 |
| a leech, in case you didn't recognise it out of uniform |
So you have made a challenge to your PCN and you get rejected and receive the usual sanctimonious letter saying you shouldn't have parked as you did, all your own fault, etc etc but this time with the addition of an extra paragraph, never before seen by Mr Mustard, to tell you that paying £65, £55 or £30 won't hurt because you are helping fix the borough's potholes (and to be fair the roads are in a right state) (and another story here) (oh, and here) (and here from 2014)
(If you need help with pothole damage you need to see this site.)
Back to the first topic, here is the offending paragraph
Mr Mustard thinks the council should think very carefully about removing this paragraph from their letters if it was going to be a regular feature.
If it is a one off, sack the idiot who wrote it so it stays a one off.
What the council have forgotten is that the point of PCNs is to try and educate the public, by the imposition of penalties, into parking correctly in future. It is not to 'revenue raise' which would be illegal and what this looks like.
It would be far better to send out educative leaflets with rejections showing the 10 most frequent mistakes and giving advice on how to avoid getting a PCN.
Yours frugally
Mr Mustard
.
We try so hard to help them avoid these silly errors. Even, in Barnet's case, with the good citizens going as far as asking the Courts to guide the Council along the paths of legal righteousness.
ReplyDeleteBut somehow it doesn't help. There appears to be precious little organisational learning.
Perhaps someone new arrives. And maybe they think: "Oh, goody. This is a nice little earner". With targets which, of course aren't targets. ("Heaven forfend!") And profitable income generation which, of course, must not be income generation.
"Oh dear, not at all! But gosh, there are so many potholes these days. If only the potholes were just a bit deeper and lined-up. We could run a tramline.
Or deeper still and call it Crossrail-3.