Building standards - building warrant fee model: research project

The purpose of this study is to develop proposals and a model that can be used to deliver a funding model that is flexible and can be adjusted to allow changes to building warrant fees in Scotland.

6. Review of Key Assumptions for Model

6.1 Introduction

6.1.1 The future costs of delivering the verification service set out in Tables 3.3 and 3.4 are based on a number of key assumptions. These include the level of overheads which should be recovered to ensure the verification service is achieving full cost recovery and the impact of the introduction of the compliance plan approach to high-risk buildings.

6.1.2 The issue of soft enforcement and fees is considered in Section 7.

6.2 Treatment of Overheads

6.2.1 Building warrant fees should aim to cover the full cost of the verification service. Table 4.1 showed that the service as a whole covers its costs using data from the LFRs. However, verification costs are not identified separately within these returns and BSD collect the relevant information as part of KPO5. Data are collected for:

  • Staff costs for verification.
  • Non-staff costs for verification.
  • Other verification related investment.

6.2.2 Data for 2021/22 show verification costs were £26.2 million (£23.4 million for staff costs, £2.5 million for non-staff costs and £0.3 million for other verification related investment). Income from building warrant related fee income in 2021/22 was £35.4 million. Excluding overheads relating to verification, this yields a surplus of income of almost £9.2 million over verification expenditure.

6.2.3 The Part 1 research found there was substantial variation in the breakdown of verification costs across authorities with some having 100% of expenditure allocated to staff costs and the majority not incurring any expenditure on ‘other verification related investment’. The Part 1 research also found that there was inconsistency across authorities in terms of what expenditure was covered by different categories.

6.2.4 The Part 1 research concluded that:

  • Staff cost is the dominant cost in verification expenditure and it is the most consistent across authorities in terms of what is covered by the category.
  • Non-staff verification costs tended to cover travel and costs associated with specialist services, although there was variation across authorities.
  • There is rarely any allowance for general overheads (i.e. building standards share of corporate services such as IT, finance, legal, HR etc.) in the figures and some inconsistency in the way authorities allocate other components of verification costs.

6.2.5 Within KPO5, building standards verification fee income is expected to cover indicative verification service costs. This is defined as verification staff costs plus 30%. Applying the 30% uplift to verification staff costs of £23.4 million[16] yields an estimated total verification cost of £30.4 million[17]. Compared to building warrant related income of £35.4 million (Table 4.2), this yields a surplus of £5 million within the building standards system.

6.2.6 The 30% assumption was introduced as part of the Key Performance Framework in 2017 and seeks to cover non-staff costs including overheads. The Part 1 fees research included discussions with some local authority building control departments in England. During these discussions, it emerged that a figure closer to 20% was used a measure of overheads. Given that overheads feed into the model, this research considered the appropriateness of the 30% assumption for the future model of building warrant fees drawing on several data sources and consultations with selected authorities.

Scottish Government Local Financial Returns

6.2.7 SGLFR provide a comprehensive overview of the financial activity of Scottish local authorities. Within SLGFS, building standards is included within the service category “Building, Planning and Development”. At this service level, there is considerable detail available on the components of income and expenditure, but at the sub-service level, the level of detail in the data is less.

6.2.8 At the broad[18] service level, the main components of income and expenditure are shown in Table 6.1:


  • Employee costs – including employer pension contributions.
  • Operating costs – premises (e.g. expenses related to the running of premises and land), transport (including direct transport costs, staff travel), supplies and services (including equipment, furniture, catering, stationary, communications) and 3rd party payments (payments to an external provider or an internal service delivery unit).
  • Transfer payments – 3rd party capital projects funded from capital grants and other transfer payments (e.g. debits from soft loans to clients).
  • Support services – including corporate services (policy, PR), finance, HR, IT, legal, procurement and property management etc.
  • Inter/intra authority adjustments - recharge income from other services and contributions from other local authorities.


  • Total government grants – covid specific grants and central government grants to fund 3rd party capital projects.
  • Total grants, reimbursements and contributions.
  • Total customer and client receipts – income from charges to service users, rent income and other sales, fees and charges.

6.2.9 The Table shows that at the broad service level, support services (general overheads) account for approximately 16.3% of employee costs.

