A fine line: John Lewis of the BVRLA speaks out on �� the London Congestion Charge

It may be legal, just, but is it reasonable? Is it natural justice, or is it the justice meted out by an operation concerned only with making--some might even even say extorting--money from an industry it regards as having 'deep pockets'?

Let me tell you what this is about. It's about an operation that, having been more successful than planned in deterring vehicles from entering central London, is now seeking absolutely any means of making up the ensuing revenue shortfall by applying regulation to the nth degree. It's about the London Congestion Charge (LCC) and Transport for London (TfL).

Every vehicle rental or leasing operation in the UK, almost without exception, is feeling the pain imposed by the over-zealous application of the LCC regulations. As, of course, by implication, are their customers; after all if costs increase there is ultimately only one person who is going to bear those costs, and there are no prizes for guessing that it has to be the customer.

You can argue that in the best of all possible worlds, every customer would pay the Congestion Charge and the problem of being fined for not doing so simply wouldn't exist. But that's the ideal and we have to live with the reality. And the reality is that BVRLA members have to handle in excess of 120,000 penalty charge notices for drivers of their vehicles not paying the LCC each year. That's nearly 500 a day. And at 40 [pounds sterling] each, it all adds up to 20,000 [pounds sterling] a day and 4.8m [pounds sterling] a year.

If the LCC had been paid in the first place, Ken's revenue for these vehicles would be under the 1m [pounds sterling] mark. So, he makes nearly an additional 4m [pounds sterling] a year from fining rental and leasing companies, which aren't actually responsible for paying the charge in the first place. It's some deal for him and it's no wonder TfL and Capita would prefer to fine drivers rather than get them to pay the charge.

So what TfL doesn't want is for rental and leasing companies to transfer the liability for paying those fines to their hirer. After all, it's expensive for them and would involve more administration. At the moment, rental companies can transfer liability where the hire period is under six months. But to do so they require 14 separate pieces of information including a copy of the rental agreement. Ironic when you consider that TfL requires just one piece of data--the registration number--to issue the fine in the first place. OK, 14 may be difficult but it is 'do-able'. The problem then lies in TfL accepting the data provided.

One notable recent case involved a van. The request to transfer liability was denied because the DVLA record showed it as being a Ford Transit 350 LWB whereas the rental agreement had it as a Ford Transit Luton van with tail lift. The photographs of the vehicle in the zone, which I've seen, show in great detail not only the registration number but the fact that it is clearly a Luton van, and even the name of the rental company emblazoned on it. Could this be clearer? I doubt it. Yet TfL rejected the transfer request. This case, which is by no means an isolated incident, has now gone to appeal.

TfL seems determined to make the rental company pay regardless and then recharge the customer. But this denies the customer the right to natural justice. Suppose there were extenuating circumstances, about which the rental company could not possibly be aware? And yet, the rental company is forced to pay up and recharge the customer because TfL is denying, in huge numbers, the right of companies to transfer liability, and denying equally, the right of the driver to speak on his own behalf.

And as for transferring liability on hire periods over six months, TfL is, we believe, deliberately dragging its feet and delaying the parliamentary process that would give leasing companies the ability to transfer. The legislation has been written and the BVRLA has been consistently promised it would be implemented shortly. Now, TfL has added other items to the proposed legislation, nothing to do directly with transfer of liability, but which have the effect of going back almost to the starting block. Curious that, isn't it?

COPYRIGHT 2005 DMG World Media Ltd.
COPYRIGHT 2006 Gale Group