Here is the text an an email sent this morning Richard Cornelius the "leader" of the council and copied to every councillor.
Dear Leader
Do you want to be the
leader of an administration that makes old ladies cry? You
are.
Do you want to be the
leader of an administration that bleeds money out of motorists on bank
holidays? You are.
Do you want to be the
leader of an administration that makes the lives of the disabled harder than
they need to be? You are.
Do you want to be the
leader of an administration that penalises people who give to charity? You are.
I have managed to get your
officers to see sense, cancel the parking ticket and refund the money to the
lady who was collecting a death certificate from the hospice at the same time
as her brother was also a resident there. The blog link is at the end.
I have just taken up the
cudgels on behalf of a motorist who received a parking ticket opposite Angelo's
(in your ward) at 4.04pm on Bank Holiday Monday. There is absolutely no need
for bank holiday enforcement to be anything other than the same as for Sundays.
Why don't you take a look at the parking income and expense of a typical Bank
Holiday and then you will doubtless see that the light isn't worth the candle.
Think of the positive publicity you will get from scrapping penalty charges on
a Bank Holiday (except on double yellows and for dangerous and obstructive
parking). The strange thing is that the council think it OK to let anybody park
for free outside my house in a CPZ in a resident or shared pay-by-phone /
residents bay, the very spaces which are under pressure because most residents
are at home on a Bank Holiday, but some poor sap parking outside a church in
N20 gets hit with a parking ticket when there would be very few people on the
road (except traffic wardens on scooters having a ball).
I recently read at PATAS
(Parking & Traffic Appeals Service) of a case involving a resident who has
cerebral palsy and needs a motorised wheelchair to get about. Was any mercy
shown to him by your administration? No, none at all. The blog link is at the
end.
This week I read of
another case at PATAS concerning a man dropping off goods to be sold at a
charity shop. Here is a copy of the decision by the adjudicator (with the name
of the motorist removed)
Mr has appeared in person.
Mr A's evidence is that he was parked to
make a delivery to the Barnados shop to which he is a regular donor and a
letter from Barnados is submitted in evidence confirming a donation on 7 April
2012. I have noted that there was no observation period by the CEO (see
footnote). Mr A says that he would have been in the shop for no more than a
minute.
I am satisfied from his evidence that he
was properly parked for unloading purposes and I therefore find that the
alleged contravention did not occur.
I am also not satisfied that the PCN was
correctly issued. There is no photographic evidence and the Council's evidence
is contradictory. The case summary says that the PCN was affixed to the
windscreen of the vehicle while the CEO's notes state that it was handed to the
driver. I accept Mr A's evidence that he was not handed a PCN and that there
was no PCN attached to the car when he came out of the shop.
Thus you are the leader of
an administration that thinks it is OK to try and get an extra donation from a
resident of £60 when he is clearly already doing his bit. Will he be rushing to
Barnados to donate in the future?
Questions that come into
my mind are:
1. why do traffic wardens
issue parking tickets instantly? it wouldn't be to meet the secret ticket
targets would it?
2. why was no notice taken
of a letter from a Charity established in 1867? The sort of organisation
unlikely to spend their time fabricating stories.
3. why did no-one at NSL
show any common-sense?
4. why did no-one at
Barnet Council show any common-sense?
5. why do residents have
to go through 5 months of stress and uncertainty? The parking ticket was issued
on 7 April and should have been cancelled as soon as the letter from Barnados
arrived.
6. why do traffic wardens
cheat and lie?
7. are NSL properly
supervised? (I will answer that one for you. No, they are not)
If you want to ask an
officer for the history of this parking ticket you will need the number which
is AG57534977.
Now let us think about One
Barnet.
Parking enforcement is
contracted out to NSL but their performance reflects on the council. There is a
retained thin client of 5 officers. The question is whether this contract is
working.
Well judging by the state
of the Special Parking Account at the end of quarter one it clearly isn't as it
is £1,200,000 down on budget (which actually doesn't matter in my view and
nothing should be done about it other than getting NSL to do their job properly
or sacking them if they are incapable).
If it is partly the case
that officers haven't been doing their jobs properly, maybe the transfer of
information was badly handled, then officers will be avoiding putting
themselves into the spotlight by suggesting termination of the Contract.
Given the state of the
contract you ought to put internal audit in there as soon as possible.
By the errors of judgment
that are being made in the appeals process the contract clearly isn't working
as the council appears to be ruthless and uncaring, against the disabled, anti
big society and money-grabbing.
Parking is an easy service
to outsource as there are clear rules and yet it has gone wrong despite outsourcing
to a supposedly professional outfit.
Now multiply this up from
£3m a year to £275m or £750m (DRS & NSCSO) and think:
Will a private company
actually do a proper or better job? I don't think it is an automatic
assumption, your own parking department's results last year at PATAS were much
better than you are getting now.
Can you properly supervise
a contractor with a thin client structure? Not if the example of parking is to
be believed. The task of deciding upon informal parking ticket representations
in cases of mitigation will now be considered by the council and not by NSL who
are contracted to deal with them.
Will extra income be
generated and will costs be reduced? Judging by the shortage on the Special
Parking Account in one quarter of £1.2m which is equivalent to 2 years worth of
the aspirational savings that NSL were going to bring I, if I were you, would
be a very worried man indeed.
You are a capable small
businessman and I would expect and hope that you have already requested a
detailed analysis of what has gone right with NSL and what has gone wrong and
look at how the handover was handled and then think again about the monster One
Barnet contracts. The downside of a mere 1% drop in council tax recovery would
negate £2,000,000 of cost savings.
Makes you think, doesn't
it?
Yours frugally
Mr Mustard
http://lbbspending.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/councillors-do-have-hearts.html
http://lbbspending.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/barnet-council-putting-community-last.html
Footnote: The Contract with
NSL allows them to issue a parking ticket in the time that it takes to do so in
pay-by-phone bays, residents and dual use bays.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I now moderate comments in the light of the Delfi case. Due to the current high incidence of spam I have had to turn word verification on.