Expanded ULEZ

denso13 said:
It doesn't meet the definition of a tax.

"A tax is a mandatory payment or charge collected by local, state, and national governments from individuals or businesses to cover the costs of general government services, goods, and activities."

taxfoundation.org

What Is a Tax?

A tax is a mandatory payment or charge collected by local, state, and national governments from individuals or businesses to cover the costs of general government services, goods, and activities.
taxfoundation.org taxfoundation.org
Click to expand...

Really? I’d say it very much fits in to the category.

Not much different to VED.
 
carmanmemoranda said:
So the GOVERNMENT statement doesn't count?

Diplomacy doesn't count?
Click to expand...
It’s little more than a request without the word please.

But the US position is correct. I suspect that the countries that pay do not exempt the U.K. under the same and are therefore obligated under the treaty.

Let’s hear your thinking on why it’s a service with enforceable terms. You and denso are welcome to make a joint submission.

Please make sure that your answer addresses:
1. The elements necessary to form a contract
2. Why it would not be subject to the limitation act

If you get that far
3. Why TfL have not taken enforcement action for each charge in the civil courts. Paying particular attention to the rules of immunity for civil action against foreign diplomats.
 
Last edited:
motorbiking said:
It’s little more than a request without the word please.

But the US position is correct. I suspect that the countries that pay do not exempt the U.K. under the same and are therefore obligated under the treaty.

Let’s hear your thinking on why it’s a service with enforceable terms. You and denso are welcome to make a joint submission.

Please make sure that your answer addresses:
1. The elements necessary to form a contract
2. Why it would not be subject to the limitation act

If you get that far
3. Why TfL have not taken enforcement action for each charge in the civil courts. Paying particular attention to the rules of immunity for civil action against foreign diplomats.
Click to expand...
Somebody else who isn't reading what was said

I've never claimed it was enforceable in any way

I've asked why you think the Government asking for it to be paid doesn't count? Whether its via diplomacy or law?

The only other choice is to write it off. I'm no fan of this government, but I agree with them in this case.

It may well get written off. But it's good to see its not happening without trying.

You may notice, it's Government level, not TFL by the way.

So you carry on asking for details about something that's not been said because I'm not answering what I've not claimed
 
motorbiking said:
Really? I’d say it very much fits in to the category.

Not much different to VED.
Click to expand...
Well I say it doesn't.

They might struggle to prove it is a service charge, although it's obvious why they would claim that, but it isn't a tax.
 
Mottie said:
Don’t know. Do you?
Click to expand...
Why do you think such cars are easily recognised as diplomatic vehicles ?

The people inside them are not above the laws of the land they are in, but there is a worldwide convention on what happens.
 
noseall said:
I doubt ownership of the car and ownership of the parking violation are one and the same.
Click to expand...
Then the owner can take it up with the driver - much like a company would do to one of their drivers that commits an offence.
 
Mottie said:
Then the owner can take it up with the driver - much like a company would do to one of their drivers that commits an offence.
Click to expand...
As much as I don't agree with diplomatic immunity, or the rules around it all, its important that it runs the same everywhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top