9 November 2012

Alison Moore is revving up

Not a picture of Alison Moore
When Mr Mustard started this blogging lark he found the Labour group leader a bit too quiet for his liking. She does have a difficult job as whatever she does the Labour side will be outvoted as they are outnumbered and any opposition leader must tire of working their socks off to almost no effect. 

It seems though that she is into her second wind and is turning into a fire breathing dragon of the nicest kind which is a style that is much more to Mr Mustard's liking. Last night she socked it to Richard Cornelius at the Barnet Question Time event with well targeted arrows that went straight to the heart of the matter and here is a fire-breathing email which has landed in Mr Mustard's inbox yesterday:

Don’t worry all’s fine with the One Barnet Programme...apparently. But we know it's not, so now we need your help to take action.

The problem with One Barnet is:

• No transparency: The process has been mired in secrecy.

• No scrutiny: Democratic scrutiny of the proposals by elected councillors and the public has been thwarted and curtailed.

• No consultation: There has been no formal consultation with local residents about the 'One Barnet' programme.

• No robust business case: The business case has not been made.

• No flexibility: The contracts for these services will be fixed for 10 years.

• No control: The budgets for these services will be fixed for 10 years.

• Risk of failure: If it all goes wrong it will cost you, the council tax payer, more to put things right.

• Barnet's poor procurement record: Things tend to go wrong when there are flaws in the procurement process.

• Less democratic accountability: local residents and elected representatives - including councillors and MPs - will not be able to get answers when things go wrong due to 'commercial sensitivity'.

• No control of contract / service monitoring: The successful bidders for these two huge contracts will 'self monitor' under 'One Barnet'

• The savings are modest when you consider the risks: £1billion is being put at risk to save £6.7million a year.

This week, the Conservative councillors running Barnet council did not agree with the vote of no confidence over Richard Cornelius’s Leadership of the project. They would not even vote for an amendment asking for a pause in the programme to address the issues above.

We know that there is cross-party concern about One Barnet, but Conservative councillors who are privately expressing concerns about 'One Barnet' still didn’t vote for the amendment to allow scrutiny of the proposals in an open and transparent way.

So we now need you to take action now to help support the campaign.

Take Action





Promote the Campaign


Get involved



§ Come along to the Cabinet meeting on 6 December to watch or ask a question.

Watch this fantastic video about One Barnet!

Thank you for your support.

Best wishes,

Cllr Alison Moore
http://betterbarnet.nationbuilder.com/

Campaign for a Better Barnet · Barnet, Greater London, London, United Kingdon

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

(Mr Mustard is not a member of the Labour Party, he just happens to agree with what they are saying about the bonkers One Barnet programme)

Happy Christmas to Dean Cohen

Yesterday Cllr Dean Cohen visited High Barnet in the latest round of his visits to High Streets to be given a good ear bashing about the parking policies and prices which he didn't install but this being a cabinet decision, and he has been elevated to the Cabinet, he has to defend. He has the problem that he can only give on parking if something else gets cut in the EPR* directorate which would make life hard even for the most experienced Cabinet member and Dean is the new boy and probably feeling pretty sick of traders by now. Poor boy, there is so much more earbashing to come.

Mr Mustard will report what he can in due course, anything that isn't embargoed, Mr Mustard is a High Barnet businessman of 25 years standing after all, but for now will just share with you the latest shop poster which will have greeted Dean's eyes


It is hard to imagine any other area in which people would demand an easier opportunity to pay their fees and taxes. 

If a charge is fair, the populace want to pay it. The council are resisting making it easier for people to pay. Bonkers.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

* EPR = Environment, Planning, Regeneration

7 November 2012

Hopscotch is hopping mad

How to avoid parking charges and tickets


So there we have it, Cllr Dean Cohen who is now the poor sap in charge of the mess that parking has become in the borough, a poisoned chalice if ever there was one, has announced his experimental new charges for North Finchley which are 35% down on what they used to be but still excessive and still an above inflation increase on what has gone before. The detail will be part of a future blog but these changes, although a small step towards traders, still largely leave them with the same difficulties, especially the pay-by-phone system. It is as if the council want to do the minimum that they can instead of being bold and radical (perhaps they just don't have the vision for it?)

Here is the exchange of a local trader, Mr Michael Kentish of Hopscotch Sweets, a shop that is well worth a visit (Mr Mustard is partial to a liquorice allsort now and then, and chocolate covered nuts and raisins, and...stop there and write your blog Mr Mustard) with one of the local ward councillors, David Longstaff who also happens to be the Cabinet Member for Safety and Resident Engagement. Is he engaging? let's see.


Sent: 03 November 2012 18:36
To: Cohen, Dean Cllr Conservative;
Cornelius, Cllr Richard Conservative;
Longstaff, Cllr David Conservative;
Prentice, Cllr Wendy Conservative;
Perry, Cllr Bridget Conservative (these last two ladies never reply substantively to anything from Mr Mustard and leave david to do all the replying and just nod in agreement)

Cc: theresa@theresavilliers.co.uk; eric@ericpickles.com; mayor@london.gov.uk;

Subject: Barnet Council benefitting at the High Street's expense


Councillors,

I am angry, very angry. I cannot remember Barnet High Street as desolate as it is this Saturday afternoon.

It has been a lovely sunny autumn day, there was the annual Barnet Church Fair over the road and an outdoor event at Barnet College. It’s also the first Saturday after payday. Few have come. Trading has been appalling, even compared to a wet Sunday morning (but then parking is free on Sundays).

I have just been to the town car park in Moxon St. It is 50% empty!!!

32 vacant spaces at 2:45 to be exact. Photos are attached. You used to have to queue to get a place after 9am.

We are approaching the Christmas trading period. I have spoken with many traders – if the parking situation is not improved they will not survive. Yes, the recession and internet has had some impact and that is why the high streets need extra stimulus and not be plundered to raise extra tax.

Shops have many fixed costs that amount to a considerable amount. It is only after these costs are met that they turn a profit. The margin on goods bought wholesale is small and turnover is taxed for VAT at 20%. It is the Christmas period that can be make or break for a shop – the day that overheads are finally paid off is known as Black Friday (22nd Nov).

You have done nothing to alleviate the problem. Indeed, it is your policies and lack of action that has led to this situation. IT IS YOUR DUTY as elected councillors representing the local community to sit up and listen and take immediate action.

We urgently need a change in the parking arrangements:

· Make the first half hour free.
· Bring back Free After Three
· Increase short term Town Centre parking places with a reduction in fees to create churn. This will stimulate both trade and parking account overall revenue. Designate Moxon St and Stapylton Road as short stay only.

· Restore the pay and display machines in the car parks. We understand that all those side-street meters were expensive to maintain. But the cost to keep the meters in High Barnet’s THREE car parks would be way offset by the increase in prosperity that it would give the town. An even better solution would be to install smart meters that accept cash, cards and payment cards.

The root cause of the failure of the high street is that people are not coming to it. This is because they cannot park easily and cheaply due to the difficult and obscure Pay By Phone payment method and the council’s dependency on parking revenue. According to the latest figures, this income is now drastically failing to meet targets. I saw a recent comment in the press in response to Mr Cohen’s remarks that the recession and the internet were the reason why the high streets were failing. I think it sums up how both traders and our customers feel:

Dean Cohen’s remarks are simply insulting, shocking and fundamentally frightening.

The heart of this problem is that Barnet council has become dependent on what is effectively a parking tax. And like a drug addict or alcoholic they are in denial, unable to grasp the reality of what they have done and continue to do.

THEY'VE GOT TO KICK THIS ILLEGAL TAX HABIT AND GROW UP!

Caring for the people AND businesses within the borough is the essential purpose of the civic body that is Barnet Council.

