Obama should order US Embassy to pay c-charge
August 13, 2009 by Martin Hoscik · 5 Comments
President Obama has been urged to order the US Embassy in London to pay the more than £3m of outstanding Congestion Charge fines.
Although the embassy initially paid the charge, this policy was reversed following the appointment Robert Tuttle as US Ambassador in 2005. Since then the Embassy has amassed almost £3.5m in unpaid charges and penalties and has consistently refused to enter dialogue with Transport for London over the debts.
It recently emerged that TfL has passed the issue of the unpaid fines to the Foreign Office to resolve, meanwhile Mayor of London Boris Johnson has been urged to withhold planning consent for a proposed new US Embassy building until the debt is cleared. At present the new building cannot be given consent as it fails to comply with the London Plan, the planning framework which sets out the Mayor’s guidance for developments within the capital.
Labour Assembly Member Murad Qureshi says: “Diplomats the world over are granted many special privileges in their host country, but these charges and fines are not covered under any such arrangement. The US Embassy should set an example by acting responsibly and coughing up like everyone else.”
Earlier this year Liberal Democrat Assembly Member Caroline Pidgeon called on new Ambassador Louis B. Susman to show to Londoners that things really have changed under Barack Obama’s new US administration” by paying all outstanding PCNs and agreeing to pay the charge.
Qureshi has already written to to the US President calling on him to ensure the Embassy reverts to its previous agreement to pay the charge. The full text of his letter reads:
Dear President Obama
US Embassy’s non-payment of Congestion Charge in London
I feel it is only right to bring to your attention a matter which has cast an unnecessary shadow over relations between the US Embassy to Britain and the people of London since 2003, in the hope that you will reverse a mean-spirited decision taken under your predecessor’s administration by the former US Ambassador to the UK, not to honour the Embassy’s financial obligations to their host city with regard to the cost of driving in central London.
In response to rising pollution levels and near-gridlock levels of congestion in Central London, the previous Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, bravely introduced a radical, controversial and highly successful daily congestion charge for cars entering a specified Central London zone. The Mayor did not seek to bar cars from London, merely to discourage their use in the most congested and most polluted area of the city. This charge was set initially at £5 per vehicle per day and was later increased to £8 in order to maintain its deterrent effect.
Thanks to our good public transport system, many Londoners choose not to own a car, and indeed for many there is simply no need – especially for those whose main journey is a commute from the suburbs into central London.
Mr Tuttle steadfastly refused to pay London’s congestion charge, wrongly claiming it to be a tax from which foreign diplomats are exempt. Many here feel this was an ignoble attitude from the Ambassador of the wealthiest country on earth, and one which has set an unfortunate tone, and a poor example for other Embassies to follow.
As at 3rd June 2009, the US Embassy owes the Mayor’s transport department, Transport for London, £3,478,200 in unpaid charges and late payment fines, and is by far the worst offender for non-payment. This sum is considerably higher than the amounts other Embassies of far lower status than the USA owe to Londoners.
I know you are seeking to introduce new era of international relations with your Presidency, one based on decency and mutual respect, and in that spirit I respectfully ask you to advise the new Ambassador to London of the longer benefits of adopting a more honourable stance with regard to complying with local expectations. Please issue a Presidential decree that the new Ambassador should reverse Mr Tuttle’s decision and ensure that the US Embassy in London pays the congestion charge in future, and repays the outstanding charges to make good the errors of the past.
Yours sincerely
Murad Qureshi AM
LONDON ASSEMBLY MEMBER
Typical American policy – they want to TELL everyone how they need to cut emissions but do not want to apply the same policy to themselves.
Same with Kyoto – yes they agreed Global warming was a problem and thought China, India and other countries should make carbon cuts – but did not want to follow that course themselves.
We had better collect the money in from the US soon or we will get nothing as the states is about to go bankrupt!
Maybe Mr Qureshi should go straight to one of those debt collection agencies – I’m sure they will be only to happy to clamp some of the US embassy vehicles.
Ah but of course it is not just US policy. The EU too has decided that the C-Charge is a tax and that international agreements are very clear about embassies being exempt from such taxation. Before the former Mayor put the price up 60%, there was indeed some room for argument as to whether it was a tax or a charge for a service (the latter being payable by diplomats). But when he put the price up, I reminded him that to add 60% to the price while not specifying where the cash was going or offering extra services meant that accountants would inevitably draw the conclusion that this was a tax. After this, the EU nations met and agreed with the US stance. Soon afterwards many large EU countries stopped paying. While leaving it to individual nations to decide whether to pay, the principle is clear to both EU and US diplomats and their advisers, and is entirely separate from the issues regarding road tolls (which the US pays) or parking fees (which the US pays, along with any fines for inadvertent infringements) – these latter are payments for the provision of services. It may indeed be that those making the decision in the the new administration might decide in the interests of relationships that the US should pay the C-Charge. But their advisors will tell them that they should not.
Damian,
I am not surprised the EU took the same line, and from memory Japan and Russia are also in the top 10 worst offenders.
However the tax argument is simply a get out – this was originally devised to stop countries bringing in a ‘diplomatic tax’ – in order to discourage the poorer nations from placing and embassy in your country. This should not relate to taxes which are paid by the indigeonus people – if you live within a country you must adopt the rules of that country (except within your embassy walls which are counted as your own territory).
This is more a reflection of class rules – where the members of the elite (which include embassy staff) do not feel they should have to pay taxes like the rest of us.
Did you know the appointment of the US ambassador is not usually someone who works their way up – but who is a political appointment? The new US ambassador was in fact ‘chief fund raiser’ for the Democrat party and his reward was the appointment.
Maybe he can ‘raise funds’ to pay the C-charge on behalf of the Americans, if not then I suggest we keep tabs and charge interest on the amount outstanding and then demand it in October when the US discovers it’s bankrupt – then we can repossess the embassy!
Of course, Tawkin. US ambassadors are almost always political appointments (in a way that UK ones still are occasionally, in plum jobs like Washington, Paris etc). Whatever the rights and wrongs of the position of diplomats whether, at its extreme diplomatic immunity in the event that a diplomat commits a crime, or at its lower levels, the facts are honestly very simple in the case of the C-Charge. If a court case were heard on this, it would most likely find that the embassies and high commissions were not liable to pay this tax. It is nothing to do with diplomatic immunity (which might apply if an embassy subsequently refused to pay following a court judgement that embassies were liable). Most of the embassies not paying on these grounds have made clear that they WOULD pay if the C-Charge were judged NOT to be a tax. But ask any lawyer or accountant dealing with international taxation and you would know why no-one here would dare bring a case, even with the promise of payment in the event that judgement went the way that the Mayor might like! That is why I challenged the last Mayor to bring the case. We are, as they say, where we are – whatever we might think of the position of diplomats, those are the rules we live with. I did warn the Mayor that adding 60% to the charge with no uplift in services meant that, whatever doubts there might have been before, it was now without question a tax by his actions.
Damian,
The first rule of law is that ‘the law is an ass’.
Have you not wondered why the c-charge is a tax and the tolls on the East river bridges and tunnels are not?
The bridges are Brooklyn, Manhattan, Williamsburg and Queensboro Bridges, connecting Brooklyn and Queens with Manhattan.
Funny seeing as the reason given for these tolls are:
1) Tolls will unsnarl traffic, save time for thousands of commuters and truckers on or near the bridges, and improve life in the surrounding neighborhoods.
2) Toll revenues will help prevent deeply damaging cutbacks in transit, schools and other vital services now and in years to come.
Interesting as this doesn’t mention the amount of the charge in relation to the ‘uplift in services’ – and as the reasoning is actually a non-negative (to prevent cutbacks) – then the same could be argued of the c-charge. I am presuming that our embassy staff in NYC pay these charges when they use these facilities.
The reality is that if the mayor gave a monkeys then a case could be brought – win, loose or draw the embarrassment for the non-paying embassies would probably prompt a settlment of some kind. It’s very revealing that the biggest offenders are also the biggest, richest and most powerful nations of the world (at the time of writing!)
How can anyone in this country have any respect for the legality of the c-charge when so many people openly abuse it?
It really has become a ‘traditional tax’ – and by that I mean a ‘tax on the poor’. Which I am certain was not our previous mayors intention.
We currently have the embassies avoiding paying for it, the rich are all buying foreign registered cars, the local and government authorities are all claiming it back from the public and only the less well off are the only ones forced to abide by it.
You said that “We are, as they say, where we are………….those are the rules we live with”
Clearly in this case only some of us are living by those rules and we’re only ‘here’ because our elected mayor(s) have obviously sided with those who live outside of our laws and have no respect for the people who actually live here.
I would also argue that court action may not be the best way to get a result. If the embassy staff want to play hardball then I suggest setting up major roadworks outside every non-paying embassy with non-stop drilling 8am – 6pm until the bill is settled! It won’t take long for them to break because from my own personal experience you cannot possibly do any work and it will drive you insane.
Who needs the law when you have imagination?