We dont think that pay per mile has legitimate aims of revenue only & oppose it
We oppose the Chancellors Pay per Mile on the basis that it violates the right to privacy article 8 of the Human Rights act 1998 & therefore we do not want it introduced. The only legitimate aim of taxation is £ & there.is no need to implement our personal tavel details & information Into revenue.
Signatures
8
signatures
Government response threshold (10,000) · 8/10,000
Debate threshold (100,000) · 8/100,000
- 12 DEC 2025Petition rejectedduplicate
Do not introduce pay-per-mile road charging for UK drivers: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/749667
- 07 NOV 2025Petition created
Background
On Page 103 of the Blackstones guide to the Human Rights Act 1998 by John Wadham & Helen Mountfield
It states these criteria for the test of article 8:
(a) that an interference corresponds to a pressing social need (Sunday Times v United Kingdom);
(b) that it is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
There is no social need for pay per mile, the existing system works fine.
We believe the government has ulterior motives in addition to taxation moving us towards a China Gov model