This means engaging with traders – NOT ONE councillor has visited businesses in my high street to ask how we are doing and what we would like to see done to improve trading conditions, be it parking or street cleaning. Cohen’s Consultation Survey was ridiculous in that of all the questions it asked there was only one tiny comment box to say what actually mattered. The rest of the questions were regarding how traders used their vehicles and how business employees parked when going to work. It looked like the council is seeking to gather more information to raise further taxes on us!

The council needs to pay heed to Eric Pickles, Mary Portas, The Federation of Small Businesses and all the other reports on the High Streets and changes in the retail environment.

At a very minimum they need to immediately restore parking arrangements to how they were prior to November 2011.

They need to SUPPORT businesses within the borough, not ASSET STRIP them!

They need to go further than November 2011 and provide some town centre parking incentives. This is simply obvious to all, except to a collection of addicts living in denial.

Pay and display machines need to be URGENTLY RESTORED and there should a period of free parking and lots more low priced short term parking - any shop keeper will tell you churn equals income. And perhaps a small bit of humility and apology leading to some recompense to the businesses that remain, having struggled to stay afloat.

Please act quickly and not force traders into fighting the council for survival. Fight they will – they have large windows in which to run another poster campaign!

Yours sincerely,

Michael Kentish
Hon. Treasurer
Barnet Business & Traders Association
88 High Street, Barnet, Herts, EN5 5SN


5 November 2012 - 08:11

Dear Michael Kentish,

I don’t know if you are aware, but Cllr. Cohen and I will be meeting Gail Laser (Chairman of Barnet Traders and Businesses) this week.

I am aware of what is happening in the High Streets and I do talk to many traders, although I don’t go door to door down the High Street. I sat next to you at the last ‘Barnet Traders and Businesses’ meeting. I was at the previous one, when Café Pacino was supposedly hosting the meeting but shut-up shop and went home before 5.30pm. The first Barnet Traders meeting I attended in 2010 had four traders present.

I have reported back to Cllr. Cohen and The Leader what is being discussed.

I agree with you regarding the parking and whilst it is an incredibly important issue, which Cllr. Cohen is working to change, the parking is not the sole issue. For many months the Spires car park has been much cheaper, takes cash and still has plenty of space available during the week (although it recently put up its parking rates).

It’s not just the parking. You may have seen recently that Comet has severe financial issues and their shops have free parking. Allied Carpets closed 142 shops but had plenty of parking, JJB Sports is another that called in the receivers and they have free parking at a large number of sites.

On our High Street:

‘Game’, a national chain, closed down many branches in the UK because of internet competition, which is a shame as they pulled in younger shoppers. Music shops went the same way, but it’s a great that Waterstones is still their (sic). Internet shopping is growing at 10% per year.
‘Past Times’, a national chain, closed down.
‘La Senza’, a national chain, closed more than 50% of its shops.
‘Clinton Cards’, national chain, went into administration
The shop that has fish which nibble your feet has shut.
WH Smiths shut the branch on the High Street.

Other shops with difficulties not on our High Street include Blacks Leisure, Barratts, D2 Jeans, Jane Norman, Habitat, Thorntons, TJ Hughes, Focus DIY, HMV, Carpetright, Ellie Louise, Peacocks and Aquascutum.

Over ‘Oceans’ there is a bush growing out of the brickwork. Café Pacino have, for whatever reason, not been opening half of their front shutters recently, which isn’t the best advert for themselves or the High Street.

Barnet Market, which pulls in many shoppers, was run into the ground over the last few years by the previous owner. The current owners of the market have, following cosultation (sic) with residents and the council changed their plans. A new application is expected any day now and the council are fully aware of the importance and significance of the Market and its position as an attraction for shoppers.

Regards,
Cllr. David Longstaff


Now if that email had been sent to Mr Mustard he would have sent a rocket back because it blames everyone else and accepts no responsibility. Mr Mustard has met Michael Kentish a few times and he is incredibly intelligent and he had started a good local business until the council messed up the parking. He is entitled to be mad and tell the local council representative what he thinks. He did.



David,

I rather think that you response sums up what is really going wrong here. The fact that the country is facing severe economic challenges is not an excuse to throw the towel in and sit on your hands. Indeed, it should provide greater impetus for you to do more for the High St.

