| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:CPZ ‘consultation’ | |
| Posted by: | Simon Hayes | |
| Date/Time: | 23/11/24 09:41:00 |
| What’s always abused by the decision makers is that CPZ charges aren’t supposed to be about revenue raising. There is very clear case law on this, but for some reason a blind eye is always turned. Maybe it needs a wealthy Ealing resident to challenge these twits in court. The costs of implementing s as no maintaining these zones is way less than the money raised, e we hitch is euphemistically called a surplus. In Ealing the surplus runs into many millions. ‘Attfield v. London Borough of Barnet (2013) established that a council must not use parking charges as a means to generate revenue for unrelated purposes. The court ruled that councils must only impose charges that are necessary for covering the costs of operating the parking scheme. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, specifically Section 122, which mandates that traffic regulations, including CPZs, must be implemented to secure the expeditious, safe, and convenient movement of traffic and NOT for revenue generation.’ |