London Emmision Zone (LEZ) Charge (1 Viewer)

[Brisey]

Speaking as an asthma sufferer, the fewer non-compliant vehicles in cities like London the better.

Sadly to say the most polluting vehicles in London, namely the black cabs, which are non compliant are all exempt from the charge.

 

[Tootles]

Not a fan of our wonderful capital city then?

Put it this way, young DUCK, I intend to lease a bakers shop in Pudding Lane for........two days........

FOOTNOTE: Every visit occasioned by me over the last forty years has been countered by a disaster in some form. Last time, Alison's coat was stolen from the back of her chair in the hotel we stayed at.

 

[cbrookson]

In theory as this was your first time you should have just got a warning letter - see here from the official LEZ information web site.

Challenge your fine NOW on this basis ......

Cheers

Warning letters
We will issue a warning letter to the registered keeper of a vehicle that doesn't meet emissions standards on the first occasion it's observed in the Low Emission Zone (LEZ). This is provided it's not exempt, has registered for a 100% discount or has paid the daily charge.

If the same vehicle is driven in the LEZ within a 28-day period from the date of issue of the warning letter, a penalty charge will not be incurred. After this 28-day period, you risk being issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) if you drive in the zone and your vehicle still doesn't meet the required emissions standard.

In the event of a change of keeper after the warning letter has been issued, any new keeper will not be issued a further warning letter. If the 28-day period after the warning letter has expired, a PCN will be issued to the registered keeper at the time of the contravention.

If you believe the warning letter has been issued in error, you should contact us on 0333 200 1000 (TfL call charges).

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[mitzimad]

Hi It sounds to me like you took the A1 in & followed the A406 round & up the A10 back to the M25

On the A1 the LEZ starts @ the 1st roundabout you come to heading in & On the A10 the start is the 1st set of lights inside the M25 Bullsmoor Lane or in your case the last set approx 300 yards from the M25

In future I would suggest absolutely no diversions inside the M25 as apart from sections around watford pretty much all of it is LEZ including some parts outside of the M25

actually there are several places where you can come inside the m25 heres a map http://www.tfl.gov.uk/maps/low-emission-zone

 

[artemis]

We got caught going to visit our daughter who lives outside the LEZ but we crossed into it at some point. We just got the warning letter and now have a van that is compliant. It was a real shock opening the letter and finding out the cost of the fine.

 

[GJH]

Speaking as an asthma sufferer, the fewer non-compliant vehicles in cities like London the better.

Sadly to say the most polluting vehicles in London, namely the black cabs, which are non compliant are all exempt from the charge.

I fully agree, Brian. They should be included.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

HAH! Clean air?? London STINKS of dirty river, rubbish piled up, MILLIONS of sweaty pedestrians, all rushing to get..........nowhere. Mouldy old churches, mouldy old Bishops, mouldy old Royalty, in fact, I cant really think of a good reason to visit the place.
The best thing that happened in London, ever??
The great fire. You desperately need another one, soon.

OK, those are London's good points. Now what about the bad?

 

[vectian]

I was lucky a while ago then. I went into the L E Z not knowing what it was and obviously unable to stop and try and read any signs about it because of the traffic.
I got a nice letter full of references to LEZs FPNs and loads of other sets of abbreviations.
It is completely wrong for them to issue you with the fine without first warning you. I suppose it is possible that a previous owner has had a warning letter about it so if it just works on your registration number tell them when you got the vehicle.
Appeal against it straight away

 

[busby]

Shred it. I would rather show my ass in Tesco's window for three months then pay that!!

If they finally take you to court, offer to pay at 50p a week.

Now that would stop em in their tracks...double tesco points that day...BUSBY

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[jhorsf]

so its ok for all the aeroplanes at the airports to burn millions of gallons of fuel as that does not pollute like a well maintained van that does not meet some regulation so has to be scrapped (all this green Sh1t boils my piss)

 

[chaser]

The wife owns ours. The wife owns the house. The wife owns ME!.

This is RICH!! 'How to Meet The Standard'
Replace your vehicle
You could upgrade to a newer vehicle that meets the standards or an electric vehicle

Cheeky Barstewards! Are they going to buy me a new one!! All a money grabbing bollox.

Only just seen this thread, who the hell would pay £100 to go into London and reading your post they even charge gritters and snow ploughs how can this work , just let em get snowed in and leave them to it then there'd be no pollution

 

[PP Bear]

Shred it. I would rather show my ass in Tesco's window for three months then pay that!!

If they finally take you to court, offer to pay at 50p a week.

