ULEZ charge confusion
Discussion
I have a Toyota Yaris 1.3 petrol from 2001 which according to Toyota and other emission checker website solidly states is Euro 3. However one quick vehicle check by inputting my vehicle reg on ULEZ website shows "No ULEZ charge due for this vehicle".
Like I said my car was first registered in 2001 and from my understanding Euro 4 didn't even become the standard until 2005. So is the ULEZ website's vehicle checker accurate? Will I be penalised for driving into ULEZ zone?
Like I said my car was first registered in 2001 and from my understanding Euro 4 didn't even become the standard until 2005. So is the ULEZ website's vehicle checker accurate? Will I be penalised for driving into ULEZ zone?
Vaud said:
I'd take a dated screen grab of the page that says "No charge applicable" and argue it later if it ended up being wrong and you were charged. You'd have shown you had checked and acted on their own information. E36GUY said:
I'd take a dated screen grab of the page that says "No charge applicable" and argue it later if it ended up being wrong and you were charged. You'd have shown you had checked and acted on their own information.
Screen grabs can be accused of being edited (it isn't hard) - especially if they update the database and then it shows that it is due...Personally I'd rather have an email from the right authority.
I’d take no notice of their online checker, it is rubbish and full of inaccuracies. I have 3 Historic vehicles, a ‘76 Triumph Stag, a ‘67 Vitesse and a 72 MGB. All Historics are exempt, but the checker shows them as not. I have emailed them and phoned to the errors in their checker, but they are obviously not bothered as people may not know the rules and pay up when they don’t need to. When I pushed them on the phone they said the database that the camera looks at says all 3 reg numbers are exempt, but it was out of her control as to the accuracy of the online checker, and it’s my responsibility to check if my car needs to pay - she didn’t see what she was saying was a load of b
ks as the only way to know really was their checker that is wrong...
ks as the only way to know really was their checker that is wrong...vitesse2000 said:
I’d take no notice of their online checker, it is rubbish and full of inaccuracies. I have 3 Historic vehicles, a ‘76 Triumph Stag, a ‘67 Vitesse and a 72 MGB. All Historics are exempt, but the checker shows them as not. I have emailed them and phoned to the errors in their checker, but they are obviously not bothered as people may not know the rules and pay up when they don’t need to. When I pushed them on the phone they said the database that the camera looks at says all 3 reg numbers are exempt, but it was out of her control as to the accuracy of the online checker, and it’s my responsibility to check if my car needs to pay - she didn’t see what she was saying was a load of bks as the only way to know really was their checker that is wrong...
Flag it to your MP. It's the kind of thing they like to deal with as it's not contentious and easy for them to lob a formal letter to TFL...ks as the only way to know really was their checker that is wrong...Vaud said:
E36GUY said:
I'd take a dated screen grab of the page that says "No charge applicable" and argue it later if it ended up being wrong and you were charged. You'd have shown you had checked and acted on their own information.
Screen grabs can be accused of being edited (it isn't hard) - especially if they update the database and then it shows that it is due...Personally I'd rather have an email from the right authority.
Failing this video going into and seeing the data on the site and then email it to yourself or a 3rd party. Timestamping!
ps...whenever I have a hire car ill always email the photos/video to myself/A N Other.
SVTRick said:
ULEZ is not going to stop emissions it's just another fking tax.
Why should old bangers and classics be exempt when my Euro V 10 tonner emits far less than your average moped.
It';s a crock of st
Does it really? Most mopeds are up around 100mpg, and tend to have modern efficient 4-stroke engines that use a CV which keeps them in the most efficient part of the rev-range.king tax.Why should old bangers and classics be exempt when my Euro V 10 tonner emits far less than your average moped.
It';s a crock of s
tAnd why do you think it won’t reduce emissions? When I lived in E14 my baby had a persistent cough. I took him to the doctors who said that of course he did, we lived in E14. You could see the pollution in the air, you could smell it, and taste it, and see it on shirt collars and cuffs.
I moved out to Kent, to a nice house in a green area on top of a hill, so we’re fine now, but those we left behind are still breathing in far, far too much pollution, an the ULEZ seems like a decent route to reduce the problem where pollution is extremely high and where millions of people live.
Kent Border Kenny said:
SVTRick said:
ULEZ is not going to stop emissions it's just another fking tax.
Why should old bangers and classics be exempt when my Euro V 10 tonner emits far less than your average moped.
It';s a crock of st
Does it really? Most mopeds are up around 100mpg, and tend to have modern efficient 4-stroke engines that use a CV which keeps them in the most efficient part of the rev-range.king tax.Why should old bangers and classics be exempt when my Euro V 10 tonner emits far less than your average moped.
It';s a crock of s
tAnd why do you think it won’t reduce emissions? When I lived in E14 my baby had a persistent cough. I took him to the doctors who said that of course he did, we lived in E14. You could see the pollution in the air, you could smell it, and taste it, and see it on shirt collars and cuffs.
I moved out to Kent, to a nice house in a green area on top of a hill, so we’re fine now, but those we left behind are still breathing in far, far too much pollution, an the ULEZ seems like a decent route to reduce the problem where pollution is extremely high and where millions of people live.
Kent Border Kenny said:
Does it really? Most mopeds are up around 100mpg, and tend to have modern efficient 4-stroke engines that use a CV which keeps them in the most efficient part of the rev-range.
And why do you think it won’t reduce emissions? When I lived in E14 my baby had a persistent cough. I took him to the doctors who said that of course he did, we lived in E14. You could see the pollution in the air, you could smell it, and taste it, and see it on shirt collars and cuffs.
I moved out to Kent, to a nice house in a green area on top of a hill, so we’re fine now, but those we left behind are still breathing in far, far too much pollution, an the ULEZ seems like a decent route to reduce the problem where pollution is extremely high and where millions of people live.
If you compare the moped with one person using against the truck which has fitted specialist equipment the moped has poor emissions.And why do you think it won’t reduce emissions? When I lived in E14 my baby had a persistent cough. I took him to the doctors who said that of course he did, we lived in E14. You could see the pollution in the air, you could smell it, and taste it, and see it on shirt collars and cuffs.
I moved out to Kent, to a nice house in a green area on top of a hill, so we’re fine now, but those we left behind are still breathing in far, far too much pollution, an the ULEZ seems like a decent route to reduce the problem where pollution is extremely high and where millions of people live.
Still see plenty of 2 stroke ones on the road & scooters as well.
So why should classics be exempt, emissions on those are even worse.
It's tax end of, not like the money raised funds giant air filtration units.
And no grants or deals available to assist with replacing a unit that has a 15 year design life and is only half way through that.
Can't even get a conversion unit for the motor.
It's a money making scam.
Tony1963 said:
Mr Angry in the process of popping an artery!
There are so few classics on the road, clocking up so few miles, that there’s no point taxing them. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that.
What would your suggestion be?
No it's only bell ends like you that boil it.There are so few classics on the road, clocking up so few miles, that there’s no point taxing them. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that.
What would your suggestion be?
I avoid working in Central London when ever possible however sometimes I am in the Greater London Area.
The issue I have with it is;
If I have a night job say 22:00hrs start and site is inside the Zone it's £100
The pisser is if the job goes on till say 04:00hrs because it's gone past midnight you have to pay again.
So the charge does not get you 24 hours.
It's a con & a tax
Wait till that twunt Khan gets his way to expand it to within the Greater London Area.
Take the real polluting knackered old vehicles off the road such as battered cars and vans that you see every day.
Old busses and coaches long past their scrap by dates etc etc.
SVTRick said:
Take the real polluting knackered old vehicles off the road such as battered cars and vans that you see every day.
Old busses and coaches long past their scrap by dates etc etc.
And there you have it: you associate pollution only with what you can see.Old busses and coaches long past their scrap by dates etc etc.
The particulates are what the authorities are trying to kill off right now. I'm sure you know that.
I don't envy you having to be in that s**t hole for work, but maybe you need to reconsider your path in life because you really are coming across as an angry person.
Moaning on here might release a little steam, but you're paddling against the tide.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff