Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: newres May 24 2013, 12:26 PM

Question to be answered by the Executive Member for Planning and Highways submitted by Councillor Tony Vickers:

"Why was no reminder letter sent to residents of West Fields Newbury (Zone W1) to renew their parking permits after the first year of operation of the scheme?"


From: Executive

Thursday, 23 March 2006 at 6.30pm

in the Council Chamber, Council Offices,
Market Street, Newbury

Thanks in advance.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 24 2013, 12:44 PM

Good question. The http://decisionmaking.westberks.gov.uk/Data/Executive/20060323/Agenda/$Minutes%202006-03-23.doc.pdf say that the question was answered, but don't say what that answer was. Rather unsatisfactory. I wonder if the answer was ever written down anywhere?

Posted by: newres May 24 2013, 02:29 PM

Well, if anyone can find the answer he gave I would be very grateful. Also if anyone lived in West Mills at the time and was affected I would be interested.

Posted by: Darren May 24 2013, 06:08 PM

So 7 years later, no answer and you ask now?

Given that the permits have a date on them perhaps it was decided to save some council tax money and let owners powers of observation and their intelligence take over?

Posted by: newres May 24 2013, 07:08 PM

As you don't know the answer and I assume were unaffected by the issue, can I suggest you have nothing of any value to add and are only trolling.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 24 2013, 07:35 PM

You could e-mail Tiny Knickers and see if he remembers what answer he got.

Posted by: Darren May 24 2013, 08:58 PM

Actually, no I didn't receive a letter but still renewed mine as I was proactive and checked. If I can do it, why can't others?

Posted by: Andy Capp May 24 2013, 09:19 PM

Of course, but does that negate the original question?

Posted by: Darren May 24 2013, 09:28 PM

True, it doesn't, but then it doesn't negate my point of why wait 7 years to seek an answer to a relatively simple question.

Posted by: newres May 25 2013, 04:43 AM

Because unlike many / most local authorities they still don't send out reminder letters. Given it is the same department that issues fines that could send out the letters, it strikes me that the department has a vested interest in permits expiring as they can then nip along and ticket them. Unfortunately not every one has your "intelligence", "powers of observation", or are as "proactive".

Posted by: Darren May 25 2013, 07:35 AM

Then I'm guessing you haven't either and have received a ticket.

Your last sentence sums up what is wrong with so much of society these days. The population require someone to think for them and tell them what to do, just before they complain about 'The Nanny State'. Whatever happened to self-reliance and personal responsibility?

Posted by: user23 May 25 2013, 08:17 AM

There's over 400 councils. What evidence are you basing your assertion on?

Posted by: Squelchy May 25 2013, 09:17 AM

Why on earth should they?

Anyone too stupid not to be able to count to 365 from the day they got one shouldn't get another. The permit should be then offered to someone else.

21st century writ large.....bleat bleat bleat...why won't the council/government/whatever do something for me? I'll just sit here doing sweet f.a. and wait to be given stuff. No need to stir myself. No need to think or take responsibility, just wait for others to do it.

Posted by: newres May 25 2013, 09:31 AM

You would think wouldn't you. But the council unfortunately are too stupid to do so and therefore only issued one until the end of the year, but starting in April. It seems that the people in the department are too stupid to have them finishing any other time than January.

Posted by: newres May 25 2013, 09:35 AM

http://bit.ly/1752TFJ

Posted by: newres May 25 2013, 09:49 AM

Obviously. Where to park, what time, where not to park and so on. Do you not see the irony of your sentence?

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 25 2013, 10:04 AM

I don't understand the hostility, it seems to me pretty reasonable that the issuing authority should be sending reminders. Reminder letters is quite an expensive process, but it's the simplest job in the world to automate the process and issue reminders by e-mail with a link for re-application and payment.

It could also be easier to find the right section on the WBC web site - searching for "parking permit application" doesn't turn up the right link, and even searching for "residents parking" which is the title of the page you want doesn't present the page in the "Key Results".

Posted by: user23 May 25 2013, 10:14 AM

So you haven't actually got anything to support what you've claimed?

Posted by: Andy Capp May 25 2013, 10:55 AM

Yes, it is quite customary for annual renewals to have a reminder. Clearly the WBC don't agree. All a part of the service.

