Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 3 months later...

I'd throw another cat in and say that anyone who was "mislead" buying a diesel should really have spent 5 minutes researching beforehand. The toxicity has been known about and published for years. That doesn't excuse the government or car makers for peddling otherwise though.


These proposals seem fair; it won't be for another 7 years that anyone in ED will have to pay.

I don't understand this method of penalising people without first providing viable alternatives. Perhaps Southwark can install more electric charging points on residential roads? Hopefully electric/hybrids will become cheaper but those with flats, terraced homes and front gardens that don't have OSP (I think, the majority of the SE22) won't be able to charge the vehicles. Could the Mayor hurry up and improve SE22's public transport connections into London e.g.local bike scheme, a rail/tube service that delivers a frequent reliable service; basic stuff that exists elsewhere (albeit costly). If we have good alternatives we shouldn't need cars but our options are inadequate. Yes we want to prevent avoidable deaths! If the Mayor and TFL are really committed to this then they have to invest first (yeah that would make sense!)

Talking of investing, how much would it actually cost to set up the cctv system needed to monitor the north /south circular route.


I found a document from Islington https://www.islington.gov.uk//~/media/sharepoint-lists/public-records/environmentalprotection/qualityandperformance/reporting/20152016/20150401islingtonulezextensionstudyfinalreport that suggests a cctv network would cost ?10.2 million in 2014 (allowing for inflation) per km


The north circular is 41.4 km long (source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Circular_Road)

the south circular is 33km long (source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Circular_Road,_London)


A total if 74.4 km at a potential 2014 cost of ?10.2 million per km makes it ?758.88 million


Allow for inflation from the 2014 estimate, cost overrun and other costs and that could be closer to a billion pounds in 2019 just to implement then there is the potential cost to householders to replace their vehicles that don't meet the necessary levels. Finally there is the cost to run the scheme, I assume capita will manage it on behalf of tfl.


I would be interested to see the figures that the mayoral office predicts for implementing as far as the north and south circular


Whilst cost should not be a factor compared with lives saved, it has to be considered.


Equally did anyone see top gear a few years ago where they did no2 comparisons during and after a London wide bus strike ?


They showed that no2 levels dropped significantly during the bus strike, and the following study backed it up http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2394054/oxford-street-pollution-plummeted-during-bus-strike-say-scientists


Therefore turning all buses to electric or converting to run on petrol rather than diesel will aide a drop in pollution levels which is a good start.


As Bil pointed out above south London doesn't have an effective transport system to replace cars if they are taxed off the road.


By restricting heavy traffic to the south circular and further out, it means that the already congested, slow and heavily polluted south circular will just get worse thus moving the no2 problem out to the south circular , which depending on weather and wind direction could cause it to drift into the edges of east Dulwich


Finally, deliveries to stores and businesses in the new zone will potentially increase cost wise which may be passed on to consumers as vehicles will either have to be converted, replaced or pay the new charge.


Overall I believe that there needs to be a better understanding of what expanding the ultra low emmision zone from the current congestion zone to the north and south circular roads actually means for London and Londoners as a whole before we can make any sort of informed decession.

Hi The ArtfulDogger,

I very much doubt it would cost anything like that to actively monitor it. But I suspect much of the monitoring would be via where vehicles are registered.

Witnessed air pollution of moving vehicles what 10 years ago. The system cost ?100,000 then per vehicle lane. They could tell how many cylinders were working from the emitted air pollution. So the systems available now must be even smarter and significantly cheaper.


Hi bil,

People can find alternatives to diesel vehicles but people can't avoid breathing (for long). So again I think the balance of unfairness is people having to breath polluted air over finding replacements for cars and vans.

Hi James, I was talking of the cost to implement the necessary cameras or systems to know when a vehicle enters the zone, plus the need for cameras to monitor vehicles already in the zone, after all people shouldn't be charged a daily rate if their vehicle is on their drive!


Not quite sure what your air pollution of moving vehicles statement is actually saying, it seems very confusing.


As I said I want to see the projected costs for implementing, running and maintenance of the proposal before making any decision


As Bil said in his post, before penalising drivers in the south, we need better transport alternatives implemented first he wasn't questioning the unfairness of alternatives to diesel vehicles, although the mayors proposal is that we replace or convert any vehicle that doesn't meet the standards, a lot of Londoners simply can't afford to do that especially those who use cars infrequently but still need them

Bit off topic, but re monitoring, I know many people would say Big Brother etc but why isn't it made compulsory for every vehicle to carry a tamperproof GPS transmitter so that it can be seen to enter any chargeable zones - which could also be used to enforce speed limits, prove red light jumping, track stolen vehicles, stop hit and runs etc etc. I know, loads of people will hate the idea, but at the moment traffic laws are a joke, broken by most people some of the time due to lack of traffic police. I'd accept one on my bike to prove I don't jump reds if that would help!