Surely as a local ward councillor you should be going door to door down the High St to introduce yourself, to fact find and generate interest, and not whinge about the lack of commitment by some traders! Traders are already swimming against a tide of bureaucratic and financial obstacles and do not need blame from the people who should be helping them.

Have YOU spoken to Cafe Pacino and helped in any way to resolve their problems?

Barnet Council’s parking policies have been disastrous and they have actively worked against the success of the High St. To be blunt, a doctor does not prescribe poison to his patient!

You should be seeking ways to provide stimulus to the commercial success of the high streets, not tax them out of existence.

Yes, we all know the retailers that you cite – many of them have simply contracted and are still trading in more viable high streets. Comet, Allied and JJB were victims of consolidation by their rivals – they couldn’t keep up with the merger of Curries and Dixons. Their rivals still enjoy trading in out of town retail parks as well as the internet.

What Barnet’s parking policy has done is increase the risk score in PMA Service’s PROMIS rankings. PMA is a market analysis service used by most large retailers.

Introducing high fees, making it difficult to pay by removing meters, favouring long stay parking and creating a pernicious enforcement culture has led to the analytical conclusion that it is too risky to do business in Barnet. Got to cut stores? Cut the Barnet ones. Open new stores? Barnet is way, way down the ranking list now.

Last Saturday it was heaving in London Colney, Brent Cross and Enfield. Most consumers in our locality still have jobs, have the lowest mortgages in living memory and actually have good disposable incomes. It is quite possible to do all your Christmas and food shopping in High Barnet, with the convenience of not having to spend time queueing in heavy traffic getting to other destinations. The problem is that people cannot think beyond the expense, inconvenience and frustrating experience of the parking arrangements. They have lost interest and cannot be bothered with a high street which, although struggling, still has most of what anyone needs.

Please: stop bashing the traders, stop living in denial, sort out parking, shout about the quality and variety of the remaining shops we have, and work to encourage a major clothing retailer or two. And then High Barnet will be back on track to be a cracking high street with history and charm.

Regards,
Michael Kentish
Hon. Treasurer
Barnet Business & Traders Association



In Mr Mustard's experience of corresponding with David Longstaff it doesn't ever seem to lead anywhere meaty; David simply looks for the easy answer. Mr Mustard went to a lot of trouble to write the Longstaff Letters and after sending a long and carefully considered email what did he hear from David Longstaff? nothing at all.

So it is the same here. Councillors need to take a long hard look in the mirror and ask themselves: "What can we do to help the High Street". The Special parking Account does not need to make over £6 million a year. It only needs to make £1, yes a £1, that is all.

If you are passing Barnet Church, pop into Hopscotch, buy 100g of lovely sweets (and they have now diversified into cake decorations) and introduce yourself to Michael, he is an affable fellow when you are not ruining his business.
irresistible
Any guesses as to what sweet Cabinet Members eat? 

Humbugs.

Update: To avoid any accusations of chauvinism Mr Mustard is now adding (with the approval of the lady concerned) this note that the Hopscotch business is very much a joint venture with the redoubtable Mrs Alice Kentish who has always been in the shop whenever Mr Mustard has been in and who has acquiesced in Mr Mustard wandering down the road with her husband to the Mitre (well worth several visits) for the right amount of beer.

Now what Michael didn't mention in his email to Longstaff was that a councillor did go into the shop in May 2012 but not to commiserate about parking difficulties. No, it was the very architect of the bonkers parking system himself, one Brian Coleman AM, who popped in to remonstrate with the local shopkeepers for having the temerity to put up posters about Brian having killed the High Street. Luckily for Brian he found himself talking to Alice whose previous work experience (occupational therapist in psychiatry) had prepared her perfectly for such an encounter, the poster remained and Brian left to go off and make a hairdresser cry.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

6 November 2012

Kiss me Quick - then Squeeze me slow

Mr Mustard talks to traffic wardens when he sees them out and about. Some run a mile and others shake his hand. He remarked on the new woolly hat that one of them was wearing for his winter duties and then, whilst thinking about the changes to parking charges over the 25 years during which Mr Mustard has had his office in Barnet, and his home for 19, he realised that Barnet Council have been slowly squeezing the life out of high streets and so a summer uniform hat sprang to his mind.

