The same applies with the Mot test. Vosa, quite rightly do not send out a reminder unless by choice and at a cost you request they do so.

I do not see why the council, WBC in this case, should send out reminders for which I through my council tax have to pay (administration, paper, printing ink and postage). How do you remember all the birthdays and anniversaries in the friends and family. You note them in a diary. There must be space to note the parking permit expiry date.

WBC could ask the greenmeanies to knock on your door to remind you but that might be doing them out of a job if instead they are able to give you a fixed penalty.



That was a legitimate reply to your question. Why wait seven years, festering away before you thought you might stir up a little dust. Fair enough though, parking is a favourite and always worth a new slant.

So they do send reminders.


So there is no word of impeding birthdays and anniversaries you your house hold eh? Anyway, if you wish to be cheeky to make your point, what is wrong with passing on the cost to the permit holder, thus rendering your argument cobblers. The reminder could be e-mail, SMS, etc, and done automatically, the cost need not be much, this is 2013, not 1513. Vets, dentists, VOSA, membership subscriptions, etc, seem to manage sending reminders OK.


How do you know he has been waiting for 7 years? Being a bit presumptuous, aren't you?

You get a reminder to buy your tax disc, and a reminder to renew your insurance, and I certainly get a reminder from my main dealer to service my car and have it MOT'd, so a reminder for a parking permit is hardly without precedent. To be honest I can't think of a single renewable commercial service that wouldn't send a reminder to invite repeat business - it's nothing but good commercial sense. It's only local government that would have such a dismissive attitude to its captive "customers".

You make an argument against reminders on the basis of cost, but the parking permit is not free so the residents are already covering the administration cost - twice over, because they also pay their council tax, but e-mail reminders cost virtually nothing so there's really no reason why WBC shouldn't send reminders, at least to those with access to e-mail.

And furthermore, the parking problem is WBC's responsibility. WBC is the planning authority, and it has allowed town centre development without adequate parking - if those shops and offices were all required to provide adequate free parking for their businesses then their customers and staff wouldn't be parking in residential roads and there wouldn't be the need for the whole local government parking administration franchise - no parking restrictions, no green meanies, no permits, and no parking penalties.

It's not feasible for every shop and office to provide its own parking directly, so WBC should provide the central car parks, free and gratis at point of use, in part as a common good from the council tax, but also part-funded from developer contributions.

jThis isn't actually true. There's a cost to keeping a database of email addresses up to date, a cost to someone sending them out or the cost of writing or purchasing an automated system to do it.

I'm surprised at you Simon. Arguing that the "big fat state" (as you often put it) should be sending out letters or emails to remind people of something they could quite easily do themselves.

You're right about the cost of course, there is an administrative cost, and if you automate the process to such a degree that the database is self-administering (which is pretty straight forward) then there is still the cost of administering the software, but I'm guessing that cost is pretty small. I can't imagine the development cost being so very high. At the very least it need be no more than an e-mail list, and I can't imagine it would be so very expensive to add a re-order button that takes payment via PayPal or some such.

When I complain about the Big Fat State I'm complaining that the state takes on functions properly left to private enterprise. Take the Tourist Information Service as an example. There is no overriding public benefit in providing that service at public expense, and private enterprise could happily fill the niche and provide the same service at the same cost. It's the Big Fat State at its worst.

But there is a role for the state, and operating a residents permit scheme is properly the function of local government, and my complaint here is that local government needs to provide a good service. It's the single most important lesson for local government to understand - think of yourself as a service business and go that extra mile for your customers.

This just doesn't fit with the cut-price, bargain basement view of the state you so often peddle which leads me to think you're just taking this line to be awkward.

Are you being serious? Shops and offices to all have car parks large enough for all staff, visitors and customers?

Did you read the whole post? "It's not feasible for every shop and office to provide its own parking directly..."

So, if it is not feasible you cannot really criticise the town planners for not making it a requirement.

Can you read the post please. I don't think there's anything to discuss here.

Let me try and help!

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 25 2013, 02:38 PM)

It's not feasible for every shop and office to provide its own parking directly, so WBC should provide the central car parks, free and gratis at point of use, in part as a common good from the council tax, but also part-funded from developer contributions.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha! Love it, the bureaucrats answer. Have you ever heard of marginal costing? No, of course not.

Simon K and the others here arguing for 'reminders' aren't arguing for big state, simply good customer service, not even exceptional customer service, just good. That is something quite alien and quite unfathomable to WBC.

But more than that, the same department that doesn't send the reminders instead sends out green meanies to ticket the vehicles with expired tickets. You really couldn't make it up.

They're arguing for the state to spend it's dwindling funds on reminder letters for people who can't read an expiry date on a permit.

Aaah! So the residents parking scheme is just a scam to increase revenues. Most of us thought so. I appreciate that the Council is not customer oriented in any way; but what really makes me so cross is the sanctimonious way Council operations like trading standards continue to criticise others for poor service standards. Dreadful really when you think about it, the residents who have coughed up to pay could reasonably have expected an element for admin to have been included in the cost, or were WBC too dumb even to have worked that through. There won't be an acceptable answer, its institutionalised.

Wish I still worked in retail, 'Hello Mr Carter, six eggs you wanted?' 'box? oh no, what made you think the price included a box'

No. I'm just saying the state sending letters in the post to tens of thousands of people, to tell them something that's also displayed in the windscreen of their car, that they probably see most days, costs money and that this might not be the most prudent use of taxpayers' cash.

Precedence is a factor. The nearest parallel to your description is a tax disc. I get a reminder.

I wonder if you and the others would have quite such an aggressive attitude face to face. Are you the same in your cars? What is the term? Keyboard warriors?

The point being that its not taxpayers cash, service is part of the fee. On your argument, there is no need to send out the annual community charge demand, we all know we've got to pay and most of us pay via direct debit. That's an even bigger print and post cost!