These charges are becoming more widespread. As well as the London ULEZ, there's a number of Clean Air Zones (CAZ) that have cropped up around the country as follows:-
- Bath
- Birmingham
- Bradford
- Bristol
- Greater Manchester (under review)
- Portsmouth
- Sheffield
- Tyneside - Newcastle and Gateshead
As you can see from the list, these are cities which of course, by their very nature, are at much higher risk of having polluted air than would be the case in a coastal town.
There are some real benefits from the zones because we do have significant health impacts from breathing polluted air. Kids shouldn't be breathing in damaging particles when they play outside for example. There's also the obvious risk to the elderly and those with health issues such as asthma.
So I'm very much in favour of Councils and the Government taking initiatives to clean up our air. However, I'm not at all convinced that these zones are anything more than a money generating exercise. Our cities and towns are covered by myriad cameras on the look out for anyone breaking a rule. Councils are issuing charges and fines on an industrial scale, whether it be a parking transgression, going into a bus lane, entering a restricted area, and now in many cities, entering a CAZ.
It's so easy to make an innocent mistake and be hit with a fine. Each town and city has different rules and a multitude of signs. But that's the culture we now have. Big brother is monitoring your every movement.
The CAZ charging process is, in my opinion, setting people up to fail, resulting in the initial charge becoming a £60 fine. The way it works is that there's road signage as you enter/leave a CAZ. Your vehicle image is captured by a camera, and then you have up to a week to go online and pay. There's no notification issued to you, and no reminder. It's down to the driver to be aware they've gone into a CAZ, and then to go online and pay. If they don't, they will receive a letter informing them of the £60 charge.
When you go online, you need to make a determination as to whether your vehicle is subject to the charge or not. This isn't straight-forward, especially as the rules differ across all the different zones. (E.g. In the Bradford CAZ, taxis have to pay £7 a day but personal vehicles are exempt. By comparison, in Bristol, personal vehicles are charged £9 a day.)
I recently drove through the Bradford CAZ. I skirted the edge of it en route to somewhere else. I wasn't sure if I had to pay or not. The next day when I made the same journey in the return direction, the one-way system meant I went a slightly different route. A few days later when I went to pay, I wasn't sure if I had been through the CAZ on both days. I expected the online system to tell me if I was due to pay or not, but it didn't. So I was left guessing as to whether to pay or not - especially for the return journey where I couldn't recall seeing a CAZ sign.
I decided not to pay for the return leg of the journey, only to subsequently get the £60 fine, and the threat of it being escalated to £120, then £180, then bailiffs, if I didn't pay.
You may put this fine down to my stupidity, but when you're driving on unfamiliar busy roads, you're primarily concentrating on where you're going, and safety, as opposed to watching out for CAZ charge obligations.
Anyway, with regards to the charge, there's a way to contest it by submitting a Notice of Representation. This is an informal appeals process. There's no point going down this route if you're simply going to claim ignorance. That's no excuse. The onus is on you to know you have to pay. They've put up their signs and so they've done their bit. Therefore I chose a different tack. Remember I said taxis have to pay £7 and personal vehicles don't? Well I was on a personal visit albeit driving my taxi. So I objected to the charge on that basis. This was rejected by Bradford Council and due to my reticence to pay the fine they subsequently raised the charge to £120.
As a final throw of the dice I then submitted a formal Appeal. This goes to an independent Appeal body. I reemphasised that the basis for the Appeal was that the charge was unfair. I said I could appreciate business vehicles being charged, but said I was not operating in a business capacity and was merely on a personal trip. I said my taxi was my only vehicle and thus I was being penalised for not being wealthy enough to own a separate vehicle for personal use.
I finished my Appeal submission with long emotive diatribe about how I was not going to pay on principle and that they were welcome to send the bailiffs to come and pick at my scant personal belongings. A few days later I got an email off the Appeals service to say that Bradford Council had decided to drop their action and I had therefore won my Appeal. lol. I think they must have decided I was a little unhinged and it wasn't going to be worth the hassle. They were right. I am unhinged.
Anyways, with regard to the Bradford CAZ, it's forced some taxi drivers off the road. Many taxi drivers work 6 or 7 days a week. Many will only have the taxi and won't have use of a personal vehicle. So effectively since this charge was introduced they have to find £49 a week. That's a huge amount. In Bristol its £9 a day. It's unfair.
What these charges will do is to penalise the poorer road users who can't afford to upgrade to a more modern car. So they're a tax on the poorer members of society.
With regards to Blackpool, we are a coastal town with very good air quality. However in the article linked on the o/p, you'll read that a bunch of numpties declared a Blackpool climate emergency several years ago. This ULEZ was one of their recommendations to resolve the EMERGENCY. What a load of nonsense. We don't need it. It will discriminate against the poor. It will deter visitors. It won't do anything to help save us from some imaginary climate emergency.