Do take a photo if you see a traffic warden wearing one next summer.

It is the role of a council to support its High Streets. The council manage many of the factors which dictate the success or failure of high streets chief among which is parking (both cost and method of payment). A shopkeeper could have fabulous bargains and an immaculately presented shop but if no-one is walking along the pavement then they are not going to step inside. The internet has taken some of the trade but not the cup of tea trade and for that people need to be easily able to park at reasonable rates (or even for nothing). 

Whilst he was searching for something else (on crossovers it was, he is still looking for that!) Mr Mustard came across the figures for the Special Parking Account for the year ended 31 March 2002. Great he thought, what a wonderful comparison that will make with 2012. Now Mr Mustard always tries to be objective, in which case any comparison has to take account of inflation and population growth. On to the Office for National Statistics he went and found indices of 174.5 from 2002 and 240.8 from 2012. That gives an inflation factor in the decade of 1.38. Mr Mustard took an educated guess at population growth and went for 10% although it was probably a point or two lower than that. Add .1 to 1.38 and you should have increased income of 48% if the council have kept a level playing field (one they haven't sold off of course). Here are the figures.

Parking income


Above




inflation

Actual Adjusted Actual Increase
Item March 02 March 02 March 12 %
Parking tickets 2,584,507 3,825,070 7,090,785 85%





Permits 211,290 312,709 1,228,592 293%





Paid for parking 1,021,678 1,512,083 3,793,484 151%





Costs 2,020,075 2,989,711 6,050,320 102%





Surplus 1,797,400 2,660,152 6,062,541 128%





Bus Lanes 0 estimated 1,200,000

Just to make sure you follow the numbers. If Barnet Council had been even-handed they would "only" collect £3.8 million this year from penalty charge notices (parking tickets to you and me). Instead they will rake in £7 million. This is what is squeezing the life out of the High Street. The council have upped the ticket issue rate, probably by employing more traffic wardens (to use their old familiar name) who are also more eager to dish out tickets due to the pressure they are placed under (Mr Mustard does not blame the wardens although he would rather they didn't cheat). Barnet Council are taking an extra £3.2 million out of the pockets of motorists which could go into the tills of local traders and make our High Streets more vibrant. 

The solution is to decrease the number of traffic wardens from the current 50 or so (does North Finchley really need 5 who seem to station themselves outside Cafe Buzz? - and Mr Mustard is often inside watching!) and reduce their number pro-rata down to 27 and then the same level of parking ticket income would be achieved.

Now it is when we get to permits that the real steal has occurred and it was one of the reasons why Mr Mustard started blogging. Prices have almost been trebled in real terms. This is a consequence of Mr Mustard's annual permit increasing steadily in price from £20 to £40 to £100 and also due to the cost of business permits being hiked. We are being right royally ripped off. 

The solution is easy. Go back to £40 for the first permit. There is no administrative justification for it to cost more. The CPZ was sold to us in about 1998 on the basis that it would only cover its costs. Poppycock. (Mr Mustard remembers an A4 card covered glossy brochure with a fold-out map being produced for the Chipping Barnet zone. If you are a hoarder please hunt it out as Mr Mustard would like to have a copy for proof of the basis of the introduction of the CPZ.)

Paid for parking has seen another increase of 151% above inflation. I do hope that Cllr Dean Cohen is not going to have another little tinker with pricing like Cllr Richard Cornelius did before him. It is not enough, it is not equitable and Mr Mustard is sending his findings to Uncle Eric (really The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP and not Mr Mustard's real uncle). To get back to parity the hourly rate should be 80p. Then once you have done that Mr Mustard will ask you what you have done Dean to actually help the High St because at 80p an hour the answer will be nothing, you will neither have helped nor hindered. Being a Cabinet member is going to get very pressurised for you.

Costs have doubled above the rate of inflation. They have increased faster than the parking tickets can be issued which simply shows that as the number of tickets increases the willingness to pay them diminishes. The administrative cost of issuing permits are unrelated to permit face values so the costs must all be to do with parking tickets. If the number of parking tickets was decreased then the number of back office staff could also be decreased; they might even have time to read your letters, the ones where you advance perfectly valid reasons that any compassionate person would accept.

As to the surplus which in any other situation would be called profit that has more than doubled, if you want any proof then it is here, from the surplus that you can see, that over the last decade the motorist has simply been used as a cash cow. Profit has gone from less than £3 million to over £6 million.

Bus lane income didn't exist in 2002 but it has been shown as part of the cost relates to that new revenue stream. Over a £1 million from one little stretch of road. Just stay out of the bus lane and stay out of trouble.

Vexation

Now here, whilst Mr Mustard is writing, is a funny thing.

On 1 October he asked for a breakdown of the income streams and costs of the Special Parking Account (SPA). His request was rejected on 16 October 20102 as being vexatious. Mr Mustard now has a score (that's 20 to you) of emails which say that his last 20 questions are vexatious.

By coincidence another person asked on 1 October for details of the Special Parking Account, and other information.

On 29 October they received their reply about the SPA without any mention of their request being vexatious.

Mr Mustard is starting to think that it is him who is considered as vexatious and not the question as otherwise why was his question refused and the other one answered. Not because he is a blogger surely, as that would be contrary to the FOI Act.

Conclusion

The conclusion that Mr Mustard draws is that we don't need income from car parking. If all pay by phone bays (except car parks where it makes sense) were converted into 30, 60, 120 and 240 minutes free bays there would be no need to install parking meters and motorists would be easily able to come and go from town centres and they would thrive. As the majority of the income comes from parking contraventions they would continue as before and more people in town centres = more scope for tickets to be issued.

So forget the £2 per hour, make all on-street parking free and then only those guilty of an offence will have to pay and shoppers will return in their hordes to the High St.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard


5 November 2012

Help the Homeless - a PCN should do it!

http://michaelgray.blogspot.co.uk

Roger at the Barnet Eye regularly helps at a homeless shelter and Mr Mustard did volunteer for a few years at Crisis at Christmas shelters and both know that being homeless is a terrible thing which can cause your whole life to spiral downwards.

There are self evidently some heartless baskets at NSL and/or Barnet Council who don't share that view, or if they do, they don't act as if they do.

In order for a case to reach PATAS it has to go through a formal appeal process. The decision on the formal stage has to be made by someone at Barnet Council. If informal representations were made in the first stage then someone at NSL Ltd will have decided upon them. The evidence pack to go to PATAS would have been put together by NSL.

It seems that the attitude for all parking tickets is that they have been issued so that is money due to the council and the PCN must be paid. There is no thought of clemency or that the motorist might actually be correct in what they say.

Now read this short but upsetting conclusion by a PATAS adjudicator ( PATAS is the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service who hear the final third stage appeals)

Miss X appeared before me in person.

She explained that she suffered a series of problems this summer, resulting in her being rendered homeless on 15 June 2012. Temporary accommodation was provided for her by the council in Woodhouse Road. She has spent two days sleeping in her car with her two-year-old daughter before she moved into this accommodation. She has consistently maintained that she spoke to a council employee - Elizabeth - and specifically asked about parking in Woodhouse Road, and was assured that she could park temporarily at that location.

The council has simply stated they are unable to verify this.

I accept Miss X's account and in the circumstances find that she was given an assurance which she was entitled to rely by a council official. In the circumstances, the council may not enforce the penalty and the appeal is allowed.

The council, and/or their agent NSL, are so mercenary that they have lost all semblance of humanity. Full marks are due to the PATAS adjudicator, in this case a Mr Alastair McFarlane, who has not become jaundiced by seeing hundreds and probably thousands of parking ticket appeals and who has evidently not lost his human side.

