Damages for blocked drive

[Jethro_uk]

If a householder finds their drive repeatedly blocked by another driver -
say a parent collecting their child from school - and despite signage and
words with driver and school, the incidents recur with the same driver
each time, what damages if any could the householder claim ?

With the cars registration number being linked to the registered keeper,
could a small charge - say £15 - be made for the inconvenience of the
unlawfully parked car ?

If (as I would expect) the offending driver ignores the charge, would the
householder be able to lodge a claim in the small claims court to pursue
their case ?

All a bit extreme, but in a world were neither police, not PCSOs, nor
local authorities have the resources or desire to do anything themselves,
it seems a potential remedy.

Would it matter whether the blockage was preventing a car from leaving
the drive, or accessing it ?

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Jethro_uk
If a householder finds their drive repeatedly blocked by another driver -
say a parent collecting their child from school - and despite signage and
words with driver and school, the incidents recur with the same driver
each time, what damages if any could the householder claim ?
With the cars registration number being linked to the registered keeper,
could a small charge - say £15 - be made for the inconvenience of the
unlawfully parked car ?
If (as I would expect) the offending driver ignores the charge, would the
householder be able to lodge a claim in the small claims court to pursue
their case ?
All a bit extreme, but in a world were neither police, not PCSOs, nor
local authorities have the resources or desire to do anything themselves,
it seems a potential remedy.
Would it matter whether the blockage was preventing a car from leaving
the drive, or accessing it ?

Since it is unlawful to park in front of a dropped kerb you certainly couldn't
charge them for doing so, because you could not give them permission. I am not
sure what tort you could sue them for (trespass, nuisance?) but then you have
the problem that English courts award very low sums for time lost by or
inconvenience of ordinary people. I think if you threatened to sue someone for
doing this, and when to the trouble to write to them, they could effectively
demand you settle for a few pounds for several dozen offences and you would
not get more in court.

The only solution I can think of is to take out an injunction, perhaps against
several offenders (this seems to work for the oil companies) and then hope the
court suitably punishes repeat offenders. I am sure you would be several
thousand pounds out of pocket doing this, however.

IANAL, there may well be cases on this.

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jethro_uk
If a householder finds their drive repeatedly blocked by another driver -
say a parent collecting their child from school - and despite signage and
words with driver and school, the incidents recur with the same driver
each time, what damages if any could the householder claim ?
With the cars registration number being linked to the registered keeper,
could a small charge - say £15 - be made for the inconvenience of the
unlawfully parked car ?
If (as I would expect) the offending driver ignores the charge, would the
householder be able to lodge a claim in the small claims court to pursue
their case ?
All a bit extreme, but in a world were neither police, not PCSOs, nor
local authorities have the resources or desire to do anything themselves,
it seems a potential remedy.
Would it matter whether the blockage was preventing a car from leaving
the drive, or accessing it ?

Since it is unlawful to park in front of a dropped kerb you certainly couldn't
charge them for doing so, because you could not give them permission. I am not
sure what tort you could sue them for (trespass, nuisance?) but then you have
the problem that English courts award very low sums for time lost by or
inconvenience of ordinary people. I think if you threatened to sue someone for
doing this, and when to the trouble to write to them, they could effectively
demand you settle for a few pounds for several dozen offences and you would
not get more in court.
The only solution I can think of is to take out an injunction, perhaps against
several offenders (this seems to work for the oil companies) and then hope the
court suitably punishes repeat offenders. I am sure you would be several
thousand pounds out of pocket doing this, however.
IANAL, there may well be cases on this.

Let me just add, in reply to the OP's final paragraph, that rumours to
the effect that it is an offence to block in a car that is already on a
driveway but not an offence to block it from entering the driveway are a
load of old wives' tale bollocks.

As RH correctly says, it is an offence to park across a dropped kerb.
The dropped kerb and the route across the footway and any mown verge is
effectively a side turning onto private land, a part of the highway.
Obstruction of the highway has been a specific offence for a couple of
hundred years (or so).

[Jeff]

Post by JNugent
Let me just add, in reply to the OP's final paragraph, that rumours to
the effect that it is an offence to block in a car that is already on a
driveway but not an offence to block it from entering the driveway are a
load of old wives' tale bollocks.
As RH correctly says, it is an offence to park across a dropped kerb.
The dropped kerb and the route across the footway and any mown verge is
effectively a side turning onto private land, a part of the highway.
Obstruction of the highway has been a specific offence for a couple of
hundred years (or so).

Not correct it is only and offence to park across a dropped kerb in
London or in an area where the LA has applied for a special enforcement
zone. Traffic Management Act 2004.

