadnt been in the areas over 40 i would appeal requesting SCC prove I was travelling in air deemed illegal by the courts.

 

there is nothing in the Charging order that say funds will be spent on processing appeals. - what is your published evidence for that, since you demand it of others. Even if there were some associated costs i would argue that 7000 fines equals £14000 to the govt for operational costs leaving over £195,000 to go back to Sheffield in the first month. that should cover any appeals costs for the next year so what they going to do with the next 11 months worth of income

Look at the passage you’ve quoted.
 

It says “net proceeds”. 

 

That’s the proceeds after costs and expenses.

 

I think you may be confused about what the processing charge is about for the government system. My understanding is that the charge is to cover the processing of CAZ fees paid by motorists who have entered the zone with a chargeable vehicle. It isn’t about processing penalties for not paying the fee.

[sheffbag]

25 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

I understand your point, but the contravention will be that a chargeable vehicle is within the designated restricted area without paying the required fee.

 

What the air quality actually is at that precise location or point in time won’t be relevant to the contravention.

 

However, it will be interesting to see how the adjudicators deal with appeals on grounds like that.

The legal reason for the clean air zone is that the air has been identified as over 40 which was the limit set by the courts and mandated on the UK govt.

 

And thats it. None of the emotive stuff that Coppard was coming out with today about the equivalent of passive smoking. 

 

SCC cannot prove in any way that the air outside of the 6 spots of sheaf st and the section arundal gate - waingate. is over the legal limit. Therefore the contravention could be classed as unlawful could it not on appeal?

 

I take your point that the air quality at that precise location or point in time (point in time is irrelevant, the CAZ is based on annual figures) might not be relevant to the contravention, but that is also overruled by the fact that the whole of the clean air zone averages 32 according to the latest figures released by SCC

 

So 

Using precise location - Under 40 except the known places

Using the CAZ as a whole - Under 40 overall

 

I bow to your knowledge of the appeals sector as i know you have experience here but yes it would make a very interesting test case if someone appealed on those grounds.  

 

Unfortunately i couldnt get on Tobys call Coppard today to ask him about the latest figures. but i will next time and i will be asking him if he knows what the air level is within Sheffield and when they will be going back to ask if it can be lifted.

 

[sheffbag]

10 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

Look at the passage you’ve quoted.
 

It says “net proceeds”. 

 

That’s the proceeds after costs and expenses.

 

I think you may be confused about what the processing charge is about for the government system. My understanding is that the charge is to cover the processing of CAZ fees paid by motorists who have entered the zone with a chargeable vehicle. It isn’t about processing penalties for not paying the fee.

i take your point, i have researched further and yes the appeals costs have to be covered by the local authority

 

But then does it not still apply that in the first month 7000 fines equals £14000 to the govt operations and £195000 back to Sheffield. Those monies would more than cover the additional appeals process would it not (given your knowledge of the operations within that section) ? so what will they do with the additional monies throughout the year.

[Planner1]

1 minute ago, sheffbag said:

I bow to your knowledge of the appeals sector as i know you have experience here but yes it would make a very interesting test case if someone appealed on those grounds.  

 

Unfortunately i couldnt get on Tobys call Coppard today to ask him about the latest figures. but i will next time and i will be asking him if he knows what the air level is within Sheffield and when they will be going back to ask if it can be lifted.

 

The problem can be that civil enforcement appeals are heard by independent adjudicators ( barristers). They sometimes err on the side of “fairness” over what legally constitutes a contravention.

 

An example being there’s a 24 hour bus gate that’s legally sound, the signing meets all requirements. The bus service doesn’t operate through it overnight. The adjudicator started allowing appeals against penalties issued overnight on the grounds that no buses were being delayed. So, there was no point enforcing it overnight. 
 

I could foresee there could be scope for something similar potentially happening with CAZ fines if the air quality clearly complies with legal requirements. Will be interesting to see what happens.

3 minutes ago, sheffbag said:

But then does it not still apply that in the first month 7000 fines equals £14000 to the govt operations and £195000 back to Sheffield.

No, not in my understanding.

 

The £2 fee to the government / their system operator is for processing a payment made on the CAZ system ie the £10 a day fee the drivers pay to enter the zone.

 

Those who get a fine haven’t paid any fee so there isn’t a £2 charge.

[sheffbag]

16 hours ago, Planner1 said:

 

The £2 fee to the government / their system operator is for processing a payment made on the CAZ system ie the £10 a day fee the drivers pay to enter the zone.

 

Those who get a fine haven’t paid any fee so there isn’t a £2 charge.

the report you quoted states the scheme took £175,000 in fees for non compliant vehicles in the first month. Even if all of those vehicles were cars and so only paying the £10 fee then that means £35,000 went to the govt in processing fees as a maximum and £140,000 as a minimum came back to SCC in the first month. Would you not agree with that.

 

If so then does £140K cover all costs for additional appeals based on your experience within the sector Again , that is first month only. 

 

And this is before the taxi exemption ends.  

[Planner1]

4 hours ago, sheffbag said:

the report you quoted states the scheme took £175,000 in fees for non compliant vehicles in the first month. Even if all of those vehicles were cars and so only paying the £10 fee then that means £35,000 went to the govt in processing fees as a maximum and £140,000 as a minimum came back to SCC in the first month. Would you not agree with that.

 

If so then does £140K cover all costs for additional appeals based on your experience within the sector Again , that is first month only. 

 

And this is before the taxi exemption ends.  

Cars are all exempt, so that’s not a good  example. I’m guessing you meant vans.

 

They also issued 7000 penalties which are £60 for early payment or £120 after that plus you have to pay the entry fee (£10 or £50) too, so minimum return is £70. Conservatively assume 50% of penalties paid at lower rate. That’s another £490,000 plus your £140k in fees, so total £630k.
 

Yes, I’d imagine that would cover costs. When I was there parking services overall income was about double their costs, so I would expect the CAZ element to be similar or better.

 

 

[sheffbag]

20 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

Cars are all exempt, so that’s not a good  example. I’m guessing you meant vans.

 

They also issued 7000 penalties which are £60 for early payment or £120 after that plus you have to pay the entry fee (£10 or £50) too, so minimum return is £70. Conservatively assume 50% of penalties paid at lower rate. That’s another £490,000 plus your £140k in fees, so total £630k.
 

Yes, I’d imagine that would cover costs. When I was there parking services overall income was about double their costs, so I would expect the CAZ element to be similar or better.

 

 

i meant any vehicle paying the £10 fee not the £50. this gave the minimum / maximum figure. 

So all the operational costs are covered in the first month for a year.  So what they going to spend the other projected £4-5M on that will come back to Sheffield

[Planner1]

29 minutes ago, sheffbag said:

i meant any vehicle paying the £10 fee not the £50. this gave the minimum / maximum figure. 

So all the operational costs are covered in the first month for a year.  So what they going to spend the other projected £4-5M on that will come back to Sheffield

On the grand scale of transport schemes, four or five mil doesn’t buy much.