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Bit off topic, but re monitoring, I know many

> people would say Big Brother etc but why isn't it

> made compulsory for every vehicle to carry a

> tamperproof GPS transmitter so that it can be seen

> to enter any chargeable zones - which could also

> be used to enforce speed limits, prove red light

> jumping, track stolen vehicles, stop hit and runs

> etc etc. I know, loads of people will hate the

> idea, but at the moment traffic laws are a joke,

> broken by most people some of the time due to lack

> of traffic police. I'd accept one on my bike to

> prove I don't jump reds if that would help!


Same reason we don't have a national identity card to stop things like benefit fraud, infringement of civil liberties

TheArtfulDogger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Same reason we don't have a national identity card

> to stop things like benefit fraud, infringement of

> civil liberties


Yes, but cars are already constantly monitored on the road by ANPR cameras, speed cameras, CC cameras, so it wouldn't be something new, it'd just be being done better.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> bil Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I don't understand this method of penalising

> > people without first providing viable

> > alternatives.

>

> There are many viable alternatives to high

> pollution cars.



Dogkennelhillbilly...please explain those alternatives. I'm sure that will help those people with old cars who can't afford the upgrade.

TheArtfulDogger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Talking of investing, how much would it actually

> cost to set up the cctv system needed to monitor

> the north /south circular route.

>

> I found a document from Islington

> https://www.islington.gov.uk//~/media/sharepoint-l

> ists/public-records/environmentalprotection/qualit

> yandperformance/reporting/20152016/20150401islingt

> onulezextensionstudyfinalreport that suggests a

> cctv network would cost ?10.2 million in 2014

> (allowing for inflation) per km

>

> The north circular is 41.4 km long (source

> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Circular_Roa

> d)

> the south circular is 33km long (source

> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Circular_Roa

> d,_London)

>

> A total if 74.4 km at a potential 2014 cost of

> ?10.2 million per km makes it ?758.88 million

>

> Allow for inflation from the 2014 estimate, cost

> overrun and other costs and that could be closer

> to a billion pounds in 2019 just to implement then

> there is the potential cost to householders to

> replace their vehicles that don't meet the

> necessary levels. Finally there is the cost to run

> the scheme, I assume capita will manage it on

> behalf of tfl.

>

> I would be interested to see the figures that the

> mayoral office predicts for implementing as far as

> the north and south circular

>

> Whilst cost should not be a factor compared with

> lives saved, it has to be considered.

>

> Equally did anyone see top gear a few years ago

> where they did no2 comparisons during and after a

> London wide bus strike ?

>

> They showed that no2 levels dropped significantly

> during the bus strike, and the following study

> backed it up

> http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2394054/oxfor

> d-street-pollution-plummeted-during-bus-strike-say

> -scientists

>

> Therefore turning all buses to electric or

> converting to run on petrol rather than diesel

> will aide a drop in pollution levels which is a

> good start.

>

> As Bil pointed out above south London doesn't have

> an effective transport system to replace cars if

> they are taxed off the road.

>

> By restricting heavy traffic to the south circular

> and further out, it means that the already

> congested, slow and heavily polluted south

> circular will just get worse thus moving the no2

> problem out to the south circular , which

> depending on weather and wind direction could

> cause it to drift into the edges of east Dulwich

>

> Finally, deliveries to stores and businesses in

> the new zone will potentially increase cost wise

> which may be passed on to consumers as vehicles

> will either have to be converted, replaced or pay

> the new charge.

>

> Overall I believe that there needs to be a better

> understanding of what expanding the ultra low

> emmision zone from the current congestion zone to

> the north and south circular roads actually means

> for London and Londoners as a whole before we can

> make any sort of informed decession.



Very interesting. Thanks for the info!

bil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > bil Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > I don't understand this method of penalising

> > > people without first providing viable

> > > alternatives.

> >

> > There are many viable alternatives to high

> > pollution cars.

>

>

> Dogkennelhillbilly...please explain those

> alternatives. I'm sure that will help those people

> with old cars who can't afford the upgrade.

It ain't rocket science but luckily you've got 7 years to figure it out.

Well yeah, realistically for travelling into central London (especially during the week) the train is easily the best way. But a car's certainly very useful for nipping around South London, or journeys out of London, or when the train's not running over the weekend.


I guess the silver lining is that buying a basic second-hand eligible car isn't going to cost much more than your annual running costs.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...