So it was youuuuuu. My Doris thought they'd started to sell outsized tent awnings and gazebos

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[sdc77]

It's not just London.. Its all over Europe as well.. It will appear in more cities too.
I didn't know about the warning letter.. Thats a good idea.. General rule of thumb with vans is 2006 and newer tends to be exempt
I don't have a huge problem with it tbh

 

[GJH]

so its ok for all the aeroplanes at the airports to burn millions of gallons of fuel as that does not pollute like a well maintained van that does not meet some regulation so has to be scrapped (all this green Sh1t boils my piss)

No, it's not OK for aeroplanes to do that but the LEZ is aimed specifically at diesel particulates which aggravate asthma - and that's a disability I would rather do without

Now that would stop em in their tracks...double tesco points that day...BUSBY

Not double surely, victims would need far more after seeing Tootles' ass Just so long as it is Tesco paying for trauma counseling and not the NHS

 

[jhorsf]

http://www.flyingclean.com/impacts_airplane_pollution_climate_change_and_health



Issue Briefing: Impacts of Airplane Pollution on Climate Change and Health
Viewed from the ground, airplanes appear clean and efficient. They fly at fantastic speeds with no apparent effort, leaving behind only thin streams of puffy white clouds.

In reality, airplanes accomplish the miraculous feat of hurling hundreds of thousands of pounds of people, baggage, and aluminum thousands of miles at high speeds by consuming huge amounts of fossil fuels. In the process, airlines dump massive amounts of dangerous pollutants over our homes and into our atmosphere every day. This great but largely invisible harm will continue to grow at an accelerating rate in the years to come.

Airplanes have three major problems: they are inefficient, they are big, and they run on toxic fuels. A fully laden A380, according to its’ engine maker Rolls Royce, uses as much energy as 3,500 family cars, equivalent to six cars for each passenger. 1 Long haul flights produce on average twice as much emissions per mile traveled per passenger than cars and short haul flights produce three times as much.

Unlike cars, however, people do not use airplanes for a few minutes each day to travel just around the corner for groceries or into the office. People fly hundreds or thousands of miles on each flight and airplanes spend many hours each day aloft. A single round trip flight from New York to Europe or San Francisco produces two to three tons of carbon dioxide per person. 2 To put this in perspective, the average American generates 19 tons of carbon dioxide and the average European produces ten over an entire year. A few flights, in other words, can completely overwhelm any attempts to reduce your personal contribution to global warming.

Airplanes achieve such extraordinary levels of energy consumption and carbon emissions by burning large quantities of toxic jet fuel. This fuel produces, in addition to carbon dioxide, NOx, sulphates, and particulate matter, all of which amplify the impact of aviation on global warming. Airplanes emit all of these pollutants directly into the atmosphere, compounding the pollutants’ warming impact. Even those innocuous-looking contrails trap heat on the Earth’s surface. The combined effect of all of these pollutants multiplies the global warming impact of aviation, making aviation currently responsible for an estimated 5% of global climate pollution.

The burning of incredible quantities of toxic fuel has impacts that extend beyond the climate. As soon as airplanes leave the gate, they begin to produce phenomenal amounts of nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and cancer-causing toxics such as benzene and formaldehyde.3 This pollution travels miles downwind, contributing to asthma, lung and heart disease, and a large number of cancers.

The emissions from taxiing and take-off of aircraft help make airports some of the largest sources of these pollutants and major public health hazards. For example, Los Angeles Airport is the largest source of NOx, a key cause of the region’s copious smog, in California and the third largest source of carbon monoxide. 4 Logan Airport in Boston, MA produces twice as much benzene as the next largest source in Massachusetts. 5 Scientists have found that even small increases in taxi time at airports in Southern California contribute to significant increases in asthma, respiratory ailments, and heart disease in surrounding communities. 6 Scientists also believe that particulate matter emissions from airplanes, along with ships and trains, contribute to 1,800 early deaths per year in the United Kingdom alone. 7 These health impacts also translate into large economic costs for society.

All of these climate, health, and economic impacts will escalate enormously in the future as more and more people around the world fly. Analysts expect the global aviation industry to grow by 5% per year for the next two decades. 8 At this rate, the size of the industry will double in 15 years and triple in 23. Scientists expect aviation carbon dioxide emissions to double by 2030, bringing with them more toxic pollution. 9 Airplanes have become more efficient and less polluting over time. But these small gains have and will continue to be overwhelmed by the gross inefficiency of the activity and the rapid growth of the industry.

Despite their shiny chrome exterior, an airplane, just like a power plant or an oil refinery, is dirty. Worse still, it is an industry on the move, growing in size and pollution in leaps and bounds. The governments of the world have the opportunity to dramatically cut airplane pollution, and help the climate. But until United Airlines and other airlines clean up their operations and support common sense, low-cost emissions reduction policies, aviation pollution will just keep growing, hurting local communities and the global climate.

1 Economist. “Aircraft Emissions. The Sky’s the Limit.” June 8, 2006.

2 Elizabeth Rosenthal. “Your Biggest Carbon Sin May Be Air Travel.” New York Times. January 26, 2013. Broken Link Removed

3 Center for Clean Air Policy and Northeastern States for Coordinated Air Use Management. “Controlling Airport-Related Air Pollution.” June 2003.

4 Wolfram Schlenker and W. Redd Walter. “Airports, Air Pollution, and Conptemporaneous Health.” National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper 17684. 2011.http://www.nber.org/papers/w17684

5 Center for Clean Air Policy and Northeastern States for Coordinated Air Use Management. “Controlling Airport-Related Air Pollution.” June 2003.

6 Wolfram Schlenker and W. Redd Walter. “Airports, Air Pollution, and Conptemporaneous Health.” National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper 17684. 2011.http://www.nber.org/papers/w17684

7 Steve Yim and Steven Barrett. “Public health Impacts of Combustion Emissions in the United Kingdom.” Environmental Science and Technology. 2012. 46.8.

8 Boeing. “Current Market Outlook 2012-2031”. 2012.http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cmo/pdf/Boeing_Current_Market_Outlook_2012.pdf

9 Nicholas Lutsey, Prioritizing Climate Change Mitigation Alternatives: Comparing Transportation Technologies to Options in Other Sectors (UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies, June 2008), 81; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: Working Group III: Mitigation, 2001, Broken Link Removed. Artur Runge-Metzger, “Aviation and Emissions Trading: ICAO Council Briefing,” September 29, 2010, available atBroken Link Removed. Percent change relative to a 2006 baseline.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

This pollution travels miles downwind, contributing to asthma, lung and heart disease, and a large number of cancers.
And action against it is needed - but the lack of such action does not invalidate the LEZ

 

[Hymie]

In theory as this was your first time you should have just got a warning letter - see here from the official LEZ information web site.

Challenge your fine NOW on this basis ......

Cheer

Warning letters
We will issue a warning letter to the registered keeper of a vehicle that doesn't meet emissions standards on the first occasion it's observed in the Low Emission Zone (LEZ). This is provided it's not exempt, has registered for a 100% discount or has paid the daily charge.

If the same vehicle is driven in the LEZ within a 28-

I was lucky a while ago then. I went into the L E Z not knowing what it was and obviously unable to stop and try and read any signs about it because of the traffic.
I got a nice letter full of references to LEZs FPNs and loads of other sets of abbreviations.
It is completely wrong for them to issue you with the fine without first warning you. I suppose it is possible that a previous owner has had a warning letter about it so if it just works on your registration number tell them when you got the vehicle.
Appeal against it straight away

That's probably the best device you will get, appeal now and the clock stops ticking until you get their reply, it took 3 weeks in our case.

We got a fine through the post the week before we went to France in June, I rang them straight away and was told that most people get a warning the first time but when I asked why we didn't and was told " I have no idea".

By the time we got the letter I had committed 2 more offences by taking Harriet for a new tyre and taking her out of the zone, so we were looking at £750 worth of fines.

I appealed on the basis that if I had received the warning I would not have committed the subsequent offences and we received a letter a week or so ago telling us that all 3 had been rescinded.

If you ring them to ask why you did not receive a warning, they asked us for the date and time of the call and told us that they had listened to the call and agreed we had not been given the appropriate response.

I asked why we had not been made aware of the LEZ when we registered, taxed or MOT'd Harriet but they said that this was national government and the LEZ was a local government initiative.

Appeal it, you have nothing to lose, we did it online from their website.

Good luck and let us know how you get on.

Hymie.

 

[grasscutter]

The LEZ certainly has anomalies. As my motorhome has been uprated to 3.85 ton it is non compliant. Downrate to 3.5 ton and it becomes compliant.
Exactly the same engine.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Cobweb]

The LEZ certainly has anomalies. As my motorhome has been uprated to 3.85 ton it is non compliant. Downrate to 3.5 ton and it becomes compliant.
Exactly the same engine.

Same here we have 2006 Rapido 997 . . At 3.5 ton we could not have anything in the in the van so we upgraded to 3.8 . When we went on a weigh bridge with half empty water tank and full fueltank + enough gear for a continental trip for 2-3 months we were almost 3.8 ! The previous owner must have been illegal most of the time ! If we had not upgraded we would comply with the LEZ so it has nothing to do with real emissions ! Because of this we have not been able to visit London in our MH since 2012 .

 

[GJH]

Same here we have 2006 Rapido 997 . . At 3.5 ton we could not have anything in the in the van so we upgraded to 3.8 . When we went on a weigh bridge with half empty water tank and full fueltank + enough gear for a continental trip for 2-3 months we were almost 3.8 ! The previous owner must have been illegal most of the time ! If we had not upgraded we would comply with the LEZ so it has nothing to do with real emissions ! Because of this we have not been able to visit London in our MH since 2012 .

So there are advantages to the LEZ then

To be serious for a minute though. We visited London (staying at Abbey Wood) three years running, whilst we were still involved with the ECWS, and that was by far enough of the place for me. However, for people with vans which are non-compliant with the LEZ who still want to visit London there are sites around London with good transport links. One we stayed at is Link Removed (not to be confused with the Link Removed one which is inside the LEZ). There have been a number of threads over the years giving details of several other sites.

 

[GJH]

The LEZ certainly has anomalies. As my motorhome has been uprated to 3.85 ton it is non compliant. Downrate to 3.5 ton and it becomes compliant.
Exactly the same engine.

The automatic categorisation is (as is typical with such measures) rather crude. However, in that sort of case, Graham, isn't it possible to have the individual vehicle checked and exempted?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[normanandsue]

An interesting thread. As a regular user of the M25 Dartford crossing I wonder if I was directed off the M25 due to it being closed would I be liable to the LEZ charge even though I have been directed into it by the "authorities?"

 

[GJH]

An interesting thread. As a regular user of the M25 Dartford crossing I wonder if I was directed off the M25 due to it being closed would I be liable to the LEZ charge even though I have been directed into it by the "authorities?"

I'm pretty sure TfL used to publish information but can't find it just now. As far as I remember you are OK so long as you follow an official diversion but not if you deviate from it.

 

[captain]

Yep I got caught 2 years ago visiting my mum in Dagenham, and I am a Cockney living in Barnsley, I only clipped the zone by a roundabouts worth Nr Ilford but the fine was for £90.00 they had me on camera no. plate the works. I wrote back to appeal and was let off, first offence.

I now avoid London like the plague, Mum's moved to Clacton on Sea....and I aint going back, always use M25 and give that unholy place a wide berth!

So Appeal..!

Captain

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Tootles]

No, it's not OK for aeroplanes to do that but the LEZ is aimed specifically at diesel particulates which aggravate asthma - and that's a disability I would rather do without

If I suffered from a malady as you do Graham, I would never risk going anywhere near a location where the chances of aggravating that malady were increased, stupid laws or not!
This has nothing to do with 'particulates', and everything to do with making cash for an 'in the pits city' that sees itself as something special.

 

[GJH]

If I suffered from a malady as you do Graham, I would never risk going anywhere near a location where the chances of aggravating that malady were increased, stupid laws or not!
This has nothing to do with 'particulates', and everything to do with making cash for an 'in the pits city' that sees itself as something special.

Difficult to avoid sometimes Dave. Remember those old North Western buses struggling up Mottram Moor? Thank goodness they've cleaned them up (even if they haven't cleaned up Mottram Moor)

 

[jezport]

we have to tax the northern oiks who come there with their old vehicles polluting our lovely clean air

Don't you mean "Us southerners are so rich that we don't need visitors and their spending any more"

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Tootles]

Difficult to avoid sometimes Dave. Remember those old North Western buses struggling up Mottram Moor? Thank goodness they've cleaned them up (even if they haven't cleaned up Mottram Moor)

No, they haven't cleaned up Mottram Moor. It's still a dump, as is the whole area. And it used to be a real pleasure coming over the hill from Hyde, and seeing that once lovely view.........

 

[Cobweb]

So there are advantages to the LEZ then

To be serious for a minute though. We visited London (staying at Abbey Wood) three years running, whilst we were still involved with the ECWS, and that was by far enough of the place for me. However, for people with vans which are non-compliant with the LEZ who still want to visit London there are sites around London with good transport links. One we stayed at is Link Removed (not to be confused with the Link Removed one which is inside the LEZ). There have been a number of threads over the years giving details of several other sites.

Thanks for that . We might take that option instead of paying £100 +in a hotel.
How far is the station to London or is it just bus to Walthamstow and tube after ?

 

[GJH]

Thanks for that . We might take that option instead of paying £100 +in a hotel.
How far is the station to London or is it just bus to Walthamstow and tube after ?

We were only there one night so didn't use public transport but I think the most direct route is by bus. Gail (Ourcampersbeentrashed) lives nearby so will be the best source of advice.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}