Barnet Council though are content to kick someone when they are down even though they could have checked the point about temporary accommodation if they could have been bothered (although this may also illustrate the problem of communicating with out-sourced colleagues when they aren't your real colleagues, they are in a processing centre in Croydon and don't know any Barnet Council employees outside of the 5 in the parking team. This is one of the huge drawbacks of the One Barnet approach which leads to jobs exported out of the borough and a lack of coherence). What we need is proper leadership and a move away from the idea that the expected income from the Special Parking Account should be achieved at the cost of losing ones moral compass.

Barnet Council are forgetting why they exist. 

They exist to serve the people of Barnet. 

They do not exist in order to make people's lives a misery with parking tickets, all 160,000 of them a year.

The parking team should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for putting a lady, who was having a housing crisis, through a simultaneous parking ticket crisis.

What sort of employee thinks it is OK to let a lady with a 2 year old sleep in a car and doesn't make sure she gets some help from the correct department?

This is a disgusting episode in the history of Barnet Council.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

2 November 2012

Brian Coleman is correct about One Barnet!

This is not the second Friday joke of the day. The bloggers have agreed that Brian's recent letter in the Barnet Press about One Barnet contained a lot of truth and therefore agreed the following joint communiqué which has been sent to the conservative group and copied for their information to labour and liberal democrat councillors.

Conservative politicians have a weekend of thinking ahead of them (one hopes)  and hopefully someone is coming forward to lead a new team who will scrap One Barnet and look at providing decent services to all without needing an army of consultants and town hall tax dodgers to do so.

Bring on "Boring Council" as that is what Mr Mustard would like to see. A council so finely tuned, so highly efficient, without waste and without people doing jobs that we don't need (goodbye to the Tooting Twister? he must be in a right spin at the moment) at ridiculous rates of pay / daily rate, that he can retire.

http://thinkbright.co.uk/

Dear Councillor

We wrote to you recently about the impending vote on the motion of no confidence in Leader Richard Cornelius.

We observed that there was a rising tide of concern in your ranks about the One Barnet programme of outsourcing, and we asked you to act to halt the negotiations for the privatisation of £1 billion worth of our council services.

Now your former colleague Brian Coleman, who has been a senior member of the Cabinet and exerted considerable influence within the party, has chosen to speak out against One Barnet in the strongest terms, calling for its immediate rejection.

In his statement in the Barnet Press, Councillor Coleman refers to the proposed outsourcing as ‘an officer-driven juggernaut’ backed up by a ‘revolving door of endless consultants’ with a ‘promise of savings’. By implication, Cllr Coleman does not believe that One Barnet will deliver those savings.

The council needs to dump this flawed scheme and introduce a proper strategy which assesses where services belong, whether that is the private sector, shared services with other boroughs, the voluntary sector or indeed occasionally in-house - a mixed economy is what is needed.
We would give far more weight than Cllr Coleman to considering the in-house option fully as services are reviewed, but we are glad that he is prepared to voice publicly the idea that large-scale privatisation of services is not the answer to all our prayers.

He is not alone in this; many senior Conservative politicians in local government are saying the same. He also says of his erstwhile colleagues:

I don't know any councillors who agree we should privatise the planning department.
We invite those of you for whom this is true to speak out! We ask again: who controls the Council, senior officers or the elected Councillors?

We are pleased to see that at last a Conservative councillor is voicing in public the concerns that many of you have about One Barnet, especially since he has had to put aside loyalty to Richard Cornelius in order to do it. (Although, as he points out, Cllr Cornelius had become convinced that One Barnet will save money, he too was angered by the covert moves senior officers took towards adopting a Joint Venture for the DRS outsourcing.)

Cllr Coleman has also put on record the consternation that many of you felt when Nick Walkley pressed the button on his ejector seat out of the Barnet cockpit.

