Why are electric motorcycles exempt from the parking tax?

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am not quite clear why the City Council has made the decision to
exempt electric motorcycles from the experimental parking tax.

An electric motorcycle takes exactly the same amount of parking
space as any other motorcycle, so why is the owner not required to
pay the parking tax like any other motorcyclist?

Also, in the "Frequently Asked Questions" section of the motorcycle
parking pages of the City Council's website, I note the following
comment in the very last question:-
"The City Council's policy for charging motorcycles to park is not
based on emission levels".
So if this is the case, please explain why electric motorcycles are
exempt from the parking tax on the basis that they take the same
amount of parking space as any other bike.

Yours faithfully,

Mr Thomas

Dear MotorCycleParking,

Please pass on this note to the team who deals with internal
reviews of Freedom of Information requests.

I'm sorry but your response is contradictory and unsatisfactory.

In paragraph 1, you state that "a decision by the Council was made
to consider a system of differential charging based on emission
levels. Electric vehicles park for free because they produce zero
tailpipe emissions. As a result, they do not contribute to the high
levels of air pollution we have in Central London". So it is very
clear that Westminster's decision not to stealth tax electric
motorcycles for parking is because, in your opinion, they don't
pollute.

Can you please explain, in the light of the above, why in paragraph
2 you go on and say that Westminster's decision to introduce a
charge for motorcycles was not based on environmental concerns but
to address the ever-increasing demand for Westminster's limited
kerbside space and due to this, electric motorcycles were exempted.
But do you really think that electric motorcycles take zero space
when parked?

So what was your decision to exempt electric motorcycles from the
parking tax based on, kerbside space considerations or
environmental issues? It can't be both I'm afraid, it's one or the
other. And if you say that it is for environmental reasons, please
explain why in the Frequently Asked Questions shown on the
motorcycle parking pages of your website, you specifically state
the following:-

"I thought motorcycles were less polluting than cars so shouldn’t
you be encouraging people to use motorcycles?

The City Councils’ policy for charging motorcycles to park is not
based on emission levels".

If your decision, on the contrary, is based on kerbside space
issues, then why are electric motorcycles exempt, given that they
use the same amount of space as any other type of motorcycle. Can
we be assured that, should a large number of motorcyclists decide
to switch to electric motorcycles to avoid paying your parking tax,
they'll all still be able to park for free going forward?

Yours faithfully,

Mr Thomas

Dear Sir or Madam,

Wold you please answer my questions in my email dated 7th July
2009. I requested an internal review of this FOI and a response
from you is now well overdue.

Please respond at your earliest opportunity.

Yours faithfully,

Mr Thomas

Dear Customer Relations,

Your response is still not fully satisfactory I'm afraid and
therefore, I would like to request another internal review of the
way this FOI has been handled by the Council.

I still have the following two queries:-

1) How can you say in your response dated 7th July 2009 that "the
reason electric motorcycles are allocated free parking is because
the City Council wanted to address the greener issue, regardless of
how much space a vehicle uses", and in your response today (14th
August 2009), you say "it was not a specific aim of the
experimental motorcycle-charging scheme to address environmental
concerns".

So what is the truth? Can you please explain why you are being
contradictory in your two responses? How can I be certain that your
intention was not to mislead the public by providing incorrect
information in the first place? Were your responses fully reviewed
by Senior Management before going out?

2) Your response of today does not fully answer my questions. It is
missing the answer to the following question:-

"Can we be assured that, should a large number of motorcyclists
decide to switch to electric motorcycles to avoid paying your
parking tax, they'll all still be able to park for free going
forward”?

Since you advise in your response today that "the City Council has
a wider, general policy of offering concessions to all electric
vehicles, such as giving them free parking up to the maximum stay
in paid-for parking bays and being able to park free of charge in
electric charging bays whilst charging", can I assume that if we
all switch to electric motorcycles, we will all be able to park
free of charge?

Please do not avoid the question this time around.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Thomas

Dear Customer Relations,

While I accept that you cannot predict for the future and this is
outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, you have
failed to answer my first question in my follow-up email dated 14th
August 2009, which is as follows:-

"1) How can you say in your response dated 7th July 2009 that "the
reason electric motorcycles are allocated free parking is because
the City Council wanted to address the greener issue, regardless of
how much space a vehicle uses", and in your response today (14th
August 2009), you say "it was not a specific aim of the
experimental motorcycle-charging scheme to address environmental
concerns".

So what is the truth? Can you please explain why you are being
contradictory in your two responses? How can I be certain that your
intention was not to mislead the public by providing incorrect
information in the first place? Were your responses fully reviewed
by Senior Management before going out?"

While I recognise that I have received an apology for the
misleading and inconsistent information that you have supplied, I
would stress that local public authorities such as yours are
expected to provide consistent information to the public in their
various emails, and not conflicting information as you have done in
this instance. I am confident that the members of the public who
read the details of this particular FOI request will draw their own
conclusions with regards to the way this request has been handled
by Westminster City Council.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Thomas