Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think it is about time this was addressed. Within the North and South circular roads there is a rush hour level of traffic ALL DAY and most of it is the unemployed driving around in their old cars. How someone who is unemployed either needs or can afford a car is beyond me so the more of them that are forced off the road the better- although I doubt very much if they will be as some of these so-called 'unemployed' will be able to afford the extra tax if they can afford to run a car on benefits- AND many of them get a reduced-cost Oyster travel card as well

Calsug Wrote:

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

> I prefer the carrot approach instead of the

> stick...

>

>

>

>

> Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Calsug Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > If the charge supported increased transport

> > links

> > > in south London then I might support but I

> feel

> > it

> > > won?t...

> >

> > Isn't reducing the pollution which ends the

> lives

> > of 10,000 Londoners prematurely every single

> year

> > an aim worth supporting?


I completely agree. If we want people out of their cars, they have to be given alternatives. Otherwise behaviour doesn't change, people's costs just go up. Double the number of trains running through East Dulwich and make reduce the number of delays and you'd see a huge drop in car ownership.

uncleglen Wrote:

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


> Within the North and South circular roads there is

> a rush hour level of traffic ALL DAY and most of

> it is the unemployed driving around in their old

> cars.


Any scintilla of evidence for this beyond your personal prejudiced world view?

Any clear rationale for why taxis are exempt - except for their massive lobbying prowess? Feels at odds to license vehicles to carry on a commercial business in which they are driving around the ULEZ zone all day in a car that would otherwise be subject to punitive charging

Not so sure about trams James - Edinburgh was a good case study on trams not being quick or even cheap to deploy ... think laying down track and having trams competing on roads that already can?t cope with cyclists, cars and buses is a recipe for disaster. It would create more traffic and ultimately more pollution



James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Calsug,

>

>

> Totally agree public transport improvements are

> necessary. Trams can be quickly built an deployed

> and no plans in place to do this.

> The taxation raised will be used to maintain

> current public transport and the appearance of TfL

> fares freeze.

I support this and do currently own a car that would be liable for the charge.


The reality is that in our area this change will not function as a tax on the poor, or anyone else, but as a de facto ban on the more polluting diesel vehicles. To use your car twice a week would cost ?1,300 pa so surely most people will accept they need to switch their car over rather than to pay the tax.


The argument that this will disproportionately affect the poor is weak at best. It is true that this will be be a big change and much of the cost will be borne by those who currently own these cars, having bought them in good faith.


Some of those will be less well off, but let's say you're on a modest income and you bought a car last week blithely unaware that diesels are now seen as unacceptably polluting - how much would this person have spent on this car? If it was ?20K I would suggest they might not be that poor after all. So maybe ?5k - that's still a fair amount of money though... depreciation means that the car would halve in value typically over three years, and let's assume that it halves again because of the ULEV - that's a loss of ?1,250 with three years to plan around it... are those figures about right?


I'm not making light of a loss of around ?1,250 for someone on a low income, but that seems like it would be towards the far end of worst-case-scenario. And I would argue that there would be a scaling where typically, as the value of the car and therefore the loss increases, so would the income/wealth status of the individual affected.



I've cobbled this together on the hoof and and it's not supported by source date, but I hope the general point makes sense.


So the current situation can't continue. There's a price to pay for that. I think the price is worth paying.

Is scrapping all those diesel cars enivronmentally friendly?

Are the petrol cars tbat will replace them less polluting?

What is the environmental impact (let alone cost) of constructing an enforcement network in an area of hundreds of square miles?

Why isnt the issue of wood burning stoves being addressed, which causes far more pollution than diesel cars?

Cardelia Wrote:

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


> If you buy a car on PCP then at the end of the

> contract you either hand the car back and walk

> away, or finance the balloon payment to own it

> outright. The only way you can owe the lender any

> money is if you exceed the stipulated mileage, or

> if you've damaged the car and it needs repairs.

> Resale values don't come into it, and they won't

> affect the size of the balloon payment either

> because those are determined at the very start of

> the PCP process.


Ah OK, whenever I was looking at getting a car on PCP years ago I don't think that GMFV was an option, so the risk was on the consumer. GMFV now places the risk on the finance firm instead; same result, systemic risk.

There is no need to have zones, cameras, a small army of enforcers and staff.

Just increase the Tax on diesel fuel then those that do the most mileage with their diesel vehicles will pay the most, and if the extra revenue raised is used to fund a diesel vehicle scrappage scheme then it would be a tax that phases itself out as diesel vehicles gradually leave our roads.

B+ Wrote:

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

> There is no need to have zones, cameras, a small

> army of enforcers and staff.

> Just increase the Tax on diesel fuel then those

> that do the most mileage with their diesel

> vehicles will pay the most, and if the extra

> revenue raised is used to fund a diesel vehicle

> scrappage scheme then it would be a tax that

> phases itself out as diesel vehicles gradually

> leave our roads.


Great idea, but it'd have to be applied nationwide with an outcry from the rural areas who tend to use diesel a lot - Land Rovers and tractors - otherwise people would just drive out of London to fill up their diesel vehicles, adding to the problem.

I agree it's a good idea, just question whether it's workable without a nationwide rollout; if applied solely inside the ULEZ I can certainly see people nipping over the other side of the south circular to fill up.

It would only be a matter of time until the rest of the u.k

wants to reduce/eradicate diesel pollution anyway, so for it to work will need to be a

national scheme from the start.


Qualifying rural vehicles could be given tax rebates without the expense

of an infrastructure based solution that will become redundant

once there is no longer a diesel problem.


If the tax revenue was kept separate from the government?s general coffers

and if a regular announcement of how the funds were growing and being used,

(a bit like the national lottery) then it could create a feel good factor that makes

this extra tax palatable. Also if the most polluting and heavily used vehicles

were replaced first we would be able to measure the benefits of cleaner air

fairly quickly.

Qualifying rural vehicles could be given tax rebates


They already are - 'red' diesel. The government is currently investigating its use https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/red-diesel-call-for-evidence/red-diesel-call-for-evidence

At the moment the ultra-low emission zone is already 'policed' by congestion charge cameras - hence there is virtually no additional infrastructure cost in implementing it (some more coding for the camera software, and running it 24-7 and not just during congestion charge times). To extend it as wide as is planned will require many, many more cameras to spy on every route that crosses into the new zone, together I assume with data runs to identify qualifying vehicles which are registered within the zone (although of course they could well, on the peripheries, be kept outside the zone). All told the costs of implementing and running such a scheme will be huge. This is much more complex than road tolling (where you choose carefully the limited routes you will be charging on). Just think of the number of suburban roads that lead into, particularly, the South Circular (which, unlike the North Circular, which is real, is just a mapping convention). All will need to be covered by cameras and cabling to those cameras. The proposal is simply (outwith its intentions) madness. Attacking the problem of diesel pollution at its source is the only remedy, and that means taxing diesel so it is used less, and a beneficial scrappage scheme to encourage old diesels to be taken off the road. Such a scrappage scheme would be expensive, but it's a better use of public money than spy cameras on (I imagine literally thousands) of suburban roads.

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> At the moment the ultra-low emission zone is

> already 'policed' by congestion charge cameras -

> hence there is virtually no additional

> infrastructure cost in implementing it (some more

> coding for the camera software, and running it

> 24-7 and not just during congestion charge times).

> To extend it as wide as is planned will require

> many, many more cameras to spy on every route that

> crosses into the new zone, together I assume with

> data runs to identify qualifying vehicles which

> are registered within the zone (although of course

> they could well, on the peripheries, be kept

> outside the zone). All told the costs of

> implementing and running such a scheme will be

> huge. This is much more complex than road tolling

> (where you choose carefully the limited routes you

> will be charging on). Just think of the number of

> suburban roads that lead into, particularly, the

> South Circular (which, unlike the North Circular,

> which is real, is just a mapping convention). All

> will need to be covered by cameras and cabling to

> those cameras.


Indeed. The vast cost of implementing it, with the backdrop of Brexit and Carillion, would mean that the whole project would have to rely on residents NOT renewing their 'polluting' cars and instead paying the fees and fines to fund it and then on, to pay for its upkeep.

Which makes it pie in the sky in my opinion.


A nationwide tax is outside Khan's powers and as he would get no personal publicity for it he wont be advocating it.


"The problem of diesel pollution" has largely been solved with modern diesels. The major issue now is that initiatives like Sadiq Khan's have put people off buying diesels altogether. Last year there was a twenty per cent fall in new diesel car sales and as a result for the first time in twenty years carbon dioxide (the most damaging greenhouse gas) from new cars increased.


These measures are not improving the environment.


Banning wood stoves in London would reduce mkre NOx than this diesel tax but Khan wont contemplate it for some reason. His green logic is hard to fathom.

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

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • 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.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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