Of course, we have many differences with Cllr Coleman. For example, his suggestion that Conservative councillors have gone along with the One Barnet proposals because the unions had their own separate objections to them seems far-fetched. We find it hard to believe that the Conservative philosophy has as shallow a basis as knee-jerk hostility to anything the unions say.

Notwithstanding that, and our very many differences with Cllr Coleman over the years, there is an indisputable truth in much of what he is now saying about One Barnet. It is only a pity that someone did not speak out publicly before!

A glance at what is happening with the parking contract recently outsourced to NSL shows the dangers ahead if the Council plunges ahead with One Barnet.

The parking contract has been in place for six months and NSL are still experiencing serious difficulties as a result of 'teething troubles'; this contract was for £15 million over five years. If you scale up from a £3 million a year mess to £100 million a year how much havoc will be wrought in the lives of residents?

Opening his article, Cllr Coleman says:

Something has happened in the last few months in Barnet. Residents have been taking an interest in the way Barnet Council is proposing to operate in future, the so-called One Barnet scheme.
He is right, residents are very interested in that, but it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.

Of course, like you, residents are concerned about the fate – for that is what it is – of their council services, and of the money they have paid out in taxes to secure them.

We hardly need to remind you that residents will also take an interest in who was in charge when their services were handed over wholesale to two large companies, and tied up in 10-year contracts. We all know who they will blame when the service delivery falls short of the high standards they have experienced up till now, or when there are contractual wrangles about service levels with the contractors BT, Capita et al.

Cllr Coleman suggests that Barnet Conservative councillors are behaving like lemmings heading for a cliff. That is not a very positive image but we have to believe that his comments do have some valuable insights and that there must be some truth in them that demand your urgent consideration.

We ask you now then to follow the instinct of your own common sense, stop behaving like lemmings, and abandon the reckless One Barnet programme before it is too late.

Yours sincerely

Derek Dishman
John Dix
Vicki Morris
Theresa Musgrove
Roger Tichborne

The Friday Joke - Teething troubles


Last week Mr Mustard sat through the Budget & Performance Overview & Scrutiny Committee. He watched Cllr. Alan Schneiderman gamely try to get an answer as to how much compensation the council would get for the dismal performance of NSL Ltd in the first 2 months of their contract, the period for which the figures showed that the Special Parking Account was £1.2m behind where it was expected to be.

(It isn't all down to NSL as they weren't signed up to the contract until 1 May - the contract was a month late being implemented as it happens - and partly because they do not set the parking tariff which affects supply & demand and NSL don't issue permits, the council do). 

The fob off was basically that the teething troubles were now behind us. Here is the interim Director, Pam Wharfe, who is paid £132,480 p.a. saying so on 25 October 2012.


Now Mr Mustard repeats below the conclusion of an Adjudicator of the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service the very next day, 26 October 2012. (All adjudicators are legally qualified and have seen thousands of parking tickets)

The appellant appeared before me at the personal hearing listed for today.

The local authority have issued a penalty charge notice "for being parked without payment of a parking charge".

The appellant states that he was helping his father who is disabled to the chemist and was gone for less than a couple of minutes. He also states that he did not receive the original penalty charge notice or see the civil enforcement officer, and categorically denies that it was "handed to the driver" as alleged. There is a direct conflict of evidence on this issue. However I find the appellant to be a credible witness and accept his representations.

In addition there have been several procedural errors in the case.

The local authority served their evidence for the appeal late. This tribunal only received the evidence on 24th Oct and the appellant says he received it "yesterday" the 25th October, which is less than three clear days before the hearing.

The local authority, by their own admission also served the charge certificate prematurely.
In light of the above I am not satisfied that the penalty charge notice was properly issued or the appeals process correctly administered, and therefore allow this appeal.

(An allowed appeal means that the parking ticket gets cancelled. Note that the poor motorist has had to waste at least half a day going to Islington and back which has a time and money cost. The charge certificate is when the penalty gets increased by 50%.)

If that is a properly managed contract please don't show Mr Mustard one that isn't.

The parking contract is a joke. Misleading councillors isn't.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard