1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144 
Audacity abounds
Page 7
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
You run out of words: "Chutzpah", brass neck, even "a bloody nerve". And to what are we referring? The proposal under the London
congestion charging scheme whereby truck fleet operators may have to pay 50p more than the standard L5 per day fee in order to offset "the administration required and charges of vehicles not captured by the camera network."
In other words, because Transport for London—the "brains" behind the scheme (a word we use cautiously)— can't be sure of recording every wagon entering the nation's capital, it will make those operators that voluntarily provide their truck registrations pay for the ones that don't, or whose trucks slip past the cameras.
And we haven't even started to talk about the annual "signing on" fee of Lro per vehicle that operators who have to deliver into London will have to pay just to cover TfUs administration costs.
But wait a minute. Whose scheme is this anyway? If TfL can't make the technology work to capture every HGV entering London, that's its problem. And as TfL wants a congestion charging scheme in the first place why should hauliers fund its initial admin charges?