Posted by: Nothing Much May 25 2013, 11:52 AM

Pricey little bits of paper.( Nothing Much to do with the OP.)
We do get paper reminders because one or two people don't use internet services.
But there is a web site which works. I just sent off for some visitor vouchers, they arrived in a trice.

We no longer have a permit though to stick in the window to tick off those 365 days,
except nights and weekends, for which £317 is my band. Electronic readers do the job.Chaps on scooters.
It would be handy if they could link with ANPR and note vehicles involved in no good.
I wouldn't mind forking out if something came back from the regime.
ce.

Posted by: Exhausted May 25 2013, 12:08 PM

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.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 25 2013, 12:35 PM

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?

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 25 2013, 01:24 PM

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.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 25 2013, 01:38 PM

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.

Posted by: user23 May 25 2013, 04:42 PM

j

This 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.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 25 2013, 05:14 PM

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.

Posted by: user23 May 25 2013, 05:41 PM

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.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 25 2013, 05:45 PM

Posted by: pbonnay May 25 2013, 05:56 PM

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

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 25 2013, 06:02 PM

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

Posted by: pbonnay May 25 2013, 06:36 PM

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

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 25 2013, 06:40 PM

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

Posted by: Andy Capp May 25 2013, 07:16 PM

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.

Posted by: On the edge May 25 2013, 08:10 PM

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.

Posted by: newres May 25 2013, 09:10 PM

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.

Posted by: user23 May 25 2013, 10:12 PM

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.

Posted by: On the edge May 25 2013, 10:31 PM

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'

Posted by: user23 May 25 2013, 10:47 PM

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.

Posted by: newres May 26 2013, 05:23 AM

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?

Posted by: On the edge May 26 2013, 06:54 AM

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!

Posted by: user23 May 26 2013, 07:40 AM

Precisely. Now if you could save a few pennies on your road tax by not getting a reminder letter but reading the big numbers printed on the piece of paper in your windscreen, wouldn't this be a good thing?

Given the cuts to council's funding over the past few years, if they can save money by not doing things like this then it all helps to keep public services like libraries and care for the elderly going without having to drastically put up tax to raise the shortfall.

Sorry if you think people's replies are aggressive, perhaps it's because your argument is so weak?

Posted by: Andy Capp May 26 2013, 09:53 AM

You pass the cost on - what is so hard about that? Or an automatic annual standing order/direct debit option?

Posted by: Andy Capp May 26 2013, 09:56 AM

Pass the cost on? E-mail, SMS? Annual reminders are not an unusual thing.

Posted by: user23 May 26 2013, 10:38 AM

From what I read, creating more costly public services through increased administration is something that's unpopular with both the public and politicians.

In fact the direction some want councils to take is that of fewer and cheaper public services. Doing something deemed as unnecessary by many and then passing this cost on to the taxpayer does not fit with current public opinion.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 26 2013, 10:39 AM

I'm not saying make the tax payer pay, I'm saying pass the cost on! Presumably the council are making money out of the parking scheme, so I fail to see how the tax payer is being charged anyway, or should I say, cash positive?

Posted by: user23 May 26 2013, 10:50 AM

As I say, I don't think increasing the cost of a public service due to admin many would seem unnecessary would be a popular move, in my opinion.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 26 2013, 10:56 AM

Are you illiterate? PASS THE COST ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The parking system is cash positive, so no increase in cost there!

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 26 2013, 11:05 AM

Rather than justifying the very minimum level of service, what's the best affordable service?

Sending e-mail reminders is low cost, and http://www.21stcenturychallenges.org/60-seconds/what-is-the-digital-divide/ tells me that around 70% of households have e-mail, so e-mail reminders would improve the level of service at minimal cost.

Sending reminder letters to those who don't have e-mail is getting more expensive, but again https://www.imail.co.uk/marketing_postcards/Default.aspx tells me a marketing postcard can cost from as little as 43p delivered, so with a permit charge currently at £25 that seems proportionate to me.

But there are other solutions.

One idea would be for DVLA to provide support for parking permit schemes. It already holds the records for all vehicles and drivers, including driver's home address and the address of the registered keeper of the vehicle, so all it would need to do was provide some kind of protocol for councils to set up schemes with appropriate criteria and then for drivers to register either themselves or their vehicles, and the job's a good 'un. The green meanies would scan the registration number of the vehicles and a quick on-line lookup would tell them if the vehicle was registered for a parking scheme in its current parked location.

Drivers who don't have access to the internet can register by calling in at their council office or send in a form.

Registration would also not need to be time-limited and would only be invalidated if the DVLA data changed.

That's more expensive to engineer, but there are no technological difficulties, all it would take is for DVLA to get buy-in from councils. A good use of central government tax-money in my view as it provides a common good.

And finally WBC could actually fix the underlying parking problem. It's not right that shoppers, workers, and commuters park in residential streets. WBC could create the necessary in-town parking, either directly or by planning conditions such as with Sainsburys, or they could provide a Park-and-Ride. Making it free to park would stop drivers looking for free alternatives in residential roads, and it would also encourage shoppers to visit Newbury so there would be an up-side. WBC would lose a shed-load of parking revenue of course, but they should never have chosen to tax motorists like this in the first place. It would also create problems with businesses who charge their clients to park, such as Parkway and the Train Station, but again the problem is with WBC for not having the foresight to impose appropriate planning conditions, so I think they'll have to take that hit.

Posted by: user23 May 26 2013, 11:37 AM

Passing the cost on would increase the cost of a permit, which would be unpopular.

No need to be rude if you don't understand the answer.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 26 2013, 12:10 PM

Ignoring people is also rude. Passing the cost on for those that want it, a la VOSA you pillock!

Posted by: newres May 26 2013, 12:15 PM

The permit scheme is revenue generating. So unlike say IT which is just an overhead, it brings money in for virtually no outlay. So if it cost let's say an extra one pound per permit, so what? I daresay most would be happy to set up a standing order/ direct debit if it were offered, in which case it would save money as there would be no need to call out to take payments from permit holders. This would save a substantial sum.

The point is that there are more obvious ways to cut costs and lose headcount and still offer a half decent service without using saving money as an excuse for shoddy service.

Posted by: On the edge May 26 2013, 03:55 PM

Presumably this means our dear WBC have paid for and are maintaining a computer system that is incapable of cyclic billing without expensive technical changes. What a surprise! Has no one in the IT Department the gumption to go and ask one of the students at any of their local schools to help?

Posted by: user23 May 26 2013, 04:09 PM

But you're talking about increasing headcount in councils, not reducing it, for an admin task deemed unnecessary by some on here. This isn't really the way things are going at the moment, from what I've read.

Posted by: newres May 26 2013, 05:15 PM

No, reducing it. Someone phones out and takes payment for renewals currently. Surely direct debits/bank transfers would be cheaper as the person could either be "redeployed"? Total waste of taxpayer's money. Plus there would be a merchant procesing charge on the transaction.

Posted by: pbonnay May 26 2013, 07:27 PM

Many years ago I had to buy a parking permit from my local council (not WBC) and I cannot remember whether or not reminders were sent. I do remember, however, making sure to renew it in time, as the penalty of not doing so was expensive.

I do wonder if the cost of calculating the cost of the issuing of reminders (and dealing with complaints of them not being sent) might be greater than the cost of sending them out in the first place!

Posted by: On the edge May 26 2013, 08:25 PM

Quite so. However, there are many ways this could be administered very economically and probably without any administrative overhead at all. To implement would demand some thinking and basic process understanding; sadly in short supply at our WBC! I won't even bother to suggest anything, but there are myriad examples.

Posted by: blackdog May 26 2013, 08:38 PM

I get an email when my library books are due for return/renewal - surely it would be easy to set up a way for parking permit holders (and any other regular payers) to register for email reminders. It would require a bit of software but once up and running it would be a costless way of sending reminders.

Posted by: On the edge May 26 2013, 08:39 PM

Yes, but the Library is another department...

Posted by: newres May 26 2013, 08:45 PM

You miss the point. The cynic might say it is deliberate, but the impact of not sending out reminders is that they can check the database for expired permits and then go out and target them. The department that issues the permits also issues the fines. So a permit lapses, send out the warden, issue a £70 fine, then the owner calls in renews his ticket for £25 and pays his fine by post.

Your point may still be correct that the cost of all of this may well be more than the admin that goes into collecting and dealing with appeals and complaints, but WBC wouldn't have a clue about the process costs. They think it is a profitable business, but it may well not be.

Posted by: On the edge May 26 2013, 08:50 PM

Regrettably you may well be right. Its just the sort of games that would be played in an organisation where no one is in control.

Posted by: blackdog May 26 2013, 08:58 PM

With totally different software.

