Johnson: We’re still chasing US Embassy for unpaid C-charge
September 16, 2009 by Martin Hoscik · 9 Comments
Denying recent press reports, Boris Johnson says Transport for London continues to chase embassies who are withholding Congestion Charge fees and penlaties.
In answers to questions from Liberal Democrat Assembly Member Caroline Pidgeon, the Mayor said a recent report in the Telegraph claiming TfL had “decided in February to abandon any more attempts to force the foreign embassies to pay” was “inaccurrate”.
Johnson told Pidgeon his office “will continue to press” those who refuse to pay in conjunction with TfL and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
The Mayor said journalists enquiring about the subject had been told: “In respect of sending statements to the missions; the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) issues formal letters to each foreign mission detailing all outstanding Penalty Charges owed by that mission, including Congestion Charge penalties. Although TfL has in the past issued letters to embassies detailing Congestion Charge penalties specifically, these letters essentially duplicated the FCO’s, and in fact led to some confusion amongst the missions. In light of this, in February 2009 TfL took the decision to stop sending statements. The FCO directs all embassies to TfL should they receive any enquiries subsequent to their letters.”
The US Embassy is the largest debtor with more than £3.5m 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. A spokesman for the newly arrived US Ambassador Louis Susman has confirmed the Embassy intends to continue flouting the charge.
In a separate answer Johnson said the UK Government agreed with TfL “that the Congestion Charge is a charge for a service, and not a tax, which means that diplomats are not exempt from payment.”
Do we reckon Boris mentioned it whilst in New York?
As a result of the former Mayor’s 60% price hike in 2005 (with no extra services provided in return), the US stopped paying because the C-Charge confirmed itself internationally as a tax. In a subsequent meeting, EU representatives confirmed that it was a tax and that most EU countries would not be paying either. Germany for example then stopped paying this tax, while Sweden (which was beginning its own charging arrangements in Stockholm at the time of the meeting) decided that it would in fact pay. But made also clear that it was under no obligation to do so. The current Mayor would be best served by taking clear legal advice on the status of the charge…and if he does wish other countries to pay, how to construct the charge in such a way that it is not a tax. He cannot take refuge in a very ambiguous set of words that City Hall and the Foreign Office have “agreed”. They cannot under any circumstances “agree” that it is not a tax without proper legal advice, and in fact they have not done so. When I asked for the advice at one point, it was clear to me that there was no proper advice taken. I am not surprised. And if you are a C-charge supporter, rather than attack Obama or Mrs Merkel as ‘right wing chiselling crooks’ or whatever, you should look to the way in which the charge has been constructed and consider whether you would yourself pay a tax which you are specifically exempt from. And maybe lobby City Hall to make changes to it.
Damian,
I think the legal status of the charge is irrelevant, it’s about the environment and not the law or money. Governments worldwide regularly ignore the law (by starting illegal wars) so why should it matter now? The law only seems to matter when it’s protecting the minority that rule over us.
The embassies can easily avoid paying by simply not driving through the city during peak times.
I would suggest that Boris takes a different tact – lets have some billboards erected showing the worst offending embassies and the outstanding amounts and let the public decide if it’s acceptable or not.
….and of course it’s acceptable to attack Merkel or Obama over this – how many speeches have you heard claiming that both of them are keen on reducing emmissions? Are you saying that hypocrisy is perfectly acceptable? Maybe you’ve been in politics too long and have got used to it.
I dislike Boris’s policies and his mayorship, but he is the only politican who rides a bike to work on a regular basis. I cannot stand those who preach environmentalism but don’t practice it, somehow thinking it’s ‘for the little people’ like the rest of us.
Also the US embassy is now (as of today) relying on the mayor to approve the new Battersea building – I think it should be time to bring the C-Charge up before anything is approved.
The Swedish position is most interesting:
“Sweden (which was beginning its own charging arrangements in Stockholm at the time of the meeting) decided that it would in fact pay.”
What this clearly shows is which countries are serious about changing their ways to benefit the climate (Sweden) and those who are simply ‘talking the talk’ to make it look good (US, Germany etc).
Some nations (as do some people) have the attitude that the reduction in wastage and polution is for everyone else and not them. Sadly this is the position taken buy most of those in power across the world.
…but of course Tawkin, the legal position is really important. If the Mayor were to break the law (by withholding consent on the basis that a nation is refusing to pay a charge unlawfully levied), then the Mayor could eventually be removed from office. And in the meantime subject to all sorts of legal processes! No elected official can bypass the law simply for “the environment”. What I said at the end is surely correct – those who believe in the C-Charge need to ensure that a lobby is created to encourage the Mayor to ensure that the Charge can be constructed in a way that it is no longer considered a tax. The US and German embassies, for example, pay parking charges and road tolls willingly as they are charges for a service. I’m sorry to say that the Swedish position was regarded as rather cynical by the others! The governing party wanted to raise the cash from the charge in Stockholm and didn’t want any focus within Sweden that said they were happy to charge there but not pay anywhere else! On the business of naming and shaming by ads, a Mayor could be hoisted by his own petard – firstly, it may not be legal to advertise what you suggest (I don’t know, but the eventual wording might be made so bland as to be unrecognisable), but most importantly it would provoke serious response and might lead to a very embarrassing legal challenge to City Hall. Tawkin, what both the former and current Mayors have wanted out of this is to regularly express mild outrage, use it for publicity purposes (Mayor Livingstone against the USA, the current Mayor as a diversion) and make a point…but neither have really wanted this issue to come to a head. The outcome would be too embarrassing. Government also is not happy for City Hall to do it either – it could destabilise other plans for charging more to motorists if a flagship scheme is branded in court as a tax. That could lead in all sorts of directions. And I repeat – I do not know anyone who would pay a tax that they are specifically exempt from.
Boris himself has explicity stated that the congestion charge is a tax:
“I have asked Transport for London to begin the legal process to remove this charge [western extension zone] with all convenient speed … We can lift this tax within 14 months at the absolute outside and hopefully earlier than that.”
TawkinSenz
“I cannot stand those who preach environmentalism but don’t practice it,”
I have to say I think Boris’ mode of transport is more about not using “socialistic” buses and public transport in general, instead relying on personal transport.
Still, I did see a picture of him on the tube the other day!
Martin,
“And in the meantime subject to all sorts of legal processes! No elected official can bypass the law simply for “the environment””
Did we not break the law when we went to war in Iraq?
Did Baroness Scotland not break the law when she employed her housekeeper?
Did MP’s not break the law when they decided to de-fraud the expenses system (still under investigation I’ll grant you)
Law is a matter of convenience, in place to protect those in power.
…and I disagree with this sentence:
“I do not know anyone who would pay a tax that they are specifically exempt from.”
As I was previously an accountant I know that many businesses up and down the country pay VAT and then do not claim it back, partly the hassle and partly because they see some claims as petty.
We also have millions of people who are overpaying tax as we speak – including myself because the Inland revenue operate in another world to the rest of us.
I think your statement about producing ‘mild outrage’ is true and it’s being used as a political football – if so then why do the media keep picking it up and reporting it?
It’s also a damming enditement on both Mayors if you’re suggesting they will happily waste the public’s time with nonsense they have no intention of resolving.
When the US embassy moves to Vauxhall – I shall opo down myself and request the money. I, unlike politicans, am not full of hot air and empty promises.
…and if what prj45 says is accurate then Boris is admitting this is a tax – so how can he claim to be chasing the US embassy for something he is not entitled to collect?
Is it time to ask him in MQT?
TawkinSenz – I think your point refers things Damian said, not me!