6.2.10 At the sub-service level (building standards), the information is restricted to ‘support services’ and ‘all other expenditure’. Table 6.1 shows that support services expenditure of £3.7 million is 10.9% of ‘all other expenditure’. Total local authority building standards staff costs in 2021/22 were £26.6 million. Assuming staff costs of £26.6 million, support costs of £3.6 million represent 13.6%.

Table 6.1: LFR Income and Expenditure, 2021/22 (£m)
LFR00: Building, Planning, Development LFR07: Building Standards
£ % £ %


  • Employee costs
  • Operating costs
  • Transfer payments
  • Support services
  • Inter-authority adjustments
  • All other expenditure

Gross Service Expenditure






























  • Government grants
  • Grants, reimbursements
  • Customer, client receipts
  • All other income

Gross Service Income





















Net Revenue Expenditure -250.4 3.3

Note: Columns do not sum due to rounding.

6.2.11 Table 6.2 provides a summary, by local authority, of support services in building standards as a proportion of all other expenditure. The data are taken from SLGFS for 2021/22.

Table 6.2: Support Services as a Percentage of ‘All Other Expenditure’ by Local Authority for Building Standards (LFR07), 2021/22

Aberdeen City 3.4

Aberdeenshire 1.5

Angus 0.0

Argyll & Bute 6.5

City of Edinburgh 9.7

Clackmannanshire 30.5

Dumfries & Galloway 6.3

Dundee 11.0

East Ayrshire 9.4

East Dunbartonshire 41.3

East Lothian 21.0

East Renfrewshire 12.9

Falkirk 7.4

Fife 11.6

Glasgow 14.6

Highland 24.2

Inverclyde 13.2

Midlothian 60.9

Moray 8.1

Na h-Eilean Siar 7.1

North Ayrshire 8.9

North Lanarkshire 4.0

Orkney Islands 3.4

Perth & Kinross 4.1

Renfrewshire 11.8

Scottish Borders 0.0

Shetland Islands 2.2

South Ayrshire 0.6

South Lanarkshire 0.0

Stirling 12.0

West Dunbartonshire 35.2

West Lothian 0.7

Scotland 10.7

6.2.12 Table 6.2 shows considerable variation in the proportion of ‘all other expenditure’ accounted for by support costs. For building standards only, the majority (19 or 59%) of authorities have support costs which are less than 10% of all other expenditure. Of these authorities, three have no support services expenditure. Four authorities have building standards support costs which are greater than 30% of all other expenditure. The average across Scotland is 10.7%.

6.2.13 The data in the LFR returns suggest that the 30% uplift to staff costs may be on the high side.

Building Control in England and Wales

6.2.14 The building control system in England and Wales is different to that in Scotland with local authorities able to set their own fee levels on a ‘full cost recovery’ basis for building regulations chargeable activities. The total cost of the building regulations chargeable service should include all the direct[19] costs and indirect costs which support the building regulations chargeable service. These indirect costs have to be apportioned on some reasonable and equitable basis which relate to the benefit that the building regulations chargeable service is receiving.

6.2.15 In line with CIPFA recommendations, the total cost of building control should include:

  • Employees.
  • Premises related expenditure.
  • Transport related expenditure.
  • Supplies and services.
  • Third party payments.
  • Support services.
  • Depreciation and impairment losses.

6.2.16 Comparison of the headings above with the Scottish data from the LFR returns shows that items ‘b to e’ are all covered by operating costs in Table 6.1. Support services cover the same elements of expenditure as support services in the LFR returns and they are usually allocated or apportioned to direct services. Within England and Wales, the cost of support services has a direct impact on the level of building regulations charges and the competitive environment in which the building control team operates.

6.2.17 The Part 1 fees report found (from discussions with four English building control teams) that there is considerable variation in approaches adopted by local authorities in respect of charging central overheads to different departments. The responses on the relative scale of overheads varied widely. The effective uplift on direct costs[20] was up to around 20%. This is equivalent to overheads being 17% of gross costs. The weighted average across this small sample was an uplift of 18% on direct costs which is well below the 30% assumed in Scotland.

6.2.18 The Part 1 report also found that there was a considerable degree of discussion and debate between building control department managers and local authority accountants in England on the basis for these charges. Key issues were the extent to which the charges were fair and reasonable. There was a lack of understanding from building control managers on how these charges were calculated and recharged. A 2021 survey found that 43% of building control departments would like to have a national recharge factor (% uplift on direct costs) similar to the 30% used in KPO5 in Scotland.

6.2.19 A brief internet search has found several local authority building control financial statements which set out expenditure on the items listed in paragraph 6.2.15 for chargeable activities and total building control activities. Table 6.3 provides a summary of support services as a percentage of ‘employee costs’ and ‘employee and operating costs’ for selected local authorities.

Table 6.3: Support Services as a Percentage of Costs, Selected Authorities
Chargeable Activities Total Building Control
Support Services as a % of:
Employee Costs Employee & Operating Costs Employee Costs Employee & Operating Costs
Blaenau Gwent 19.9 19.3 18.4 17.8
Colchester 58.2 52.3 63.4 56.4
Dartford 24.0 21.6 24.7 22.2
Hammersmith & Fulham 28.5 27.3 28.5 24.0
Warwick 19.2 18.3 33.3 31.7

6.2.20 The Table shows that for total building control activities, support services can account for 18% to 63% of employee costs. This is a very wide range across five authorities, but if Colchester is excluded, the range narrows considerably to 19% to 29% (average of 22.9%) for chargeable activities and 18% to 33% (average of 26.2%) for total building control activities.

Consultations with Scottish Local Authorities

6.2.21 Five[21] consultations were undertaken with the finance departments to understand further the treatment of overheads in local authority finance and their allocation to building standards. These consultations highlighted the complexities of working across 32 authorities, each with their own approaches to costs and their allocation to services.

6.2.22 There were two opposing approaches to the allocation of central support services to individual service areas. For three authorities, their authority had a central support charge allocated to building standards while the other two authorities were not charged for central support. These two different approaches underlie the variation shown in Table 6.2.

6.2.23 Where central support is allocated to building standards, there is usually a model which allocates central support services to other service areas using a range of formula (e.g. costs could be based on headcount, floorspace, time, transactions etc.). Allocating central support costs provides a closer estimate of the full cost of providing the service, but it was suggested by consultees that building standards cannot really challenge the central support costs they are allocated.

6.2.24 One consultee shared information which showed that total overheads to be apportioned to building standards amount to 16% of building standards staff costs. This additional ‘overhead’ included some costs which are not shown on the LFR as support costs. The data further illustrate the problems of consistency in trying to estimate additional costs to be attributed to an individual service.

6.2.25 Where central support services are not allocated to a service area, it was suggested that the building standards costs are a ‘truer’ reflection of the actual cost of providing the service as the costs primarily relate to the direct cost of the service.

6.2.26 There was broad agreement that employee costs are an appropriate base on which an overhead uplift should be applied, but it was suggested that care is required to ensure all employee costs are included, particularly if there is a central administration team. One consultee provided detailed information on their approach to calculating building standards employee costs which included the building standards share of wider directorate costs and shared businesses support teams.

6.2.27 Even within the direct costs of building standards, it was suggested that comparison across authorities is difficult as there are many ways to deliver certain things. For example, car finance can vary across authorities and some cars may be allocated to building standards and will be a direct cost whereas building standards staff may have access to a shared car which would probably not be allocated to building standards.

6.2.28 From the discussions, it was clear that establishing the overhead cost of the building standards service is complex and that an uplift to employee costs is a good approximation. There was general agreement through the discussions that 30% to cover central support services and overheads is “not unreasonable”. One consultee felt that 30% was too high and that 20% would be a more appropriate assumption while another consultee highlighted that they would add 20% to 40% to some grant claims to allow for central services.


6.2.29 Analysis of published LFR data on building standards is limited by the level of detail available for building standards and there is considerable variation across authorities in the percentage of ‘all other expenditure’ accounted for by support services. This wide range reflects two very different approaches within authorities to the treatment of central support services.

6.2.30 From discussions with a selection of building control departments in England, the 30% uplift appears slightly high with an average uplift of 18% across the sample. Limited evidence from the Scottish consultations suggests that 20% may be more appropriate.

6.2.31 It is concluded that verification staff cost is the appropriate base, but that 20% is an appropriate uplift factor. The modelling will consider two scenarios representing 20% and 30% uplift factors.