Another solution - allow people to pay by direct debit so they get automatic renewals.

Posted by: On the edge May 26 2013, 10:17 PM

I'll explain if you like; but it will cost you

Posted by: newres May 27 2013, 06:51 AM

I can't help but feel from my dealings with them that there is a "toxic" culture in WBC as a whole. It does not see itself as servants of its citizens, but instead as its leaders.

Posted by: pbonnay May 27 2013, 10:58 AM

I think the point I have missed is a little bit of a conspiracy theory!

Posted by: newres May 27 2013, 01:55 PM

I don't think pointing out a confluct of interest us a conspiracy theory.

Posted by: NWNREADER May 27 2013, 03:13 PM

If the huge majority of permits are renewed without a reminder, then I'd see a case for the Council to say it is not cost effective.

Maybe someone needs to research how many permits there are, how many are renewed, and how many are not (other than as a result of holder moving away etc).

Posted by: desres123 May 27 2013, 08:50 PM

Maybe there should be an option when you renew your parking permit saying yes im too lazy to have a look at the parking permit to see when it expires I will pay £5 surcharge for a reminder to be sent in post

Posted by: Andy Capp May 27 2013, 10:07 PM

Everyone makes mistakes; careless yes, but not laziness, that stupid.

Posted by: spartacus May 28 2013, 09:03 PM

From looking at the WBC website it seems there's quite a few roads that have permit parking. It's not just W1 and it's not just Newbury.
http://www.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=20623

Is newres seriously suggesting that all of these people should be contacted? That's a LOT of properties that would need to be contacted if there was this expectation that reminders need to be sent out to the terminally stupid.

It's a lot of individual properties, but it's only a very small proportion of the overall number of WBC residents, the majority of whom don't have permit parking available to them... Why should WE be subsidising a process to manage these people who can't remember something as simple as buying a new permit if they want one....

Posted by: On the edge May 28 2013, 10:13 PM

Just to be clear, are you also saying that those who annually need a TV Licence, pay community charges, liable for water rates, tax motor vehicles, take insurance cover etc. etc are all 'terminally stupid'? Why should WE subsidising these things which are far more important and therefore far easier to remember. Perhaps the real question is why WE should go on subsidising such incompetence at our local council. I suspect most people would have thought the cost of administration, including reminders would have been included as an element in the purchase price, so WE are not subsiding anything.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 28 2013, 10:30 PM

If any one is stupid, it is those that fail to understand the idea of passing the cost on!

Posted by: newres May 29 2013, 09:55 PM

Permit holders pay for the privilege. Permits are revenue generating. Therefore permit holders are subsidising YOUR adult social care services.

Posted by: newres Oct 24 2013, 06:50 AM

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2013/council-caught-out-for-issuing-illegal-parking-fines-again

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 24 2013, 11:53 AM

I just find it really depressing that our councils are such mean-spirited trollish jobsworths that they'd spend so much time and money defending an indefensible position all the way to a Parking Penalty Tribunal rather than simply doing the decent thing by waiving the penalty and allowing the resident to renew her permit. I mean, quite aside from the incompetence of wrongly imposing the £70 fine when their own evidence showed that the resident had displayed a permit, how is the public interest served by such ignorant customer service.

I know for a fact that not every councillor supports this jobsworth attitude and some are actually taking our councils to task over it, so when the council elections come round again why not ask your prospective councillors what they have done about, and just don't elect the jobsworths.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 24 2013, 04:53 PM

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2013/councillor-blasts-speed-sign-blunder: Cllr Keith Woodhams


Well said.

Posted by: blackdog Oct 24 2013, 06:42 PM

If Mr Woodhams asked the question he wanted answered it might help! Instead he asked a question to which there was really no answer apart from "yes" so he could use this to insult a fellow councillor and make a political point. I wish councillors would stop playing these childish games.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 24 2013, 06:47 PM

Yes, but what I would have liked to know is what the answer was to the last question!

Posted by: blackdog Oct 24 2013, 06:49 PM

If he'd asked it in the correct manner we might know the answer, but he was too busy playing political games to do so.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 24 2013, 06:58 PM

Or more the point, the NWN reporter was too interested in reporting the squabble than to report anything useful.

Aren't these things minuted?

Posted by: Exhausted Oct 24 2013, 07:00 PM

Strange admission on behalf of WBC

The council said it could not refund victims because it had no record of payments made.

That to me suggests that there's a nice little earner here. I assumed invoicing and other records of financial transactions by a business had to be retained, for tax purposes, for seven years. I'm not suggesting the money is trousered but perhaps is diverted to some anonymous haven.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 24 2013, 07:11 PM

My hunch is plausible deniability. If you don't keep records that you are not legally obliged to keep, don't: the information could otherwise cost you dearly. Shred, shred, shred, everyone! Forget about ethical working practice!

Posted by: spartacus Oct 24 2013, 07:27 PM

When I got a parking ticket recently I checked the parking signs, realised I was wrong, went online and paid the fine (before Mrs Spartacus found out) so that I only had to pay the half-fee. It was a 'fair cop mate' situation, I'd cocked up....

I didn't have to supply my name. I didn't have to supply my address. All I had to do was pay WBC against the PCN number issued.

As for WBC, the only record they have is the vehicle registration from the copy of the ticket the greenmeanie issues and any photos taken.

They don't know who the vehicle belongs to and they are not permitted to use DVLA database to find out due to the good old data protection laws for that type of vehicle offence.

WBC (or any other LA for that matter) cannot therefore contact the 'victims' of any tickets that have been issued incorrectly. It is up to the victims to make a claim that they were issued a ticket, supply their registration and then the council should be able to trace through the records against the registration and provide a refund if necessary.

Posted by: spartacus Oct 24 2013, 07:30 PM

If you write in and contest a ticket that is a different matter, as you have then given WBC a name/address against the vehicle registration or PCN and so would be traceable.

Posted by: Exhausted Oct 24 2013, 07:35 PM

If that is the case, then don't pay as they can't find you. Not sure you are right there though.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 24 2013, 07:39 PM

I bet if you didn't pay-up they would soon find out who or where the registered keeper lives.

Posted by: spartacus Oct 24 2013, 07:40 PM

Clarification required:
They're not permitted to just enter all the registrations they collect on a daily basis into some link to DVLA and suck up all the data.
IF you don't pay within the 14 day (?) period THEN they can use DVLA records to find out who you are. But then you'll be paying the FULL £50 or £70 fine for the privilege of outrunning them for a week or so....

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 24 2013, 07:42 PM

Could they not just credit the account that paid the erroneous ticket? Rather like getting a refund when you pay with a card. Hold on, that would be another few lines of SQL, on second thoughts, don't bother!

Posted by: Exhausted Oct 24 2013, 07:46 PM

If the payment was by credit card and it was taken illegally perhaps the credit card company should refund.

Posted by: spartacus Oct 24 2013, 07:58 PM

Getting back to this article and the renewal of the permit; The cost of a permit was £25 when it was first introduced in Westfields around the end of 2004. The cost today is still £25!

Which suggests WBC are missing a trick by not increasing their charges to help pay for the admin of the scheme. It's only the people that live in these permit areas that benefit from having reserved parking spaces. Why should the rest of the district's council tax payers help subsidise a scheme which only benefits them?

Put the charge up I say... £40...! That'll learn 'em...

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 24 2013, 08:11 PM

By jove, I think he's got it.

just keeping the info would cost you.

Posted by: blackdog Oct 25 2013, 04:08 PM

The counter argument is that the residents' parking was imposed on the residents - whether they wanted it or not they have to pay to park outside their houses. It is only enforced during the day (after most of the residents have driven off to work) in order to stop town centre workers using the streets for free parking; in the evening when enforcement might actually benefit residents there isn't a meanie to be seen. It's just another way to increase WBC income from car parking fees.

If resident parking is costing more to operate than is generated by the £25 fees I suggest it should just be scrapped.

Posted by: newres Oct 25 2013, 06:20 PM

Quite. In which case a simple reminder might seem common sense/courtesy. The absence of them just suggests to me it is a nasty way of screwing a little more out of the average joe who wouldn't remember to renew through a fine.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 25 2013, 06:40 PM

While I sympathise, at the end of the day it is buyer beware. I'd like to think that when the permit is issued, it comes with an easy to read and understand covering letter explaining the recipients obligations and the expiry date is made crystal clear.

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 26 2013, 07:57 AM

You don't get a reminder for your vehicle MOT.
You have to take responsibility for yourself to remember otherwise you could be fined.

Posted by: pbonnay Oct 26 2013, 08:46 AM

You can request a reminder for your MOT at gov.uk. They send you 3 text messages as your current test certificate approaches renewal. Cost £1.50.

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 26 2013, 09:46 AM

Yes I was aware of that.
Perhaps the same could be applied to those with parking permits?
As a sideline, if one were a car owner and looking for a property, would you not ensure that it had a garage or somewhere to keep it?
I appreciate that many properties were built before the days of mass car ownership but should one not be aware of the problems of living somewhere without provision for one?

Posted by: pbonnay Oct 26 2013, 11:57 AM

Clearly.

You will then also be aware that you are automatically reminded to have a current MOT by post.... in the letter reminding you to renew your road tax.

Posted by: MontyPython Oct 26 2013, 12:46 PM

But you MOT may be 6 months away from the renewal date of your Car Tax!

Posted by: pbonnay Oct 26 2013, 01:03 PM

If your car tax and MOT renewals are not in sync, then sign up for the SMS service. Personally, I put it in my desk diary; a garage also sends me a reminder. Also, if you can go online for insurance and servicing etc, people like Kwik Fit have a free email reminder service.

Posted by: newres Oct 26 2013, 04:19 PM

But until parking permits were introduced in April 2012 there wasn't an issue with parking so I don't really see your point here. Or are you saying that unless you have a drive you shouldn't own a car? Obviously looking at your previous posts they really would be stuffed because you don't think people should use bicycles either.

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 27 2013, 09:09 AM

No, I just think you should take parking into consideration when purchasing a property without that facility.
I.E. no drive or garage.
I know I would.
Why buy such a property and then expect someone else to sort it out?

Incorrect!
If you had read all my posts on cycling you would have noted that I am in full support of it as long as those who do it abide by the rules of the road and show due consideration for other road, pavement and footpath users.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 27 2013, 09:41 AM

Annoying people twisting what you say to prove point, isn't it!

Posted by: newres Oct 27 2013, 10:26 AM

Should there not be a minimum reading age required on local forums?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 27 2013, 10:29 AM

That is also annoying isn't it!

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 27 2013, 12:29 PM

Yes, it's becoming quite tiresome isn't it?
Constructive debate, criticism would be better??
I think there are two courses of action to tackle it.....
1. ignore
2, give the forum a rest for a while.

Which one should should I take?

Posted by: newres Oct 27 2013, 03:51 PM

If you go for the latter, don't let the door slap your ar8e on the way out.

Posted by: user23 Oct 27 2013, 07:13 PM

http://forum.newburytoday.co.uk/index.php?act=UserCP&CODE=ignore?

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 28 2013, 10:06 AM

Exactly the type of response I expected from you which is why I left the bait.
You are a disgrace to this forum and seem unable to post a pertinent reply ot debate to any argument which doesn't fit your way of thinking.
I know that reporting you to Admin. for posting such offensive replies in blatant disregard of the rules will have no effect so I won't bother.
What drives you to post such offensive replies is beyond me but I feel they are out of place here. Try another type of forum where they are perhaps more acceptable.
I would imagine, judging by your posts, that offending me has given you some sort of perverted pleasure.
I would also imagine that it is beyond your capabilities to apologise and move on with some constructive debate?
I await your next display of rudeness of of which you are so adept, but you will win and have the last say as I will not waste my time replying to you again.

Posted by: motormad Oct 28 2013, 11:30 AM

Well that escalated quickly.


And I thought I was the most childish on the forum.
I've been outdone!

Posted by: Exhausted Oct 28 2013, 12:16 PM

It is only a forum after all, if I don't like something on telly, I change channels. Why bother to get all steamed up about an anonymous person replying to another anonymous person. Anonymity is the good thing about a forum. Facebook is a little more personal and it's there where I would draw the line. Mind you, your line might not be my line.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 28 2013, 12:36 PM

Facebook is no grantee of authenticity either. Whether anonymous or not, there are still people at the end of the line reading the posts. If you don't mind being unnecessarily rude, then that is up to you (although I do think Biker1 is going somewhat over the top about it).

Posted by: newres Oct 28 2013, 12:41 PM

I am sorry that you were offended. Your posts about buying a property and having an inkling that 10 years later the council would introduce permit parking struck me as trolling.

Posted by: The Hatter Oct 29 2013, 05:38 PM

Parking Permits are a fetish in Newbury!