Jump to content

Consulration to explore options for restricting a local authority’s ability to generate surpluses from traffic contraventions


Recommended Posts

Open call for evidence
Restricting the generation of surplus funds from traffic contraventions

https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/restricting-the-generation-of-surplus-funds-from-traffic-contraventions

Open till May 25th. 

Please review and comment if this interests you 

Edited by Spartacus

My word the Tories are desperate.  Local roads, decision for local authorities.  If you don't like you council, then vote them out.  

Edited by malumbu

Ahhhh, @malumbu yet again you try and twist the truth. you muat be despetate 🤣

The consultation is about local authorities not keeping excess profits from fines, it is NOT about taking control of local roads away from them.

4/10 must try harder 

So the central idea proposed is:

Quote

Should government remove any suggestion there is a “profit motive” for local councils – such as by requiring any surpluses that councils might generate from new charges to be repaid to His Majesty’s Treasury – after the costs of enforcement have been repaid? 

Do we really believe that once the Treasury collects money from fines, they will be so much more altruistic than the council?

They are not. The central government grants to councils have been reduced by 40% in real terms between 2009/10 and 2019/20, from £46.5bn to £28bn in 2023/24 prices. Councils are trying to compensate through various means, including squeezing drivers. Meanwhich councils are still on the hook for elderly care, road maintenance, etc. 

Once the Treasury gets a sniff of traffic contravention money, it will be like crack cocaine: they will want more and more of it and demand councils install more traffic cameras to feed them more of that sweet contravention money. This is what is happening in France for example where central government gets the speed camera money and pushes local authority to install more and more of them.. 

The way I see it: not only will it fail to reduce the number of fines levied on the people of Southwark, but the money generated will be taken out of the local community and we will have even less say about the whole thing than we do now. 

15 hours ago, ArchieCarlos said:

So the central idea proposed is:

Do we really believe that once the Treasury collects money from fines, they will be so much more altruistic than the council?

They are not. The central government grants to councils have been reduced by 40% in real terms between 2009/10 and 2019/20, from £46.5bn to £28bn in 2023/24 prices. Councils are trying to compensate through various means, including squeezing drivers. Meanwhich councils are still on the hook for elderly care, road maintenance, etc. 

Once the Treasury gets a sniff of traffic contravention money, it will be like crack cocaine: they will want more and more of it and demand councils install more traffic cameras to feed them more of that sweet contravention money. This is what is happening in France for example where central government gets the speed camera money and pushes local authority to install more and more of them.. 

The way I see it: not only will it fail to reduce the number of fines levied on the people of Southwark, but the money generated will be taken out of the local community and we will have even less say about the whole thing than we do now. 

Local authorities are not responsible for speed cameras/enforcement, that is the police, and money goes to central government.  https://www.brake.org.uk/get-involved/take-action/mybrake/knowledge-centre/speed/speed-enforcement

Can't find any year by year stats on convictions, around a million people get fixed penalty notices, a million speed awareness courses.  Heck that is a number of people caught speeding.  Don't believe that there is any political push to increase speed limit enforcement.  But as with contravening local authority restrictions, if you risk getting a fine.

Consultation is now dead due to the General Election. 

Edited by malumbu
10 hours ago, malumbu said:

Can't find any year by year stats on convictions, around a million people get fixed penalty notices, a million speed awareness courses.  Heck that is a number of people caught speeding. 

Yes, but anecdotally that's a lot of people caught speeding at 21-25 mph (now) in built-up areas, many on roads which are not truly residential - indeed many classed as A roads. Speed awareness courses are only offered to those 'marginally' speeding - true 'boy racers' aren't offered speed courses (neither are those caught more than once at 'marginal' speeds). The old '10% leeway' now seems abandoned in many areas, I have been told of fines  and points being awarded for 21mph!

10% leeway is an urban myth, stems from the time when speedos were generally several percent out.  I know so many people who have done speed awareness courses, some even managing to get away with it twice.  There is a general bravado - oh this is pointless, then some admit how it did change their attitude.  I've not heard of anyone being fined for 21mph.  20mph will just be normal in years to come.  Good.   And roll on the time when the younger generation will only learn to drive as a new skill, and for occasional use, as with a swipe they will organise their personal mobility.

Sadly for most currently on the road, the only training they will go on after passing their test, is a speed awareness course.  Pass your test at 17, drive till 97, 80 years without training?  Most drivers would fail if we were suddenly asked to take their test now.

Yes it's pointless filling it in.  In deed a pointless exercise in any case, like consulting whether people would like more pay.  Although I did enjoy filling it in pre GE announcement.  

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

    • Hey Sue, I was wrong - I don't think it would just be for foreign tourists. So yeah I assume that, if someone lives in Lewisham and wants to say the night in southwark, they'd pay a levy.  The hotels wouldn't need to vet anyone's address or passports - the levy is automatically added on top of the bill by every hotel / BnB / hostel and passed on to Southwark. So basically, you're paying an extra two quid a night, or whatever, to stay in this borough.  It's a great way to drive footfall... to the other London boroughs.  https://www.ukpropertyaccountants.co.uk/uk-tourist-tax-exploring-the-rise-of-visitor-levies-and-foreign-property-charges/
    • Pretty much, Sue, yeah. It's the perennial, knotty problem of imposing a tax and balancing that with the cost of collecting it.  The famous one was the dog licence - I think it was 37 1/2 pence when it was abolished, but the revenue didn't' come close to covering the administration costs. As much I'd love to have a Stasi patrolling the South Bank, looking for mullet haircuts, unshaven armpits, overly expressive hand movements and red Kicker shoes, I'm afraid your modern Continental is almost indistinguishable from your modern Londoner. That's Schengen for you. So you couldn't justify it from an ROI point of view, really. This scheme seems a pretty good idea, overall. It's not perfect, but it's cheap to implement and takes some tax burden off Southwark residents.   'The Man' has got wise to this. It's got bad juju now. If you're looking to rinse medium to large amounts of small denomination notes, there are far better ways. Please drop me a direct message if you'd like to discuss this matter further.   Kind Regards  Dave
    • "What's worse is that the perceived 20 billion black hole has increased to 30 billion in a year. Is there a risk that after 5 years it could be as high as 70 billion ???" Why is it perceived, Reeves is responsible for doubling the "black hole" to £20b through the public sector pay increases. You can't live beyond your means and when you try you go bankrupt pdq. In 4 yrs time if this Govt survives that long and the country doesn't go bust before then, in 2029 I dread to think the state the country will be in.  At least Sunak and co had inflation back to 2% with unemployment being stable and not rising.   
    • He seemed to me to be fully immersed in the Jeremy Corbyn ethos of the Labour Party. I dint think that (and self describing as a Marxist) would have helped much when Labour was changed under Starmer. There was a purge of people as far left as him that he was lucky to survive once in my opinion.   Stuff like this heavy endorsement of Momentum and Corbyn. It doesn't wash with a party that is in actual government.   https://labourlist.org/2020/04/forward-momentum-weve-launched-to-change-it-from-the-bottom-up/
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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