Ever where a special enforcement zone is in place some LAs (such as
where I live) will only issue a PCN if a vehicle is blocked in not for
an empty drive, or a garage that is full of freezers.

Jeff

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Jeff

Post by JNugent
Let me just add, in reply to the OP's final paragraph, that rumours to
the effect that it is an offence to block in a car that is already on a
driveway but not an offence to block it from entering the driveway are a
load of old wives' tale bollocks.
As RH correctly says, it is an offence to park across a dropped kerb.
The dropped kerb and the route across the footway and any mown verge is
effectively a side turning onto private land, a part of the highway.
Obstruction of the highway has been a specific offence for a couple of
hundred years (or so).

Not correct it is only and offence to park across a dropped kerb in
London or in an area where the LA has applied for a special enforcement
zone. Traffic Management Act 2004.

Practically everywhere is, though, at least in places where parking is an
issue. It's a bog standard tool in the highway authorities' toolkit.

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Roger Hayter
Since it is unlawful to park in front of a dropped kerb you certainly couldn't
charge them for doing so, because you could not give them permission.

Actually, you can give permission to park in front of your own dropped kerb.
It's a specific exception to the general prohibition contained in the
Traffic Management Act 2004 section 86, which starts off by including
dropped kerbs in the list of places you can't park (paragraph 1), but then
goes on to list some exceptions, including:

(3) The second exception is where the vehicle is parked outside
residential premises by or with the consent [...] of the
occupier of the premises.

So you can give permission to someone to park across your ddropped kerb if
you want. And it's not that uncommon to do so, in many places. If you live
on a street where there is limited parking, and you have a dropped kerb,
then it's entirely normal to allow a visitor to your house to park across
your own dropped kerb. That's a win-win for everyone, because they're not
then taking up another general space that could be used by someone else, and
they're guaranteed a place to park when they visit you.

However, there's a parenthetical gotcha in there, because the bit I put in
ellipses in that quote actually says "(but not consent given for reward)".
So you can allow someone to park across your dropped kerb, but you can't
charge them for doing so.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/section/86

What that means in practice, therefore, is that Jethro's suggestion is a
non-starter, because any such charge would be unlawful and therefore not
enforceable.

Post by Roger Hayter
The only solution I can think of is to take out an injunction, perhaps against
several offenders (this seems to work for the oil companies) and then hope the
court suitably punishes repeat offenders. I am sure you would be several
thousand pounds out of pocket doing this, however.

Yes, I agree.

Mark

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Roger Hayter
Since it is unlawful to park in front of a dropped kerb you certainly
couldn't charge them for doing so, because you could not give them
permission.

Actually, you can give permission to park in front of your own dropped kerb.
It's a specific exception to the general prohibition contained in the
Traffic Management Act 2004 section 86, which starts off by including
dropped kerbs in the list of places you can't park (paragraph 1), but then
(3) The second exception is where the vehicle is parked outside
residential premises by or with the consent [...] of the
occupier of the premises.
So you can give permission to someone to park across your ddropped kerb if
you want. And it's not that uncommon to do so, in many places. If you live
on a street where there is limited parking, and you have a dropped kerb,
then it's entirely normal to allow a visitor to your house to park across
your own dropped kerb. That's a win-win for everyone, because they're not
then taking up another general space that could be used by someone else, and
they're guaranteed a place to park when they visit you.
However, there's a parenthetical gotcha in there, because the bit I put in
ellipses in that quote actually says "(but not consent given for reward)".
So you can allow someone to park across your dropped kerb, but you can't
charge them for doing so.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/section/86
What that means in practice, therefore, is that Jethro's suggestion is a
non-starter, because any such charge would be unlawful and therefore not
enforceable.

... except you would just stop giving permission if they stopped paying you.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Mark Goodge
What that means in practice, therefore, is that Jethro's suggestion is a
non-starter, because any such charge would be unlawful and therefore not
enforceable.

The charge would be for nuisance and inconvenience because the driver had
*not* obtained (free) permission - or had requested such permission and
it had been refused.

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 09:27:24 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Mark Goodge
What that means in practice, therefore, is that Jethro's suggestion is a
non-starter, because any such charge would be unlawful and therefore not
enforceable.

The charge would be for nuisance and inconvenience because the driver had
*not* obtained (free) permission - or had requested such permission and
it had been refused.

I suspect that a court would be likely to conclude that it amounted to a
charge for permission. But you're welcome to try it, of course, and let us
all know how you get on.