6.3 High Risk Buildings

6.3.1 HRBs are defined in paragraph 2.4.1 with paragraphs 2.4.1 to 2.4.5 outlining the new compliance plan approach to HRBs. The current model cannot charge different fee rates for buildings with the same value of work, but which require greater verifier input. As a result, this research is proposing to introduce a new fee scale for HRBs which will ensure that the additional cost burden imposed on authorities through the compliance plan approach to HRBs is met by these buildings.

6.3.2 The key additional tasks arising from the compliance plan approach are:

  • Pre-applications meetings with the CPM and applicant.
  • Pro-active enforcement to check that:
    • work has not started before approval of the warrant (at each warrant stage);
    • the building is not occupied or in use without permission.
  • Potential additional site visits/verification work in line with the compliance plan.

6.3.3 BSD consider that only a small proportion of all building warrant applications will relate to HRB projects and that these projects will tend to be in the highest value of work bands. However, any extension or alteration to a HRB will be subject to the compliance plan approach. The number of HRB projects has been estimated as follows:

  • 5% of projects in the £10,000 to £50,000 value of work band – 560 projects.
  • 5% of projects in the £50,001 to £250,000 value of work band – 273 projects.
  • 10% of projects in the £250,001 to £1 million value of work band – 164 projects.
  • 80% of projects in the over £1 million value of work band – 572 projects.

6.3.4 This yields a total of 1,568 HRB projects per annum which is an average of 49 per authority.

6.3.5 The first additional component of the compliance plan approach to HRBs is the requirement for the applicant to have a pre-application meeting with the local authority. To gauge the potential cost associated with these meetings, a short review of the fees charged for pre-application planning advice has been undertaken. A summary of the results is shown in Table 6.4 for advice on major or national projects.

Table 6.4: Summary of Pre-Application Planning Advice Fees for Selected Authorities
Authority Fee, £ Meeting Included Details Other
Dumfries & Galloway 1,250 Yes Attendance at meeting Optional charge for site visit
Edinburgh (1st Tier) 1,320 Yes 2hr discussion. High-level views Optional 1hr meeting for £660
Edinburgh (2nd Tier) 6,480 Yes 3x2hr & 1x1hr discussions. 1 site visit Optional 1hr meeting for £660
Fife 50% normal fee up to max of £1,800 Yes 2 meetings
Glasgow 12,000 Yes Up to 4 meetings, site visit, outcome report
Highland 5% of normal fee between £3,500 (min) and £7,500 (max) Yes Attendance at meeting
North Lanarkshire 1,000 No

6.3.6 Pre-application advice ranges from £1,250 to £12,000 for authorities where the advice incudes at least one meeting. Edinburgh also offers additional meetings at a fee of £660 per hour.

6.3.7 The number and length of any pre-application discussions relating to HRBs will no doubt vary by project and authority and include at least one meeting (two hours), preparation and correspondence. For the modelling analysis, it is assumed that the cost of the pre-application assessments is £900. Any alterations to HRBs will also be required to follow the compliance plan process but are likely to involve less work. Hence, a fee of £450 (50% of £900) has been assumed for alterations to HRB projects. The additional cost associated with these meetings is just over £1 million.

6.3.8 The additional resources required to undertake pro-active enforcement and additional inspection or compliance work for HRBs has been estimated as follows:

  • HRB fee income is assumed to be 33%[22] of fee income and therefore 33% of total verification costs including overheads.
  • Any increase in costs will only apply to reasonable inquiry/inspection costs (i.e. not plan checking costs) which are assumed to be 30% of total costs.
  • An uplift of 30% to cover pro-active enforcement and additional compliance work is assumed.

6.3.9 These assumptions yield additional costs associated with HRBs of £2.2 million in 2026/27 where overheads are assumed to be a 30% uplift. Table 6.5 shows the additional costs associated with HRBs adopting the phasing detailed in paragraph 4.3.2. In 2026/27, the costs are split relatively evenly between the costs associated with pre-application discussions and other additional work relating to HRBs.

Table 6.5: Additional with HRBs, £ million
Scenario 1 (30%) 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27

Pre-Application Discussions

Pro-active Enforcement







Total 0.271 0.561 2.199
- - - -
Scenario 2 (20%) 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27

Pre-Application Discussions

Pro-active Enforcement







Total 0.250 0.518 2.110

6.3.10 Where overheads are assumed to be a 20% uplift (Scenario 2), the additional costs associated with HRB activity are £2.1 million in 2026/27.

6.4 Additional Island Uplift

6.4.1 Analysis of building standards verification income and expenditure information highlights that there can be additional costs associated with delivering the service in island areas and very rural areas. Discussions considered whether the model should include a mechanism for providing additional funding for these island/very rural areas.

6.4.2 The Scottish Local Government Finance Settlement funding allocation formula for 2022/23 states that “special islands needs allowance (SINA) is an allocation for local authorities with island populations. Broadly speaking, SINA adds just over ten per cent onto the total GAE, FRFG and redeterminations for island authorities or populations, but excluding any of those funding lines that already take account of islandness in their distribution formula.”

6.4.3 The six authorities with islands received an additional £21.7[23] million in funding for 2022/23. Building standards is a service where ‘islandness’ is not reflected in the funding formula and would therefore be covered by the SINA allowance discussed above.

6.5 Other Matters Relating to Fees

6.5.1 The local authority survey gathered opinion on a number of topics including:

  • Additional charges.
  • Strengthening compliance.
  • Soft enforcement.

Additional Charges

6.5.2 The survey asked if there are any building standards services that should attract a charge and what an appropriate charge would be from a range of bands. A majority of respondents supported charging for the four services outlined in the survey. Details are provided in Table 6.6 which shows that 75% of respondents agreed with a surcharge for applications which have used alternative approaches and there was broad agreement that this should be applied as a percentage of the fee.

6.5.3 Table 6.6 also shows that two-thirds of respondents feel there should be a charge for failed visits where re-inspection is required. Opinion was divided on the level of charge for failed visits with suggestions in the range £50 to £200.

Table 6.6: Potential additional charges for building standards services
Service % responding Yes Suggested charge - % of responses
Failed visit where re-inspection is required (e.g. work not being at the required stage for meaningful inspection) 67%

£50 – 28.6%

£51-£100 – 28.6%

£101-£150 – 28.6%

£151-£200 – 14.3%

Pre-application assessments for non-High Risk Buildings 58%

£50 – 14.3%

£151-£200 – 28.6%

£301-£500 – 14.3%

% of fee – 42.9%

Surcharge for applications which have not followed guidance and used alternative approaches (e.g. fire engineered approaches) 75%

>£1,000 – 12.5%

% of fee – 87.5%

Charge for additional inspections over and above a specific number of associated with the fee paid 58%

£50 – 33.3%

£101-£150 – 33.3%

£151-£200 – 33.3%

% of fee – 16.7%

6.5.4 More than half of the respondents stated there should be a charge for pre-application assessments for non-HRBs and the preferred option is as a percentage of the fee. Similarly, more than half of the respondents stated that there should be a charge for additional inspections over and above the specified number related to the fee paid. The range of charges was £50 to £200.

6.5.5 Some respondents suggested a number of other services where a charge could be made and suggested some possible charges. These included:

  • Failed drain test - £50.
  • Inspection where amendment to warrant results - £50.
  • Confirmation that work does/did not require a building warrant - % of fee.
  • Submitting a paper building warrant application - % of fee.

6.5.6 The advantages and disadvantages of charging for the services outlined were identified as:

  • Advantages:
    • The ability to cover the real cost of the service.
    • Greater compliance through penalising of bad practice.
    • It would force a sharper focus by the applicant/agent.
    • It would ensure that works are up to a required standard and save time for inspectors.
    • It would cover the disproportionate checks required where non-guidance alternatives are used, particularly 3rd party costs.
    • Prevention of a small number of developers using a disproportionate amount of case officer time.
  • Disadvantages:
    • Additional workload/administrative burden invoicing for payments and chasing applications where the fee has not been paid.
    • May discourage customers from using the service.
    • Surveyors may look for issues to bring in extra fees.
    • As additional inspections tend to be instigated by building standards due to concerns on site rather than requested by the applicant/agent it could make charging impractical.
    • It would discourage opportunities to alleviate non-compliance issues.

Strengthening Compliance

6.5.7 The survey sought to gather views on whether the local authorities think there should be a component in the building warrant fee to cover ‘soft enforcement’ (e.g. work required to investigate or resolve unauthorised building work without having to issue a formal enforcement notice and cover in Section 7). Details are shown in Table 6.7. and show that the majority of respondents support having a component in the building warrant fee to cover soft enforcement, particularly in relation to non-compliance related to building warrant activity and work leading up to the issue of S28 to S30 notices.

Table 6.7: Potential for Soft Enforcement to be include in Building Warrant Fee
Service % responding Yes
Unauthorised work 58%
Non-compliance related to building warrant activity 67%
Work leading up to issue of S28 to S30 notices 67%

6.5.8 Some of the comments received in support of respondents’ answers relating to soft enforcement include:

“The minimum fee received for applications does not cover the work involved in the background for areas of non-compliance, there are many lost hours spend chasing up soft enforcement where the cost is never recovered.”

“This type of work is essential to ensure that 'as built' buildings meet current regulations and achieve the aims of reducing carbon emissions, accessibility, etc. and should be reflected in the fees.”

“If the component applies to every building warrant fee then we are not in favour of it - however if it is something that can be added to the fee - however that is achieved we would support this.”

“It is difficult to say definitely, if, in the cases above whether there should be a component in the building warrant fee to cover 'soft enforcement'. There is, no doubt, a significant amount of this work done that is unfunded by building warrant fees.”

“Unauthorised works, S28 to S30 should remain as enforcement and therefore funding of these activities should not be a burden of those wishing to follow the correct route and obtain warrant etc. If non-compliance is associated with a warrant then yes this should have some funding mechanism that’s incorporated into the warrant system to cover Verifier's costs but if out with a warrant then this would be enforcement.”

“At present on section 29 or 30 cases we apply a 20% surcharge on the billed costs for dangerous building work to cover our admin costs. Unauthorised works, section 27 would be caught in the 200 or 300% increase in fees in late Building warrant applications or completion certificates where no warrant obtained.”

6.5.9 The survey asked local authorities if they think fees for late building warrants and completion certificates are sufficient for any additional work required to deliver the application or certificate of completion. In the case of late building warrants, 88% of respondents feel the 200% fee is sufficient and 75% feel the 300% fee for late completion certificates is sufficient.

6.5.10 Where the fees are regarded as insufficient, the reasons offered are the time spent to verify late applications in relation to works on site does not reflect the fee received and there are countless hours of going back and forth to get to issuing the certificate. Another respondent felt the late completion fee can be insufficient as disruptive actions may be required, much more than plan checking and investigation of alternative to guidance or non-compliance matters, whereas late warrants are generally ongoing works.

6.5.11 The respondents were then asked how these fees could be strengthened to discourage starting work without approval. Several respondents note that in many cases the cost of delaying a project outweighs the penalty charge applied and costs are just added to the project cost.

6.5.12 Respondents were asked if a penalty fee should be applied if work started after an application has been submitted but before approval and should it be focused on high-risk buildings or all applications. Most respondents feel that it should be focused on all applications as shown in Table 6.8.

Table 6.8: Penalties for Work Started before Approval
Service % responding Yes
Additional fee if work started after BW submission but before approval – all applications 92%
Additional fee if work started after BW submissions but before approval – high-risk buildings only 33%

6.5.13 When asked about the best way to apply this penalty, suggestions included:

  • Make the fee payable prior to building warrant being granted.
  • Notify the customer and effectively make the application invalid until the additional fee is paid.
  • Make the fee payable at the completion acceptance stage if not earlier.
  • Strengthening the enforcement penalties to prevent work progressing further rather than an additional fee.

6.6 Funding Mechanism for Hub

6.6.1 The survey sought opinion on the funding mechanism for the proposed Building Standards Hub. Respondents were asked to rate a series of options for delivering funds to the Hub on a scale of 1 (most preferred) to 3 (lest preferred). Table 6.9. shows the responses received.

6.6.2 The Table shows that a majority of authorities preferred the funding mechanism for the Hub to take funds directly from the grant settlement (i.e. top slicing). The average score for this approach was 1.75 which is slightly preferred to the alternative of each building standards department receiving an invoice from the Hub.

Table 6.9: Preferences for Funding Mechanism for Building Standards Hub
No. of Authorities selecting:
1 – Most Preferred 2 3 – Least Preferred Average Score
Take funds directly from the grant settlement before authorities receive the grant (e.g. ‘top slice’) 7 1 4 1.75
Invoice from Hub to individual building standards departments 3 6 3 2.0
Other 1 2 5 2.5

Note: The respondent selecting ‘other’ as the most preferred mechanism was referring to a ‘pay as you go’ system.



Back to top