Why embassies may not pay London’s congestion charges

 

By  Paul Owere Web Editor Mwananchi Communications Ltd

What you need to know:

• According to analysts, the embassy's decision has significant implications, not only for diplomatic relations between the United States and the United Kingdom but also for other diplomatic missions operating in London including Tanzania.

Foreign missions in London including Tanzania’s High Commission to the UK, came under scrutiny last week after it emerged they were owing millions of BPS to Transport for London in congestion charges.

Collectively the embassies owe the City of London some £143m,with Tanzania taking a share of £2.2m (Sh7.5billion)and the US taking the biggest chunk of £14m followed by Japan at £10m.

The scheme involves a £15 daily fee for driving within an area of central London between 07:00hrs and 18:00hrs on weekdays, and between noon and 18:00hrs on weekends and bank holidays.

While there are some that have paid, the embassies have remained adamant that the charges are not different from any other taxes that they are exempted from. 

The United States Embassy in London is leading the way after it formally declared its refusal to pay Transport for London's Congestion Charging Scheme fees, citing international law and diplomatic immunity.

In a detailed statement addressed to the Protocol Division of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), the embassy highlighted its position on the Congestion Charge, labeling it as a tax that should not be imposed on diplomatic missions, personnel, or military forces under international law.

Citing provisions from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR) and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR), the embassy argued that the Congestion Charge does not fall under the category of "charges levied for specific services rendered."

They asserted that the charge, aimed at discouraging driving and promoting public transport, does not provide any tangible service to those who pay it.

Furthermore, the embassy pointed out that the imposition of the Congestion Charge interferes with their ability to perform their functions as diplomatic missions.

They cite articles 25 and 26 of the VCDR, which guarantee facilities for diplomatic functions and freedom of movement for diplomats to support their argument against the charge. The embassy drew attention to previous communications with the FCO, indicating that Transport for London had acknowledged diplomatic vehicles' exemption from the Congestion Charge in the past, further underscoring the embassy's position.

The refusal to pay the Congestion Charge extends beyond diplomatic vehicles to include official consular vehicles and privately owned vehicles of consulate personnel, as outlined in the VCCR.

According to analysts, the embassy's decision has significant implications, not only for diplomatic relations between the United States and the United Kingdom but also for other diplomatic missions operating in London including Tanzania.

It sets a precedent for embassies to challenge local regulations they deem incompatible with international law and diplomatic privileges.

As tensions simmer between the US Embassy and Transport for London, diplomatic channels are likely to be activated to address the impasse. 

The outcome of this dispute will not only determine the financial implications for Transport for London but also shape the future dynamics of diplomatic immunity and obligations in the UK capital.