Mark

[Fredxx]

Post by Jethro_uk
If a householder finds their drive repeatedly blocked by another driver -
say a parent collecting their child from school - and despite signage and
words with driver and school, the incidents recur with the same driver
each time, what damages if any could the householder claim ?

Does the driver stay in the car for the duration?

Post by Jethro_uk
With the cars registration number being linked to the registered keeper,
could a small charge - say £15 - be made for the inconvenience of the
unlawfully parked car ?
If (as I would expect) the offending driver ignores the charge, would the
householder be able to lodge a claim in the small claims court to pursue
their case ?
All a bit extreme, but in a world were neither police, not PCSOs, nor
local authorities have the resources or desire to do anything themselves,
it seems a potential remedy.
Would it matter whether the blockage was preventing a car from leaving
the drive, or accessing it ?

Most constabularies have an online complaints page. I would simply fill
it in with the car details at every occurrence.

If other neighbours did the same thing I think some form of action would
take place.

[Jeff Layman]

I saw a similar case on 1 of those traffic cop shows. Police responded
to business owner who said parked car was causing obstruction to his
driveway. car turned out to have expired insurance, and was towed away.
Big Q is if he hadnt been expired would it been towed by police?

Had the business owner checked online and seen that the car wasn't taxed
and had no current MOT certificate
(<https://www.gov.uk/browse/driving/vehicle-tax-mot-insurance>)? If so,
perhaps that could be another reason why the police responded.

[Philip Hole]

Post by Jeff Layman

I saw a similar case on 1 of those traffic cop shows. Police responded
to business owner who said parked car was causing obstruction to his
driveway. car turned out to have expired insurance, and was towed away.
Big Q is if he hadnt been expired would it been towed by police?

Had the business owner checked online and seen that the car wasn't taxed
and had no current MOT certificate
(<https://www.gov.uk/browse/driving/vehicle-tax-mot-insurance>)? If so,
perhaps that could be another reason why the police responded.

Not the same but does demonstrate the problems a driver can encounter:


1) Council posts letter to each resident advising that yellow lines are
to be painted outside each property on the following day.
2) Yellow line painters arrive on the following day.
3) Breakdown (hoist) lorry arrives (on contract to council).
4) Lorry lifts each car
5) Painters (on contract to council) paint yellow lines under each car.
6) Lorry replaces cars on top of new yellow lines
7) Traffic wardens (on contract to council) arrive (?purely by chance)
and ticket every car.

8) Each blames the others. Finally agreed that the owner/keeper is not
responsible but the breakdown driver was as he 'parked' the vehicles on
the yellow lines.

9) Council offers to refund all penalties.
10) Councillor advises that there is no facility to refund tickets.
Drivers have to appeal.

1a) Council admits that it (actually) had forgotten and had not
delivered the letters

Substantially true. Can post newspaper report if anyone is interested
(and I can find it again).

[Davey]

On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 21:09:28 +0100

Post by Philip Hole

Post by Jeff Layman

I saw a similar case on 1 of those traffic cop shows. Police
responded to business owner who said parked car was causing
obstruction to his driveway. car turned out to have expired
insurance, and was towed away. Big Q is if he hadnt been expired
would it been towed by police?

Had the business owner checked online and seen that the car wasn't
taxed and had no current MOT certificate
(<https://www.gov.uk/browse/driving/vehicle-tax-mot-insurance>)? If
so, perhaps that could be another reason why the police responded.

1) Council posts letter to each resident advising that yellow
lines are to be painted outside each property on the following day.
2) Yellow line painters arrive on the following day.
3) Breakdown (hoist) lorry arrives (on contract to council).
4) Lorry lifts each car
5) Painters (on contract to council) paint yellow lines under
each car. 6) Lorry replaces cars on top of new yellow lines
7) Traffic wardens (on contract to council) arrive (?purely by
chance) and ticket every car.
8) Each blames the others. Finally agreed that the
owner/keeper is not responsible but the breakdown driver was as he
'parked' the vehicles on the yellow lines.
9) Council offers to refund all penalties.
10) Councillor advises that there is no facility to refund
tickets. Drivers have to appeal.
1a) Council admits that it (actually) had forgotten and had
not delivered the letters
Substantially true. Can post newspaper report if anyone is interested
(and I can find it again).

I and my colleagues were once sat outside a local restaurant in Buenos
Aires, in an evening. There were cars parked all along the street.
Suddenly, a crew of painters came along the pavement, one guy painted
the top of the kerb yellow, the second guy painted the vertical surface
of the kerb, and the third filled in anything in between. Parked
cars were no obstruction, the kerbs were all painted. Soon after,
traffic wardens were seen coming down the road, writing tickets for
anybody now parked on a yellow line. We had seen one guy earlier park
his car right outside the restaurant, so I went in, found him, and he
rushed out and moved his car to somewhere else.

Talk about rough justice.

[Martin Brown]

Post by Fredxx

Post by Jethro_uk
If a householder finds their drive repeatedly blocked by another driver -
say a parent collecting their child from school - and despite signage and
words with driver and school, the incidents recur with the same driver
each time, what damages if any could the householder claim ?

Does the driver stay in the car for the duration?

Post by Jethro_uk
With the cars registration number being linked to the registered keeper,
could a small charge - say £15 - be made for the inconvenience of the
unlawfully parked car ?
If (as I would expect) the offending driver ignores the charge, would the
householder be able to lodge a claim in the small claims court to pursue
their case ?
All a bit extreme, but in a world were neither police, not PCSOs, nor
local authorities have the resources or desire to do anything themselves,
it seems a potential remedy.
Would it matter whether the blockage was preventing a car from leaving
the drive, or accessing it ?

Most constabularies have an online complaints page. I would simply fill
it in with the car details at every occurrence.
If other neighbours did the same thing I think some form of action would
take place.

Not a chance. It is one of the hazards of living near a school.

Police will only act if the road is actually blocked by their
inconsiderate actions and even then will give the offender(s) the
opportunity of an hour or two to move it. I have deliberately blocked a
car in that was parked across my brother in laws drive to make a point
(since I couldn't enter the drive). It's in one of those estates where
parking on the wide pavement is permitted (it was once a grass verge).A
ll of the kerbs are dropped a bit to allow this and the driveways are at
grade. I parallel parked on the road so that they could not leave.

It takes two to tango and the police try to find both participants
blocking a road and generally each one says that they parked their
vehicle first. I've seen it play out a few times now.

Belgium has the right approach. Any vehicle that has the wrong
registration parked in front of a house displaying a numberplate will be
towed away by private operators in under an hour. Likewise for illegal
parking. A quick phone call speeds that up to about 15 minutes.

Japan is good too. You can't even legally buy a car there unless you can
prove that you have a private off road parking space to house it.

[Les. Hayward]

Post by Martin Brown
Belgium has the right approach. Any vehicle that has the wrong
registration parked in front of a house displaying a numberplate will be
towed away by private operators in under an hour. Likewise for illegal
parking. A quick phone call speeds that up to about 15 minutes.
Japan is good too. You can't even legally buy a car there unless you can
prove that you have a private off road parking space to house it.

Far too logical for Britain, where the government would be more likely
to impose an additional tax if you have the temerity to possess a
parking place!

[JNugent]

Post by Les. Hayward

Post by Martin Brown
Belgium has the right approach. Any vehicle that has the wrong
registration parked in front of a house displaying a numberplate will
be towed away by private operators in under an hour. Likewise for
illegal parking. A quick phone call speeds that up to about 15 minutes.
Japan is good too. You can't even legally buy a car there unless you
can prove that you have a private off road parking space to house it.

Far too logical for Britain, where the government would be more likely
to impose an additional tax if you have the temerity to possess a
parking place!

That is already the case.

Possession of a garden, a garage, a driveway, etc, all added to the
rateable value (which continued to condition the flat charge for water
even after domestic rates were abolished).

When the Council tax was instituted, the bands were based on estimated
sale values at a particular date (1992?). Very obviously, a house with a
garage, an in-curtilage driveway or off-street space had a better chance
of being in a higher band.

Would any of us really expect (outside the rarified and outlying
environs of places such as Westminster, Kensington & Chelsea, etc) to
see a terraced house at the same price as a semi with garage and
off-road space(s)?

[Mike Scott]

Post by JNugent
When the Council tax was instituted, the bands were based on estimated
sale values at a particular date (1992?). Very obviously, a house with a
garage, an in-curtilage driveway or off-street space had a better chance
of being in a higher band.
Would any of us really expect (outside the rarified and outlying
environs of places such as Westminster, Kensington & Chelsea, etc) to
see a terraced house at the same price as a semi with garage and
off-road space(s)?

I /think/ what you're implying is that basing local taxes on property
value is a nonsense.

It should saves an awful lot of hassle and anomalies to have a local
income tax instead.

[JNugent]

Post by Mike Scott

Post by JNugent
When the Council tax was instituted, the bands were based on estimated
sale values at a particular date (1992?). Very obviously, a house with
a garage, an in-curtilage driveway or off-street space had a better
chance of being in a higher band.
Would any of us really expect (outside the rarified and outlying
environs of places such as Westminster, Kensington & Chelsea, etc) to
see a terraced house at the same price as a semi with garage and
off-road space(s)?

I /think/ what you're implying is that basing local taxes on property
value is a nonsense.

No, not at all.

What I am saying (not "implying") is that a property with better / more
facilities is more likely to be in a higher Council Tax band than a
house with fewer / no comparable facilities. That is simply because
today, just as in 1992, the house with those facilities (garage /
driveway / off-street hard-pad) is likely to be more expensive, other
things being equal.

Post by Mike Scott
It should saves an awful lot of hassle and anomalies to have a local
income tax instead.

And God help anyone who lives within Khan's bailiwick, eh?

A local sales tax (with its range limited by statute) would be a far
better alternative.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by JNugent
A local sales tax (with its range limited by statute) would be a far
better alternative.

No really practical for most of the UK. If Birminghams is too high, I'd
just fuck off to Dudley. Or Solihull. Or Bromsgrove. Or Redditch.

How would postal/online sales work ?

[JNugent]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by JNugent
A local sales tax (with its range limited by statute) would be a far
better alternative.

No really practical for most of the UK. If Birminghams is too high, I'd
just fuck off to Dudley. Or Solihull. Or Bromsgrove. Or Redditch.

That's right. You've got it.

It's called "competition". And "liberty". The citizen does not belong to
the local mayor and his wages do not belong to the local council.

In practise, the sales tax would be something one could swallow for low
order items where the cost of travel across a border would neutralise
the saving. For higher-order items (eg, a new car, a new TV), travel,
perhaps across more than one boundary, would usually be a realistic
option. The tax would only be chargeable upon purchases subject to VAT,
so most routine supermarket shopping would be exempt.

It would create a need for local authorities to become more aware of
what the "norm" was, less rapacious and and more considerate. The tax
would also apply to everyone, not just a sub-set of the population whose
names happened to be named as head of a household.

Post by Jethro_uk
How would postal/online sales work ?

Ideally, based on the tax rates relevant to the location of the
retailer. What would be the difference between going to a car dealer
twenty miles away and making an online order from the same dealer?

Local authorities - some of 'em at least - would have to learn that high
tax rates have consequences, not only for those upon whom they are
imposed. They'd have to take account of other nearby rates and they'd
have to understand that if they want sales tax on high-order items,
they'd better not make it so that suppliers cannot locate in that
council's area.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by JNugent
Local authorities - some of 'em at least - would have to learn that high
tax rates have consequences, not only for those upon whom they are
imposed. They'd have to take account of other nearby rates

That was the justification for the poll tax ...

[JNugent]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by JNugent
Local authorities - some of 'em at least - would have to learn that high
tax rates have consequences, not only for those upon whom they are
imposed. They'd have to take account of other nearby rates

That was the justification for the poll tax ...

Not in the *slightest*.

People could not avoid high (eg, Labour) Community Charge rates by
simply buying their shopping elsewhere. They'd have to move home into an
area with a lower charge.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by JNugent

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by JNugent
Local authorities - some of 'em at least - would have to learn that
high tax rates have consequences, not only for those upon whom they
are imposed. They'd have to take account of other nearby rates

That was the justification for the poll tax ...

Not in the *slightest*.

It was exactly - just reversed

Post by JNugent
People could not avoid high (eg, Labour) Community Charge rates by
simply buying their shopping elsewhere. They'd have to move home into an
area with a lower charge.

People could avoid high charging areas by not electing loony left
councils. That was the explicit force behind the poll tax. It was to
"teach" people not to vote stupidly. Sadly for it's only proponent (an M.
Thatcher of Finchley) it turned out the well heeled middle classes had
been raking it in for years with the rates and really did not like the
sudden uptick in payments the poll tax represented. The poster children
being two sister pensioners who must have been invented by CCHQ who found
they would pay a lot more in poll tax than the pittance in rates they'd
been paying for 50 years.

The poll tax (like a local sale tax) is one of those things that appeals
to people who know fuck all about anything. In the case of the poll tax,
the rather annoying habit people have of "moving" generates a tsunami of
official paperwok that even today, with AI *and* Tiktok, would cause a
system to collapse within a week. Bearing in mind we would be talking
about every single council having it's own systems (because they are all
unique) with the inevitable flaws therein.

A local *income* tax may be more pratical. But politically much less
possible.

[JNugent]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by JNugent

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by JNugent
Local authorities - some of 'em at least - would have to learn that
high tax rates have consequences, not only for those upon whom they
are imposed. They'd have to take account of other nearby rates

That was the justification for the poll tax ...

Not in the *slightest*.

It was exactly - just reversed

No. As you go on to say, that would have involved a lesson for the
citizen to absorb. A sales tax is aimed at the local authority and they
cannot hide from the effects (and neither should they be able to do so).

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by JNugent
People could not avoid high (eg, Labour) Community Charge rates by
simply buying their shopping elsewhere. They'd have to move home into an
area with a lower charge.

People could avoid high charging areas by not electing loony left
councils.

*The people* (as a singular body acting in concert or on aggregate)
could theoretically do that.

But individuals (which is the exact sense in which the word "people" was
used here) could not and still cannot.

Post by Jethro_uk
That was the explicit force behind the poll tax. It was to
"teach" people not to vote stupidly. Sadly for it's only proponent (an M.
Thatcher of Finchley) it turned out the well heeled middle classes had
been raking it in for years with the rates and really did not like the
sudden uptick in payments the poll tax represented. The poster children
being two sister pensioners who must have been invented by CCHQ who found
they would pay a lot more in poll tax than the pittance in rates they'd
been paying for 50 years.
The poll tax (like a local sale tax) is one of those things that appeals
to people who know fuck all about anything. In the case of the poll tax,
the rather annoying habit people have of "moving" generates a tsunami of
official paperwok that even today, with AI *and* Tiktok, would cause a
system to collapse within a week. Bearing in mind we would be talking
about every single council having it's own systems (because they are all
unique) with the inevitable flaws therein.

Those "difficulties" you posit are a paper tiger. A POS sales tax would
not need to take any account of a shopper's home address. It certainly
doesn't in the USA. The name of the shopper never even gets into the
system, because it isn't needed.

Post by Jethro_uk
A local *income* tax may be more pratical. But politically much less
possible.

It is nowhere near as practical as a sales tax.

On a trip to the USA, you or I would pay no income tax (why should we?).
But we cannot easily get away with paying no sales tax.

[Mark Goodge]

Post by JNugent

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by JNugent
A local sales tax (with its range limited by statute) would be a far
better alternative.

No really practical for most of the UK. If Birminghams is too high, I'd
just fuck off to Dudley. Or Solihull. Or Bromsgrove. Or Redditch.

That's right. You've got it.
It's called "competition". And "liberty". The citizen does not belong to
the local mayor and his wages do not belong to the local council.
In practise, the sales tax would be something one could swallow for low
order items where the cost of travel across a border would neutralise
the saving.

That would only work for people who don't live near the border, though. In a
street like this...

https://maps.app.goo.gl/B1HDSKK1bSVe8YZF9

...you'd have shops charging different tax rates right next to each other.

Mark

[JNugent]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by JNugent

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by JNugent
A local sales tax (with its range limited by statute) would be a far
better alternative.

No really practical for most of the UK. If Birminghams is too high, I'd
just fuck off to Dudley. Or Solihull. Or Bromsgrove. Or Redditch.

That's right. You've got it.
It's called "competition". And "liberty". The citizen does not belong to
the local mayor and his wages do not belong to the local council.
In practise, the sales tax would be something one could swallow for low
order items where the cost of travel across a border would neutralise
the saving.

That would only work for people who don't live near the border, though. In a
street like this...
https://maps.app.goo.gl/B1HDSKK1bSVe8YZF9
...you'd have shops charging different tax rates right next to each other.

What's wrong with that?

Similar things can be found in various places on the continent. All it
means is that some businesses are not viable in certain locations (cf
petrol stations along the Belgium / Luxembourg border on route N4).

Why would that be a bad thing? It might even exert pressure on a
spendthrift council who nevertheless don't want to lose jobs and
business rates.

[Mark Goodge]

Post by JNugent

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by JNugent

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by JNugent
A local sales tax (with its range limited by statute) would be a far
better alternative.

No really practical for most of the UK. If Birminghams is too high, I'd
just fuck off to Dudley. Or Solihull. Or Bromsgrove. Or Redditch.

That's right. You've got it.
It's called "competition". And "liberty". The citizen does not belong to
the local mayor and his wages do not belong to the local council.
In practise, the sales tax would be something one could swallow for low
order items where the cost of travel across a border would neutralise
the saving.

That would only work for people who don't live near the border, though. In a
street like this...
https://maps.app.goo.gl/B1HDSKK1bSVe8YZF9
...you'd have shops charging different tax rates right next to each other.

What's wrong with that?

It would mean that the shops on the "wrong" side wouldn't be viable. Which
would have a knock-on effect on commercial rent values both sides of the
line.

Post by JNugent
Similar things can be found in various places on the continent. All it
means is that some businesses are not viable in certain locations (cf
petrol stations along the Belgium / Luxembourg border on route N4).

National borders tend to be more remote from most people than local authoity
borders. Even Luxembourg is bigger than any UK county.

Post by JNugent
Why would that be a bad thing? It might even exert pressure on a
spendthrift council who nevertheless don't want to lose jobs and
business rates.

It wouldn't affect business rates, since those are set nationally and aren't
retained by the council which collects them. And the loss of jobs wouldn't
affect the council either, since they don't pay JSA.

Mark

[JNugent]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by JNugent

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by JNugent

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by JNugent
A local sales tax (with its range limited by statute) would be a far
better alternative.

No really practical for most of the UK. If Birminghams is too high, I'd
just fuck off to Dudley. Or Solihull. Or Bromsgrove. Or Redditch.

That's right. You've got it.
It's called "competition". And "liberty". The citizen does not belong to
the local mayor and his wages do not belong to the local council.
In practise, the sales tax would be something one could swallow for low
order items where the cost of travel across a border would neutralise
the saving.

That would only work for people who don't live near the border, though. In a
street like this...
https://maps.app.goo.gl/B1HDSKK1bSVe8YZF9
...you'd have shops charging different tax rates right next to each other.

What's wrong with that?

It would mean that the shops on the "wrong" side wouldn't be viable. Which
would have a knock-on effect on commercial rent values both sides of the line

Only IF the local authority made it so.

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by JNugent
Similar things can be found in various places on the continent. All it
means is that some businesses are not viable in certain locations (cf
petrol stations along the Belgium / Luxembourg border on route N4).

National borders tend to be more remote from most people than local authoity
borders. Even Luxembourg is bigger than any UK county.

Post by JNugent
Why would that be a bad thing? It might even exert pressure on a
spendthrift council who nevertheless don't want to lose jobs and
business rates.

It wouldn't affect business rates, since those are set nationally and aren't
retained by the council which collects them.

There'd still be a loss of income from business waste collection and
pressures on public transport in the area with fewer people working in
the area and so not paying fares. I'm sure there'd be other factots at
play too.

Post by Mark Goodge
And the loss of jobs wouldn't
affect the council either, since they don't pay JSA.

Nevertheless, councils are not generally understood to be against jobs
in their areas.

Has any council ever campaigned for less employment in the area?

[Adam Funk]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by JNugent

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by JNugent
A local sales tax (with its range limited by statute) would be a far
better alternative.

No really practical for most of the UK. If Birminghams is too high, I'd
just fuck off to Dudley. Or Solihull. Or Bromsgrove. Or Redditch.

That's right. You've got it.
It's called "competition". And "liberty". The citizen does not belong to
the local mayor and his wages do not belong to the local council.
In practise, the sales tax would be something one could swallow for low
order items where the cost of travel across a border would neutralise
the saving.

That would only work for people who don't live near the border, though. In a
street like this...
https://maps.app.goo.gl/B1HDSKK1bSVe8YZF9
...you'd have shops charging different tax rates right next to each other.

That happens in some places in the USA; e.g., the Tennessee Virginia
border runs down the middle of State Street in Bristol; the sales tax
is 5.3% on the north side of the street and 7% on the south side (or
odd and even numbered addresses, respectively).

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by JNugent

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by JNugent
A local sales tax (with its range limited by statute) would be a far
better alternative.

No really practical for most of the UK. If Birminghams is too high,
I'd just fuck off to Dudley. Or Solihull. Or Bromsgrove. Or Redditch.

That's right. You've got it.
It's called "competition". And "liberty". The citizen does not belong
to the local mayor and his wages do not belong to the local council.
In practise, the sales tax would be something one could swallow for low
order items where the cost of travel across a border would neutralise
the saving.

That would only work for people who don't live near the border, though.
In a street like this...
https://maps.app.goo.gl/B1HDSKK1bSVe8YZF9
...you'd have shops charging different tax rates right next to each other.

That happens in some places in the USA; e.g., the Tennessee Virginia
border runs down the middle of State Street in Bristol; the sales tax is
5.3% on the north side of the street and 7% on the south side (or odd
and even numbered addresses, respectively).

Generally, for lots of reasons, the US is a very bad exemplar for the UK.

[Adam Funk]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by JNugent

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by JNugent
A local sales tax (with its range limited by statute) would be a far
better alternative.

No really practical for most of the UK. If Birminghams is too high,
I'd just fuck off to Dudley. Or Solihull. Or Bromsgrove. Or Redditch.

That's right. You've got it.
It's called "competition". And "liberty". The citizen does not belong
to the local mayor and his wages do not belong to the local council.
In practise, the sales tax would be something one could swallow for low
order items where the cost of travel across a border would neutralise
the saving.

That would only work for people who don't live near the border, though.
In a street like this...
https://maps.app.goo.gl/B1HDSKK1bSVe8YZF9
...you'd have shops charging different tax rates right next to each other.

That happens in some places in the USA; e.g., the Tennessee Virginia
border runs down the middle of State Street in Bristol; the sales tax is
5.3% on the north side of the street and 7% on the south side (or odd
and even numbered addresses, respectively).

Generally, for lots of reasons, the US is a very bad exemplar for the UK.

I certainly wasn't suggesting that situation was a good thing!

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by JNugent

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by JNugent
A local sales tax (with its range limited by statute) would be a far
better alternative.

No really practical for most of the UK. If Birminghams is too high,
I'd just fuck off to Dudley. Or Solihull. Or Bromsgrove. Or Redditch.

That's right. You've got it.
It's called "competition". And "liberty". The citizen does not belong to
the local mayor and his wages do not belong to the local council.
In practise, the sales tax would be something one could swallow for low
order items where the cost of travel across a border would neutralise
the saving.

That would only work for people who don't live near the border, though.
In a street like this...
https://maps.app.goo.gl/B1HDSKK1bSVe8YZF9
...you'd have shops charging different tax rates right next to each other.

I believe there are farms in Northern Ireland that straddle the border
with the Republic of Ireland. You can have a leg in each country.

[Adam Funk]

Post by Mike Scott

Post by JNugent
When the Council tax was instituted, the bands were based on estimated
sale values at a particular date (1992?). Very obviously, a house with a
garage, an in-curtilage driveway or off-street space had a better chance
of being in a higher band.
Would any of us really expect (outside the rarified and outlying
environs of places such as Westminster, Kensington & Chelsea, etc) to
see a terraced house at the same price as a semi with garage and
off-road space(s)?

I /think/ what you're implying is that basing local taxes on property
value is a nonsense.
It should saves an awful lot of hassle and anomalies to have a local
income tax instead.

That would further exaggerate socio-economic differences between
areas.

[JNugent]

On 02/10/2024 08:26 pm, Martin Brown wrote:

[ ... ]

[specifically on blocked driveways - which surely ought to be a capital
offence:]

... It is one of the hazards of living near a school.
Police will only act if the road is actually blocked by their
inconsiderate actions and even then will give the offender(s) the
opportunity of an hour or two to move it. I have deliberately blocked a
car in that was parked across my brother in laws drive to make a point
(since I couldn't enter the drive). It's in one of those estates where
parking on the wide pavement is permitted (it was once a grass verge).A
ll of the kerbs are dropped a bit to allow this and the driveways are at
grade. I parallel parked on the road so that they could not leave.
It takes two to tango and the police try to find both participants
blocking a road and generally each one says that they parked their
vehicle first. I've seen it play out a few times now.
Belgium has the right approach. Any vehicle that has the wrong
registration parked in front of a house displaying a numberplate will be
towed away by private operators in under an hour. Likewise for illegal
parking. A quick phone call speeds that up to about 15 minutes.
Japan is good too. You can't even legally buy a car there unless you can
prove that you have a private off road parking space to house it.

Two concepts the UK should consider adopting.

[The "private off road parking space", of course, should be earmarked
for that particular car and registered keeper. Otherwise, you'd get a
three-car household all claiming that they do have an off road space
even if the address only has one of them.]

[Mark Goodge]

Post by JNugent

Post by Martin Brown
Japan is good too. You can't even legally buy a car there unless you can
prove that you have a private off road parking space to house it.

Two concepts the UK should consider adopting.
[The "private off road parking space", of course, should be earmarked
for that particular car and registered keeper. Otherwise, you'd get a
three-car household all claiming that they do have an off road space
even if the address only has one of them.]

Theoretically it's one car per space, but in practice it isn't stringently
enforced. That, though, is because it's essentially self-regulating, because
on-street parking in Japan is also stringently regulated and, in particular,
is almost always short-stay, everywhere, even where permitted - you can't
park overnight on the street anywhere in Japan except some very rural areas
(and, in a direct reversal of the UK situation, on-street parking is
prohibited unless explicitly permitted).

So, unless you're prepared to pay over the odds for daily parking (which, in
any city, is going to be more expensive than renting a personal parking
space), there's nothing to gain by evading the proof-of-parking (shako
shomeisho) rules.

Mark