The 2011/12 Parking Service Team Plan (Stuff the motorist)

meters not in use either

Mr Mustard thought you might like to see the Team Plan for the Parking "Service" for 2011/12 which came to an end last week. He will send off for the next one.

Barnet Council Parking Service Team Plan 2011-12

Let us start with why parking is controlled. This what the council website says.

We introduce various parking management measures such as parking places and waiting restrictions in order to:

 

• ease congestion caused by inconsiderate parking one sees very little of that nowadays.
• help with road safety a laudable aim
• assist disabled users of vehicles Barnet do not charge blue badge holders for parking
• provide parking for specific users (such as residents, businesses, or blue badge holders) this doesn't quite happen. CPZ residents are provided with a permit, not with a parking space. Often there aren't any where you need them.
• increase the turnover of parking to help visitors, clients of businesses, and shoppers to park this has been achieved. Thousands of town centre visitors have been moved on to other locations.

• provide facilities for loading and unloading. stay out of loading bays.

So if we now look at the plan for last year, in particular page 2 "Setting the Scene" the plan says "to reach the required income levels". Oh dear, "ambitious targets have been set". If there was any doubt that the council have set out to empty the wallets of motorists in Barnet this plan dispels it. 

Mr Mustard thinks it was Brian Coleman who used to complain about vandals damaging the machines. Well up to 20% could have been out of action because the target for working machines was only 80% as it shows on page 3. How can that meet the corporate priority of "better service". 100% would be better service. Academic now, of course, but an interesting insight into the way the council tell us one thing and do another.

On page 4 there was a plan to repair signs and lines, not in order to comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 i.e. to uphold the law of the land, but because it would generate additional income and look the project was closed down because it was unproductive i.e. the council thought they were wasting money correcting deficiencies. The state of the lines that have will be handed over to NSL are worse than they should be.

Look in the second last column. What does it mean to Barnet Council if lines or signs are faulty. It means they can't issue a PCN i.e. a loss of income. 

At the bottom of the page. An issue rate of 2 Penalty Charges Notices per hour ( per traffic warden ). No wonder they need scooters. That looks awfully like a target which central government frowns upon.

The percentages missing on page 5 are only 1% of tickets to be cancelled due to traffic warden error and 48% of us are expected to roll over and pay at a discount. Sod that for a game of soldiers. Appeal everything.

On page 6 we can see how much thought was put into the impact of Brian Coleman's massive increases in fees and charges. "No modelling was done".

"Mitigating action is to be taken as necessary." The council have a one track mind. If income falls action will have to be taken to get it back up to target.

The 2 tickets per CEO per hour was not an error in the document. Here it is repeated on page 8.

Mr Mustard would laugh if this was not so sad. On page 9 "Ensure that our town centres are vibrant places where businesses can thrive" Our town centres are turning into ghost towns where empty shops are starting to thrive and car parks are half empty most of the time.

When will the council wake up and reverse the destructive course on which it is steaming full speed ahead?

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Procurement Action Plan ; PAP for short. ( part 1 )

Following the statement by the Chief Financial Officer in his weekly message of 10 June that he had seen the Audit Report and would tell us the following week what the rectification Plan was,

and after the bloodbath that was the Audit Committee meeting of 16 June when non-stick Nick Walkley promised action,

Mr Mustard waited with bated breath to see this masterpiece, this highly original work of art, unveiled. 

A week is a long time in politics and so it proved to be for this Plan as :-

version 0.1 was created by C J Cooper on 7/6/11 ( I presume that C J Cooper is Craig Cooper the well overpaid Director of/for Commercial Services £132,480 p.a. )

version 0.3 was revised by C J Cooper on 9/6/11 

version 0.4 was revised by A Traversty himself on 13/6/11, and finally

version 1.0 was produced on 14/6/11.

Mr Mustard doesn't know what happened to version 0.2 either. He hasn't quite got over there being 4 versions of a Plan that is mostly just a rehash of the Contract Procedure Rules.

Its long and boring and Mr Mustard is underwhelmed to find that this long awaited Plan is just a tired old reproduction and not an original work of art at all. There might have been a little light touching up here and there but it is not going to have people queueing up to buy tickets.

Let me start with the Objectives - i.e. what LBB are trying to achieve, which have been called "Issues" - don't you find dear reader that Issues is one of those words that stands in for something else. It is a classic piece of Barnet OneSpeak. In Barnet PlainSpeak it is "balls-ups"

Then there is a list of risks which unusually are just what they say they are.

It's late so this blog post will arrive in at least 2 parts. If you can take the excitement there will be a later post about "Overarching actions".

So this is just the starter from the Plan. The main course will arrive tomorrow. You will probably still be hungry afterwards as it is very light fare.

Objective	Mr Mustard says
Procurement Controls and Monitoring Regime Objectives	Since when did the word Purchasing stop being used.
Issue	Problem
An effective procurement function is pivotal in the successful delivery of the One Barnet Programme.	We won't mention non OneBarnet purchasing as no-one gives a fig about it.
A detailed vendor review and savings opportunity assessment was undertaken this highlighted areas for improvement in how the Council commissions & procures goods & services	Once the bloggers had put the fox in the henhouse we were forced to do some work.
Internal Audit have identified a number of necessary control and monitoring issues across LBB	Internal Audit had their easiest Audit ever. Procurement were caught with their pants down.
Risk
The council could be exposed to unnecessary risk, financial loss and likelihood of challenge arising from non compliant tendering activity.	At some point we are going to take a kicking for not tendering properly.
There is a risk that the Council may not receive the service required or will be unable to recover damages for works not carried out or for breach in the event of the dispute if terms are not formally agreed and clearly defined contracts are not in place	As we don't know what service we have purchased we will not of course receive it. We are up the creek without a paddle.
There is a risk that failures to comply with CPR may not be identified, that the Council may not be able to work collaboratively with other local authorities on procurement initiatives and ineffective budget planning.	There isn't a rush of local authorities heading Barnet's way to share in their lack of success.
The lack of comprehensive contract specification increases the risk of ineffective contract management as responsible officers may not be aware of all relevant monitoring requirements e.g. licences.	What, you mean that security guards have to have SIA licences, since when ? What does SIA stand for anyway ?
In the absence of an effective monitoring and analysis process there is a risk of non compliance with the Council's procurement policies which may then prevent the Council from achieving value for money.	Non compliance has been the norm for some years; since before bloggers existed.
The lack of contract monitoring arrangements generally increases the risk that failures in service delivery may not be identified, that service delivery may not be optimised and failures in regulatory compliance which may expose the council to financial and reputational risk may not be identified	Barnet Council's reputation is in tatters and only abandoning OneBarnet and becoming boring and sensible will save them now.

Sorry, more of this rubbish tomorrow

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard