Is this the beginning of widespread workplace parking charges? Fleet Voice
Wednesday 8 September, 2010: The Fleet Voice Column.
The thin end of a pernicious wedge has been driven into company car life by Nottingham City Council. It’s the first authority to introduce a workplace parking levy (WPL) and it proudly boasts of this fact.
Nottingham’s fine burghers will be exempt from stumping up the expected £250 per annum charge until April 2012, but the council will be getting its administrative eye in by starting the scheme in October 2011.
Where one leads others will follow
This is bad news for those who enjoy a free or subsidised company car park space in Nottingham, but it’s also bad news for those working in cities such as York, Bristol, Leeds and several others. Once the example of Nottingham is up and running, it seems likely that wedge will be driven deeper into other cities until the WPL becomes common across the UK.
Nottingham City Council cites all of the upbeat reasons for introducing the WPL. They say it’s good for relieving congestion, improving the environment and the money raised will be used to fund better public transport. This sounds all very familiar when we look back to the introduction of London’s Congestion Charge and the bald facts are the capital’s invidious tax on normal drivers has done nothing it claimed at its inception.
Look at the books and the only reason they show a profit is because of all the fines imposed on those who wander into the Congestion Charge zone unsuspectingly. Don’t be fooled by anyone telling you these fines also apply to those deliberately avoiding payment of the Congestion Charge. Such people have long since worked out how to avoid fines and payment as they are the same road users who think insurance, tax and MoTs are for everyone but themselves.
Nottingham City Council reckons it will raise millions in cash from the WPL, which seems like the true reason for its introduction. In cash-strapped times, the company car driver is yet again an easy, soft target for revenue raising. It’s not enough that we now all covet low emissions, high economy cars and woe betide any fleet manager who dares flick through the brochures of thirsty, high performance cars. If you must indulge in this behaviour, it’s best to hide these brochures inside a cope of Mayfair or Playboy as they are probably more socially acceptable to the civil servants who impose their will on our choices without consultation or care.
It’s claimed by Nottingham City Council that a workplace parking levy targets those driving at peak hours and focuses on commuter parking, which its says is a cause of congestion. The simple response to this is short and less than sweet, but the pragmatic one is little longer and just as bitter: it’s rubbish.
Commuters pay dearly to park if they have to use public car parks, so asking them to pay a second time is clearly a nonsense. Making company car drivers pay for their parking space in a private car park is also fraught with problems and inequities. For starters, what about the masses of company drivers who are only in the office for part of the week? Will they pay part of the WPL or the full whack? Will they be able to sub-let their space when they’re not using it to claw back the money they have to spend on it?
What about part-time workers, and how about the many firms that cram in more cars than there are parking bays to their car parks? Will these ghost spaces be charged for?
Then there’s the question of who will pay the WPL and how will it be collected? If an employer picks up the tab it becomes a taxable benefit to the employee but if the employee pays, will they be able to claim back for the time they don’t use the space?
Such questions will fail to daunt councils bent on finding more ways to balance their budgets. However, these queries offer the only glimmer of hope that the WPL will falter in time and eventually be swept under the carpet along with the madcap ideas of other cities around the UK to follow London’s lead with a congestion charge.
Charging for change
One final point to bear in mind with the WPL is it’s ultimate goal is to get company car drivers out of their cars and on to public transport. Now, I don’t know about you, but my regular business driving takes me all over the country and public transport simply could not deliver me to a destination and home again. Even with taxis thrown into the mix, the cost and time involved in not using a company car simply don’t bear scrutiny or thinking about.
If Nottingham City Council wants to try encouraging us out of cars, why not try investing first in public transport so there are viable alternatives for some company drivers? Don’t tell us you’ll spend the money on public transport, put your money where you’re big ideas are to answer our needs. It sounds great to say the money raised by the WPL will be spent on improving public transport, but we’re all too savvy and cynical to believe this will be the case. Nottingham City Council; put up or shut up.
The council in Nottingham says the city suffers £160 million in lost revenue every year through congestion. Other than pointing out the obvious that company cars parked in a car park are not causing congestion when stationary, let’s consider the alternative. If every company car driver were to use public transport for their commute and daily business driving needs, how much money does the council think this will cost? The amount would be incalculable as many of us simply wouldn’t make it to work. Then there would be the chaos caused by public transport being overwhelmed by too many people. Anyone who has had the misfortune to travel in London on public transport during peak hours will attest to this, and that is when many prefer to drive. Throw in London’s recent strike action and the full extent of this hellish vision begins to unfold.
Nottingham City Council, and all others considering the workplace parking levy, should leave driving wedges to the joinery trade. They should also leave company users to drive their cars as we’re the ones earning the money to fund these crackpot ideas and schemes.
See also:
