Forum Topic

Huge Price rise in Residential Parking Permits

I have recently had my renewal email for my car (154gm/km pollution) which I park outside my W5 4BL Carlyle Road home.Shocked to see it has risen by approximately 26%, from last years (2024/5) £110 to the required £139 for 2025/6.In the couple of years before that it was £97 from 2023/4, and £90 from 2022/3, so increases have been (approximately) 8%, 13% and now 26% - that's 47% rise in three years, an average of approximately 16% per annum.I don't think that's at all fairI also don't see any way to question this. Residents Parking was introduced some years ago and we now appear to have no influence whatsoever over what we are charged.Is there any way to oppose these huge cost increases?

Michael Southworth ● 117d131 Comments

The “unbiased “ crowd will bung it up anyway.Didn’t work, same as pollution charge.All about the money & manipulated figures

Peter Yale ● 2d

As the excellent Simon Harris said on ITV London news yesterday, Khan is oblivious to consultation, even if his policies prove hugely unpopular. It’s a box ticking exercise, and that really is a Labour tendency (as LBE price time and again).And asking TfL employees for ideas is bound to produce such measures. The track record is piss poor when it comes to anything other than spending money on cycling.

Simon Hayes ● 2d

In the light of this discussion I was more than interested to read today that TfL has now begun a consultation on making the Congestion Zone more expensive! Their proposals include increasing the charge by 20%, yep 20% from £15 to £18 and introduce a new discount for electric vehicles. The new charges would come into effect from January 2026.The proposals were drawn up by people working for TfL, of all political persuasions, so don't start blasting Labour this or Labour that as if it's only a Labour policy!Anyway, enough of that, you have until 4th August to give them your moans and groans. To make it easier for you to have your swipe, here's the link: https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/congestion-charge-proposals?cid=congestion-charge-proposals

Ben Owen ● 2d

A car owner/user already pays a huge amount to have a car on the road.If you park in your street and not off street you pay a higher insurance premium, If you live in a permit zone - they only exist to deter outsider parking ie commuters and long term parking ie Airport staff or travellers.Streets are paid for to be maintained in council tax paid by all as they service all one way or another.Almost all streets in this borough have road space for parking and through movements going back to Horse drawn vehicles.Problem is oversized vehicles.Now it is perverse that someone with small micro/mini sized car is getting charged more than someone with a huge heavy electric car or indeed a new huge diesel vehicle.When running a vehicle can be over half a years earnings for some, but without it no earnings at all, this constant milking of people with modest and low incomes underlines why a vehicle remains very necessary to make a living for a great many.If you have the choice to save 40% of your income by not having a car fine. But  one has to remember that in this society for most that is not an option.

Raymond Havelock ● 3d

The roads are paid for by general taxation. Therefore there’s no need to charge more for parking. You seem to have zero understanding of what CPZs are intended to do Ben.Shouldn’t you be out on your bike on this fine bank holiday?

Simon Hayes ● 4d

Should it be free of charge to hold up emergency vehicles, buses, delivery vehicles and personal vehicles, because this is exactly what parked vehicles do! What do the delays and damage to vehicles cost the public? When a delivery vehicle unloads in the middle of the road because it has nowhere to park, should you be paying for the privilege to park your vehicle in a safe space which it could use?  In a public car park does a driver consider £0.53 a day cheap? That is how much your parking permit costs!

Ben Owen ● 4d

What's ironic about owning both a car and a bike ?

David Burke ● 4d

Hammersmith may be quoting the price for full day permits (likely, as Hammersmith is a busier place with worse visitor parking problems), whereas I'm going to be charged £190 for 1000-1100 and 1500-1600 only,weekdays only.

Michael Southworth ● 5d

First of all congestion, then pollution. Diesel was an anti christ & people went electric.All penalised by councils & TfL in their  car hating quest.Failed miserably so now this money grabber

Peter Yale ● 5d

https://www.ealing.gov.uk/info/201198/residents_permits/2027/apply_for_a_resident_parking_permitI just looked at Hammersmith & Fulham for a comparison and the cheapest car permit looks as though it is two and a half times the cheapest LBE (electric) one.https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/parking/parking-permits/residents-parking-permit/costs

Philippa Bond ● 5d

Of course those with off-street parking are immune from the depredations of this council of virtue signalling morons, even if they have the worst polluting vehicles on the planet.Anyone who thinks this is anything other than a money grab is clinically insane. Not a peep from Mason and co on Heathrow expansion, or the emissions from all that tower block construction.

Simon Hayes ● 6d

So it is a much more complicated system charging more for cars with greater emissions etc...From 7 April 2025, Ealing Council will transition from its current 4-band pricing structure to a 13-band structure, to more accurately reflect each vehicles environmental impacts, and to align with the DVLA's CO₂ emissions classifications. Find out about the new pricing structurehttps://www.ealing.gov.uk/info/201198/residents_permits/2044/resident_parking_permit_prices

Philippa Bond ● 6d

Well said N V Brooks, well said.

Rosco White ● 6d

It is a very important factor to millions of people, all over the country.Affects residents & businesses.This absolute infatuation about hating cars ( except as a cash cow) causes a lot of problems

Peter Yale ● 6d

Car parking costs affects a lot more residents in Ealing than the provision of cycling infrastructure, despite what Dom Klimowski, Paul James or Ben Owen might think. Ironic that lots of cycling proponents also own cars and drive frequently.Hanwell Carnival was cancelled this year but seems some clowns still make an appearance!

Simon Hayes ● 6d

Maybe car parking isn’t the most pressing issue in most people’s lives, outside of this forum.

Dominik Klimowski ● 7d

Not at all certain, but I do expect whoever is elected, and I doubt that the next administration will be Conservative, to take a far more equitable approach to the whole question of car ownership than obsessed car-hating individuals like Cllr. Dismal.

N V Brooks ● 7d

Nigel, are you suggesting that the Conservatives will reduce the cost of a parking permit should they get elected?

Ben Owen ● 7d

Thing is, most Lemming Voters are Takers and are more inclined and motivated to get out and vote to protect their various  "income"  streams, whilst car owners are, of course, mainly Givers, and inclined to not vote.We are our own worst enemy.

Rosco White ● 7d

Simply by voting for anybody other than the incumbent party next May.

N V Brooks ● 7d

Car owners are SO obviousy there to be milked as far as Liebore controlled LBE is concerned.And just like Comrade Starmer and his Politburo there's FA you can do until the next election.At which The Lemmings will put 'em right back in again. At local level anyway, pretty sure they'll be out on their ear in Westminster.

Rosco White ● 7d

Seems I was right - we're being fleeced. https://www.ealingtoday.co.uk/default.asp?section=community&link=https://neighbournet.com/server/common/eaparking041.htmI wrote to Ealing Parking Services on 3rd may about the massive increases. Got an auto acknowledgement saying they aim to respond within 10 working days. Nothing so far.My main question is - "How can residents make themselves heard on this problem?"

Michael Southworth ● 7d

Are you sure about that ?

David Burke ● 45d

Slaloming on & off pavements

Peter Yale ● 45d

No lights, hi viz or helmet

Peter Yale ● 45d

Fine cyclists for jumping red lighs

Peter Yale ● 45d

Cycling wrong way down 1 way streets

Peter Yale ● 45d

Of course, one of Paul’s pet lines is that roads are paid for out of general taxation. As we all pay tax we’ve already paid once to park on them.

Simon Hayes ● 45d

Make cyclists pay for road use. Insurance , tax etc

Peter Yale ● 45d

Oh dear, don’t expect any sense from the Hanwell village idiot.Before CPZs were introduced parking cost nothing. They are introduced to stop non residents from parking, not to grant reserved spaces outside someone’s house. They are introduced law states that they are not to be used as revenue raising mechanisms. Hiking permit prices to such an extent is clearly designed for that purpose.Of course, Paul lives in some weird parallel universe where nobody does anything wrong and cars don’t exist….

Simon Hayes ● 45d

>Looking at the Ealing council website it appears I'm in for a £190 fee next time !A couple of pennies over 50p a day.Whats the going rate for garages?

Paul James ● 45d

And here I was posting about the £139 I was charged for my Residents Parking Permit in January, when it appears I should be grateful!!Looking at the Ealing council website it appears I'm in for a £190 fee next time ! Aaarghh!https://www.ealing.gov.uk/info/201198/residents_permits/2044/resident_parking_permit_prices

Michael Southworth ● 45d

Motorists are paying for the installation and subsidised rental of the bike hangars hence the rise in parking permits.

Elizabeth Price ● 50d

It’s a tax and therefore technically illegal under the relevant legislation for CPZs.Only the Hanwell village idiot would think it’s fine to break some laws but not others!!

Simon Hayes ● 50d

A bit less than a pound a day.

Paul James ● 50d

Try £ 340 for a charge band 13 car 17 year old car with 61,000 miles ULEZ compliant

John Burke ● 50d

Way more than 20 cars between Culmington and Chapel, restricting access for whom public transport is not an option.

N V Brooks ● 50d

People  want & need to drive. Including you

Peter Yale ● 50d

>People want to driveI want to get rid of all my rubbish by burning it in a massive fire in my back garden.Doesn't mean I should.

Paul James ● 50d

It’s a story on several news feeds.Typically easy targets.People want to drive

Peter Yale ● 50d

>By all means de-restrict parking after 6:30 to allow the restaurants to thriveAll told, depsite the dangerous chaos caused by parking on uxbridge road in West Ealing in the evening, it's only about 20 cars at any one time, not enought to fill one resturaunt, let alone all of them.This idea that resturaunts thrive off people driving to them in cities is a nonsense.Make it safer and easier to get there by bus cycle or walking and that's where you'll get thriving.

Paul James ● 50d

For once we are in, probably, full agreement. If the council and the police clamped down on illegal and dangerous parking and actually enforced the appropriate speed limits there will be no need for half of the mucking amount with the roads and restrictions that we witness in Ealing. It really should be pointed out to some that Uxbridge Road is not a bloody 24 hour car park. By all means de-restrict parking after 6:30 to allow the restaurants to thrive but rigidly enforce it during restricted hours.

N V Brooks ● 50d

Is this in relation to this headline?Ealing Council's Parking Fine Revenue SurgesUp by 30% compared with previous year to £5.7millionA headline better written as Ealing council FINALLY starts issuing tickets for illegal parking despite ignoring it for years.A way to go though, I still see a LOT of dangeous and illegal parking in Ealing.

Paul James ● 50d

Our dearly loved cheating, fleecing Ealing council, made a 30% increase & £6 million from cash cow motorists 😡.No chance of filling potholes or resurfacing, just idiotic schemes to entrap motorists.

Peter Yale ● 50d

This increase in CPZ resident parking permits is not the only thing to increase. Pay- by-phone parking charges have also risen and risen again when vehicle combustion capacity is taken into account. Pay-by-phone spaces are important to our shopping centres so applauded by the 20 minute neighbourhood initiative supporters. House and rental prices here are high. It is not surprising therefore that workers on relatively low pay have to commute in to staff our shops and services. Raising parking tarrifs for them puts the viability of our local services in jeopardy. There isn't much glue stored in Percival Castle hence no joined up thinking.

Arthur Breens ● 51d

Well done Greg. Even Comrade Mason realised they were unworkable in the form in which they were implemented.

N V Brooks ● 110d

Paul James ● 110d

Was it you saying this cycle lane is unused Nigel?

Paul James ● 113d

Must be one of those heavily used bike lanes you and your fellow fantasists keep posting about.  What a total waste of resources and money. How much easier the traffic would be flowing if that was a car Lane.

N V Brooks ● 113d

Must be one of those heavily used bike lanes you and your fellow fantasists keep posting about.

N V Brooks ● 113d

Paul James ● 113d

Rightly caused a record number of complaints & been described as deeply flawed.It is what it is, motorists are used as cash co

Peter Yale ● 114d

Little Ben with his small mind and pointless comments. Back to your incel group with you.If you haven’t understood, increasing parking permit prices to raise revenue is illegal. Not hard to understand if they have a crumb of brain!Paul’s bleating is pointless because he doesn’t actually back it up with anything concrete. Just whine, whine, whine. Must be why he likes aeroplanes.

Simon Hayes ● 114d

Simon says!Simon says the same old opinion again and again, for years and years, it is so tiresome, and never gets anywhere. It is boring and predictable. From 2018: https://www.mylondon.news/news/west-london-news/big-change-parking-charges-ealing-14923100

Ben Owen ● 114d

Paul doesn’t really have an argument. He just says the same old opinion again and again, without any factual evidence to back it up. Traffic isn’t just cars, is it? And the ‘too many cars’ he always bleats about include a lot of through journeys that begin and end outside the borough. Unrealistic to force residents to suffer the inconvenience and irritation of road closures because of people living elsewhere.As for pollution, well the airport supporting Paul James/David Greane should shut up and put up. Tens of thousands more flights over the area if he gets what he wants. Only an idiot thinks that’s a good idea.As for too many cars causing congestion, another fallacy from the resident muppet. Congestion is caused by stopping traffic from flowing, and roadworks, changing traffic light phasing and introducing unnecessary restrictions all serve to do that. Honestly Paul, anyone would think you didn’t know fest you were talking about.As for giving up one’s car? Fine if that suits your lifestyle, which in the case of comfortably off, middle class types seems to be the case. But it doesn’t suit most people, particularly those who need a vehicle for work (and there are a lot of those in Ealing, which is a large, outer London borough where people often commute out of London daily).Tell you what Dominik, you start with your cycling lobbyist chums who own cars, including the numpty down my road who ferried his kids to and from school every day for years. I’m sure if they all did as you suggest traffic congestion would disappear overnight!

Simon Hayes ● 114d

Which is fine so long as it’s not forced (which is the case) on everyone.Someone who complains so bitterly & never has anything to say favourably about driving, yet does so when suits (paul/David) is a total & selfish hypocrite

Peter Yale ● 114d

I would counter this by saying that people do 'give up'. I gave up, as did others in my family, as well as friends, colleagues and people I meet at work.We all live in the real world.To clarify, by 'give up' I mean found other means of travelling, commuting, getting from A to B which were easier, cheaper, quicker, or all three. It doesn't have to mean ditching the car completely, but in most cases it does, as no-one wants to pay for a vehicle you no longer use very much. In turn, it saves you money for emergency trips.Each to their own, of course, but 'giving up' is more common than you'd think. Especially among the younger generation.

Dominik Klimowski ● 114d

You’re right, for once spot on.Loads more congestion on the remaining through roadsides An example is Ealing asking Hounslow to open Swyncombe.Too many cars you say, so tear up your license instead of dictating

Peter Yale ● 114d

>& in the real world this does not happen.It does Peter, plenty of examples of it happening.

Paul James ● 114d

& in the real world this does not happen.At last you are admitting it, other roads are swamped.People don’t just evaporate, give up.They need to get to work, carry out every day business, hopefully without obstructions.Apart from you of course, can blast everyone else but drive when choose

Peter Yale ● 114d

Peter, the idea is by taking away attractive rat runs in an area you stop attracting drivers to the area, so yes, evaporation.Motor traffic going through Ealing east to west should be using the A40/A4 for example, but, make it easier for them to scoot through Ealing and that's what you'll get, even more driving, rinse and repeat.

Paul James ● 114d

Like paul/sadiq/David James you mean.Give up your license.Oh & there’s a question for you to ignore too

Peter Yale ● 114d

>See skip lorries slaloming down roads.I think I said "skip lorries driven like rally cars", and yes, I stand by this, I see it a lot, not all mind you, but a lot.>All cars polluteThis is a fact.>you want ltns, cylewaysYes.>All detrimental to carsI disagree, the more people that choose not to drive for their journey the better it is for those that really have to.

Paul James ● 114d

& can you please explain, or tell us your theory on this?Driving along Boston Rd, a vehicle wants to turn left into Swyncombe.. It can’t, so what does it do.1) evaporate?2) turn round & go home - although using other roads 3) continue to destination using other roads, building up traffic there

Peter Yale ● 114d

Because you impersonate policemen down your road, according to you.See skip lorries slaloming down roads.All cars pollute, you want ltns, cylewaysAll detrimental to cars, except yours.Tear up your license

Peter Yale ● 114d

>want car free roads.This is untrue Peter, why do you keep saying it?Roads are for transporting people and goods, and sometimes that transporting will be done by motor vehicles, including cars.

Paul James ● 114d

You always lie, deny, cherry pick.You said quite clearly you drove 6 or do times.You moan constantly about driving. Total hypocrisy.You skirt around subjects you don’t want to hear, e.g petrol strike, you “not” driving. Your fantasy about ltns not congesting other roads.Deliberately crass to wind everybody up with your nonsense & keep cycling luvvies in spotlight.Tear up your license David

Peter Yale ● 114d

All you do is moan moan moan, want car free roads.Dictate who should & shouldn’t drive.Other drivers moan because stupid restrictions hold them up, imposed by hypocrites driving when they /you like

Peter Yale ● 114d

>Ok for you to drive as & when, but anyone else. Oh noThere you go. This isn't what I'm saying Peter, you misunderstand me.

Paul James ● 114d

>But you don’t. I don't what?>You shout stamp & scream, Some examples of me shouting stamping and screaming on here please.>make up fairy stories, What's this in reference to? An example of me doing this please?>Constantly moan about carsYou're getting this wrong. If I moan about anything it's the amount of driving being done (air quality etc...), bad driving etc.. This is not moaning about cars, it's "moaning" about congestion pollution and road danger (which are real actual problems Peter).>& dictate to others, yet drive yourself!!!!Dictate what to others, that more people should think about whether or not they really need to drive a particular journey given the many negative impacts of so many people deciding to drive?>Long as you drive, no right to opine about othersLoads of people that drive moan about being stuck in traffic Peter, they have done for years, can you hear what they are saying, they are saying there are too many cars and too much driving.

Paul James ● 114d

Tear up your license & stop being hypocritical.Ok for you to drive as & when, but anyone else. Oh no

Peter Yale ● 114d

>use aliases.I don't use any aliases Peter. You keep saying this, it's not true or correct.

Paul James ● 114d

But you don’t. You shout stamp & scream, make up fairy stories, use aliases.Constantly moan about cars & dictate to others, yet drive yourself!!!!Rest of us (when I cycle) just get on with it.Long as you drive, no right to opine about others

Peter Yale ● 114d

>Stop driving, that’s all you need to do. SimpleI drive about six times year.Yet in the morning and afternoon, and at random other times of day there are thousands upon thousands of cars driving through the roads we are talking about, again, not without serious consequences for air quality and road safety. Surely some of even many of these journeys can be replaced with better alternatives.Thankfully councils and government see the need for this to change Peter.

Paul James ● 114d

I’m not a hypocrite.Stop driving, that’s all yon need to do. Simple

Peter Yale ● 114d

> deliberately winds people up with crass comments & utter push.There needs to be much less driving Peter, as there are many negative consequences associated with so much driving in and through Ealing. If that winds you up when I say that it's not me, it's you...

Paul James ● 114d

Haha Nigel👍😂. Hans Christian James!Simon is right, de deliberately winds people up with crass comments & utter push.This is to keep this ridiculous topic in spotlight

Peter Yale ● 114d

Ah, it must be David Greane that uses Paul James as a pseudonym then 🤣

N V Brooks ● 114d

(I remember this well as the person celebrated getting the restriction put in on Swyncombe AND celebrated that he could use Northfields as a rat run again)

Paul James ● 114d

I recall a swyncombe resident working with "One Ealing", I think one ealing were hoping that they could get LTN21 removed using swyncombe, and in the end that was sort of successful, just not in the way they expected.(I don't think LTN21 was removed because of swyncombe restriction, it was just politics)

Paul James ● 114d

>paul or David’s views don’t count as he uses pseudonymsI don't use pseudonyms, I've said this a few times now.

Paul James ● 114d

What was very interesting was that Hounslow, allegedly, had more responses calling for traffic restrictions than there were people actually living on Swyncombe Avenue. This came as brothers surprised the three families I know who live on the swingham none of whom voted for the restrictions as it makes returning from their routine doctor and hospital visits a somewhat longer journey. Also do please remember that it was Hounslow that closed an Ealing road, Occupation Lane, doubling journey times to the Clayponds rehabilitation centre. Rather does seem that if you are elderly or disabled in Hounslow you are second class.

N V Brooks ● 114d

Paul is just provoking everyone here. He’s not convincing anyone with his ‘rhetoric’.According to Ealing council traffic has increased by 28 percent on Haslemere and 11 percent on Elthorne Park Road since the Swyncombe restrictions went in. It’s even put those figures on its literature about the proposals for Elthorne/Leighton.Hounslow published its figures for Windmill Road a year after  Swyncombe was operating and the increase was 18 percent, partly exacerbated by the unwanted LTN at the bottom of Junction Road.Paul provides no evidence for anything he says. Even Rachel Alfred’s research is no longer quoted by cycling nut jobs because the data she produced was so flawed.Perhaps Paul should start with an LTN in his road before lecturing everyone else. See what his neighbours think of him then.

Simon Hayes ● 114d

paul or David’s views don’t count as he uses pseudonyms & is the biggest blinkered hypocrite around.A real fantasist, just won’t accept traffic doesn’t vanish into thin air.When he gives up his ( or their license) he can comment.The public spoke & he is in a mad denial

Peter Yale ● 114d

Pretty sure hounslow aren't going to be removing that restriction.Also, Swyncombe is still two way and drivers can exit when heading west bound, so I guess traffic on Swyncombe has reduced which is good for residents. You need to be asking for similar stuff Eric, or as one ealing said "Air Equality for all" and you just accept your fairer share of motor traffic?

Paul James ● 114d

Correct. Swyncombe Avenue east closure has massively increased traffic going east on Haslemere Avenue and along my road, Manton Avenue, west to east.

Eric Alan Leach ● 114d

> it is simply displaced.Clearly not the case, it's pretty obvious that overall motor traffic is down across the whole area, the figures are all there for you to see Nigel!

Paul James ● 114d

Traffic levels on Windmill Road, according to LBH's own measure, have increased by 18%. Traffic does not, as some fantasists imagine, evaporate, it is simply displaced.

N V Brooks ● 114d

>as proved ltns cause congestion & pollution.They don't Peter, they reduce both. Pretty sure that the Swyncombe closure at one end has reduced driving across the area and removing it will increase the amount of car movements. We need more of the former and less of the latter.

Paul James ● 114d

Hi Peter,What makes me a cycle buff, I wonder? I cycle and drive, although I don’t own a car so I admit I do more of the former. I also take the tube and train, although not as much as the bus. If I’m honest, I use the means of transport that’s quickest and often cheapest to where I need to get to.Do you see yourself as a car buff? Or is it more nuanced than that? Either way, these probably aren’t interesting debating topics for this forum.What might be an interesting topic if debate is whether we should, as a society, pay for storing our belongings in public property, and whether our vehicles should be exempt. Should an exemption only apply to motor vehicles, or should we have free bike storage?Should payment be relevant to how near the vehicle is from our house? Or should free parking only apply to our own private property (ie. A driveway or garage)?If we are to pay, what is a fair price and how is this determined?Should parking be free in public parks? Shopping centres?And to answer your question, presumably the other place I leave my car is the destination I’ve driven it to. If it’s only ever going to be outside my house, then it’s a waste. Which is one reason for re-evaluating the economics of owning a car (for some, not all).I’m interested to know what everyone thinks of the points raised, and hope it will add to an interesting discussion.

Dominik Klimowski ● 114d

Selfish Paul.Those roads are paid for out of our taxes, not to be private gated communities.Anyway, someone who supports an expanded Heathrow needs their head examined.

Simon Hayes ● 114d

Okay Dominik. If it’s car ‘storage’ as you insist I’d like the council to put in large, reinforced metal, lockable hangars in which to keep my car. They could put these on the roads alongside the bike hangars. Not much to ask for 38p a day, considering the 70p a month bike hangars cost upwards of £5,000 each.Now be a good chap and change the record.

Simon Hayes ● 114d

So paul,David, khan. You are a hypocrite first of all.In denial secondly, as proved ltns cause congestion & pollution. Something you can’t & wont accept

Peter Yale ● 114d

>So minus you on road & no stupid restrictions. SortedI very rarely use a car Peter, maybe five or six times last year and I've not yet driven this year.I fully support restrictions that mean side streets aren't used as rat runs, and fully support Ealing Council's plan to put proper cycle tracks along all it's main roads.

Paul James ● 115d

So it is storage then. Except actually it’s not, as I say an additional tax to permit you to park at certain times.What else or where else do you leave your car, apart from outside or near your house.You cycling buffs certainly have very odd thoughts

Peter Yale ● 115d

I think you misunderstood me Peter. I don’t mean the car is storage, I mean one is effectively paying to store a car. Just like one would pay for a bike hangar to store one’s bike.You mention that you pay to park  for a payment or ticket to park on along the road. This is the same thing. Except at 38p a day, it’s infinitely cheaper.I’m not sure why I would expect not to pay to leave my vehicle in the road, considering it’s not being used and is taking up a lot of space.

Dominik Klimowski ● 115d

Storage?It’s an additional tax on motor vehicles. If you purchase a permit or pay via machine you can park your vehicle along the road. That’s on top of valid insurance, mot ,Road tax.It’s not Shurguard

Peter Yale ● 115d

What works for you doesn’t necessarily work for others, Dominik m. Think on that.The use of the word ‘storage’ for parking is the latest passive aggressive tactic from cycling lobbyists. Why don’t you pop round to your car owning neighbour an and explain your theory to them? You might not get such a warm response as you think.As ever you’re missing the point. Increasing the cost of permits isn’t allowed if it’s to raise revenue. There’s case law on this, notable involving the LB Barnet about a decade ago. To raise revenue means it’s a TAX, which falls under separate powers.Not hard to understand, is it?

Simon Hayes ● 115d

In my opinion 38p per day is a good deal, especially when compared to storing anything else in a public place. I can't think of anything even comparable. Some people pay more for storing their emails.Many people complain about 'narrow streets' with not enough space for vehicles to pass, but they are not narrow, simply blocked on either side by empty vehicles. I think that's a problem which cheap storage rates does nothing to solve.From a purely personal perspective, the introduction of CPZ is just one of the factors that made me re-evaluate the logistics of owning a car. I sat down and worked out it wasn't worth it financially.Of course that doesn't apply to all, but it was certainly a nudge that made me think differently. I also find it bizarre that people get upset by the introduction of the odd bike hangar, which can store six bikes in the space of one car. Maybe that's a topic for another discussion, although I do think it's relevant in the grander scheme of how we use and pay for public space.

Dominik Klimowski ● 115d

So minus you on road & no stupid restrictions. Sorted

Peter Yale ● 115d

But apparently cycling numbers are going up Philippa. Although not many around in winter. Death and injuries are very low considering the amount of traffic still on the roads. You can’t eliminate all risk from life, Philippa. You might fall down the stairs and break your neck. Have you taken precautions about that?Your pearls must be in danger of breaking since you clutch them so tightly.

Simon Hayes ● 115d

An increase in big, fast and heavy vehicles have not only pushed cyclists off the roads altogether but into cars and onto the pavements but because of the the number of motor vehicles on the roads the pavements become dangerously damaged by motorised vehicles driving over kerbs and pavements and parking on them.  One fall is all it takes to change a life forever and that is if you can and do get up after it.

Philippa Bond ● 115d

Too many cars Peter, too much driving,..

Paul James ● 115d

So during petrol strike there were big queues down South Ealing Rd.Prior to this there were LTNs in Culmington Rd, preventing through traffic.Traffic could ONLY go down main roads.However the sensible public asked for the ltns to be removed.Consequently I could avoid queues & get from A to B quicker.According to your logic. This is not possible, this is proof which you ignore David

Peter Yale ● 115d

1) who are you today, all your pseudonyms?I don't have any.2) hypocrisy, you shouldn’t be driving as you hate cars, so tear up your licenseI don't hate cars Peter. I've said this many times before, I don't thnk I should tear up my licence,3) the end result was fun maybe, but like everyone else you drove for convenienceI mean, I literally drove to the swimming pool for fun,4) you still pretend to not see, still ignore my question.What was the question Peter?

Paul James ● 115d

A tiny, tiny minority might drive for fun, no idea who.There are so many restrictions & regulations in place it’s not really feasible.’Again people want choice to drive, not be forced to take alternative means which are time consuming & inconvenient.Share roads yes, but not take over as is the case

Peter Yale ● 115d

Some people DO drive for fun, most drive for convenience BUT fewer drive for need.  Many could use an alternative means of travel but won't and don't  even bother to try it rather than can't.  Kudos to those that make a concerted effort to both try and persevere with changing habits and actually doing something different to reduce car and van use.  SIX CYCLES fit in a bike hangar which is the size of ONE SMALL CAR SPACE.  So many homes and roads were not designed with personal cars in mind and weALL have to share the space available!

Philippa Bond ● 115d

Some people DO drive for fun, most drive for convenience BUT fewer drive for need.  Many could use an alternative means of travel but won't and don't  even bother to try it rather than can't.  Kudos to those that make a concerted effort to both try and persevere with changing habits and actually doing something different to reduce car and van use.  SIX CYCLES fit in a bike hangar which is the size of ONE SMALL CAR SPACE.  So many homes and roads were not designed with personal cars in mind and weALL have to share the space available!

Philippa Bond ● 115d

Let’s break it down for you1) who are you today, all your pseudonyms?2) hypocrisy, you shouldn’t be driving as you hate cars, so tear up your license 3) the end result was fun maybe, but like everyone else you drove for convenience 4) you still pretend to not see, still ignore my question.

Peter Yale ● 115d

Fair enough, if you go to the act itself. Not mentioned in the wording on the council website.No mention of misogyny and racism, though….

Simon Hayes ● 115d

He does not.  https://ealing.moderngov.co.uk/mgDeclarationSubmission.aspx?UID=150&HID=158&FID=0&HPID=0    Read the words correctly on the  document...."The following information relates to the disclosable pecuniary interests of his/her spouse and civil partner".  It's the opposite of mischief,  it's a full declaration of interests.

Angela Klimowska ● 115d

On the council's website where the register of interest is"CEO of The London Irish Centre"Is very clearly listed under the column "The following information relates to the disclosable pecuniary interests of his/her spouse and civil partner."Nigel was telling other people to learn to read the other day...

Paul James ● 116d

I'm not sure it's illegal parking in West Ealing, as bad as it is.The only explanation I have for the crazy parking we see there is that it's unenforceable, save for maybe actual dangerous parking on corners etc...An FOI about how many tickets were issued there and how many got cancelled would be interesting.

Paul James ● 116d

I keep telling you this Peter. A while back I drove to a swimming pool, that was for fun (it had water slides and everything) AND I enjoyed the journey.

Paul James ● 116d

Angela, the mischief lies in the fact that Driscoll lists himself as the CEO of the London Irish Centre on his register of interests on the council website. If he’s not the CEO then why say that he is?Do you list your husband’s jobs and positions of responsibility as your own?

Simon Hayes ● 116d

You are very thin skinned Ben. Seems to be par for the course with you cycling types. Victimhood seems the natural state. Perhaps you are a traffic warden, hence your sudden interest in their wellbeing…..Frankly, you don’t come across as the most coherent individual and you don’t seem to understand the machinations of Ealing council, even though they have been well documented on this forum and elsewhere.You don’t upset me, little man. It’s actually quite amusing to see you work yourself up into such a lather. Keep up the entertainment. You are rapidly becoming a comedy legend here!

Simon Hayes ● 116d

If you did your own research, rather than readily accepting as fact anything you want to believe from your various echo chambers, you'ld see the CEO London Irish position relates to his partner/spouse.  So it's hardly strange his name is not listed on their website and wrong of you to claim they don't know anything of him,  imagine the CEO knows him better than anybody.

Angela Klimowska ● 116d

>I don’t think you care a jot about why the council hiked the  permit fees or what yet dry are doing it for. Ooh, Simon, another case of what you think as always being right? Thinking as always you know the answer....>Were you twitching your net curtains in anticipation? Probably.Another example of you think you know best and find yourself upset to find that I know better than you. I didn't need to twitch the curtains nor did I have to ask to know what was going on or planned to happen. Part of the problem of enforcement around West Ealing is that the wardens are often threatened and too scared to issue tickets.

Ben Owen ● 116d

>I don’t think you care a jot about why the council hiked the  permit fees or what yet dry are doing it for. Ooh, Simon, another case of what you think as always being right? Thinking as always you know the answer....>Were you twitching your net curtains in anticipation? Probably.Another example of you think you know best and find yourself upset to find that I know better than you. I didn't need to twitch the curtains nor did I have to ask to know what was going on or planned to happen. Part of the problem of enforcement around West Ealing is that the wardens are often threatened and too scared to issue tickets.

Ben Owen ● 116d

Ben, the only tiresome bores on here are you and Paul, constantly banging on about your pet topic. Dull, repetitive and predictable. Every time.Well done on your acuity regarding the strike. Were you twitching your net curtains in anticipation? Probably.I don’t think you care a jot about why the council hiked the  permit fees or what yet dry are doing it for. It’s just an excuse for you to get onto your anti-car bandwagon. As I said, dull, boring and repetitive.I refer you to Eric’s answer about wardens. It’s the same principle applied by the enforcement goons in Ealing Broadway, only go for the easy targets.

Simon Hayes ● 116d

Exactly, no one drives for fun & motorists a cash cow for tfl/khan/council hating cars

Peter Yale ● 116d

Forget any aspects of traffic wardens.In West Ealing Broadway we observed the same level of illegal parking when wardens are working as when they were on strike.The 26% hike in CPZ licences is possible because the Council has a captive audience. Many need their car for work and or because they need it to care for a loved one.

Eric Alan Leach ● 116d

Wow Simon, Can you point to where I said it is fair for residents to be paying 26% more for the same service? No you cannot but that is you all over - simply reading or hearing what you want to read or hear. It is why you are such a tiresome bore. It is so patronising of you, so conceited of you to think that I did not know that the wardens went on strike last autumn. In actual fact, I probably knew that they were going on strike before you! I was being facetious in guessing what the principle was behind the rise of 26%. Simon didn't get it - but everyone else did. Same old Simon, same old. Jump to conclusionsCan someone please explain why there is a 26% increase? Could it be because they don't have enough traffic wardens to ticket all those cars with their hazard lights on...and they want to employ more?

Ben Owen ● 116d

Wow Ben, something else you seem rather in the dark about.Ealing traffic wardens went on strike last autumn because the council refused to recognise the union to which they belong. Not bad going for an apparently left-leaning local authority. This was after the warden service was brought in-house last April, with the council subsidiary Greener Ealing ripping up a decade long agreement the previous warden employers, Serco, had with Unite.There aren’t enough wardens to enforce the parking restrictions across the borough as it is.And no, it’s not reasonable to expect residents to be taxed like this. Maybe increase the rental charge for bike hanger users from the laughable 70p a month would be a wiser choice.

Simon Hayes ● 116d

Fair question to ask, why to a 26% increase?Will Ealing be employing more traffic wardens to ticket all those drivers who believe that one can escape a parking fine by leaving a car with its hazard lights flashing? Or could they be reducing the number of wardens? It is easier to manage to have residents making up the lost revenue generated than have a traffic warden wandering the streets getting a load of abuse.

Ben Owen ● 116d

Keep Voting Liebore Folks!We have a lovely Council.  🤣

Rosco White ● 116d

CPZ permit schemes are only supposed to cover the costs of operating them. This is a tax, which the courts held to be beyond the powers of local authorities to levy. It will be challenged again at some point.

Simon Hayes ● 116d

A pittance in context.

N V Brooks ● 116d

38 pence a day.

Paul James ● 116d

Councillor dismal lists himself as the chief executive officer of the London Irish Centre. Strangely he doesn't appear anywhere on their website nor do they appear to know anything of him.

N V Brooks ● 117d

Residents with cars are cows to be milked. It’s not about reducing emissions, otherwise there would be no shared use parking bays in the borough for commuters to pay £3 a day, including close to several schools.No appeal, I’m afraid. Best course for you is to talk to your neighbour a abd gauge their feelings. Writing to the councillor in charge of this is a waste of time. It’s Dismal Driscoll, scourge of normal human beings. Just encourage people to vote him out next year.

Simon Hayes ● 117d