WBC parking con Options

[GMR]

Twenty-four hours after I took that photo, and 18 hours after it went up on this forum, WBC changed that misleading sign to a more appropriate worded sign.

Talking to somebody where the new sign replaced the old one, I was told that the misleading sign was taken down as a rush job.. A sign that gave them extra revenue; falsely.

Obviously their quick action – to remove the sign and replacing it with a proper worded and non-misleading sign - was done out of fear being exposed; and being compared along with other accusations that have been levelled at them over parking charges.

The question now is; will they compensate those that have been misled into paying surcharges? Will they make a statement? I doubt it somehow.


screengrab

[spartacus]

If only you'd waited 24 hours you could have saved us from reading all your conspiracy theory nonsense


They're out to get you

[user23]

If only you'd waited 24 hours you would have saved us from your conspiracy theory nonsense


They're out to get you

24 hours after someone reported something was wrong they've fixed it? On a Saturday?

Sounds like great service to me.

[GMR]

If only you'd waited 24 hours you could have saved us from reading all your conspiracy theory nonsense They're out to get you

And who is saying it is "nonsense"? A WBC employee put on this forum to cover their backs? What I said was factual. Those signs were reported last year; reported to Traffic wardens and WBC itself. If they were concerned about misleading signs then why didn't they do something about it last year? They only decided now because a member of the public exposed what they were doing. If anybody is out to get anybody then it is people like you defending WBC.

[GMR]

24 hours after someone reported something was wrong they've fixed it? On a Saturday? Sounds like great service to me.

A "great service" or fear of allowing this to blow up in their face? That is along with other accusations concerning parking. We also mustn't forget that User23 also works for WBC. A nice defence of their services. They pay you well, do they?

[Exhausted]

24 hours after someone reported something was wrong they've fixed it? On a Saturday? Sounds like great service to me.

Sorry, sounds like a "Sh!te boys, we've been caught with our pants down again, hope this doesn't make the Daily Wail like our other screw ups. Someone sort it today and we'll pretend it was done months ago. Those photos could have been taken last year so we're OK. Get one of our abusive councillors to front this one. Our Newbury Today spokesperson is already on the case"

[MontyPython]

24 hours after someone reported something was wrong they've fixed it? On a Saturday?

Sounds like great service to me.

It would be if it were so - but as usual you twist the facts to try and make WBC look efficient. GMR states that he reported it last year which in my book is nearer 3 months at the least if he reported it on the last day of the year!

It may be 24 hours since it went on here but nobody of any worth from WBC reads these forums we are repeatedly told.

[MontyPython]

A "great service" or fear of allowing this to blow up in their face? That is along with other accusations concerning parking. We also mustn't forget that User23 also works for WBC. A nice defence of their services. They pay you well, do they?

I think he's one who gets his published salary band increased with the "special payment" - all good and transparent then.

[On the edge]

24 hours after someone reported something was wrong they've fixed it? On a Saturday?

Sounds like great service to me.

I think we should apologise, you clearly don't work for WBC....FGW maybe

[GMR]

It would be if it were so - but as usual you twist the facts to try and make WBC look efficient. GMR states that he reported it last year which in my book is nearer 3 months at the least if he reported it on the last day of the year! It may be 24 hours since it went on here but nobody of any worth from WBC reads these forums we are repeatedly told.

Actually I reported it in September (for the benefit of Spartacus, that was September 2014; which was last year, we are now in 2015. That was 6 (six) months ago). If still confused then may I suggest a lobotomy?

[On the edge]

Well. Even if it's not a conspiracy it's pretty slack. After all, look at the number of 'official' street walkers we have these days. Real Police, 'Plastic' Police, the NTC Wardens, and not forgetting the Traffic Wardens. Too busy 'fighting crime and anti social behaviour' I exoect....

[GMR]

It seems that a story has been generated by a Newbury Weekly News journalist concerning this thread. Dan Cooper is the Newbury Weekly News reporter.

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2015/council...ng-parking-sign

The Journalist article is below

WEST Berkshire Council has denied that it delayed replacing parking signs in Newbury to gain extra revenue from unsuspecting motorists.

When the council introduced on street parking charges on July 28 2014, it erected signs informing people that they were due to be implemented.

One of the signs, at Old Bath Road, tells motorists that charges are going to come into effect on July 28 – but doesn't specify which year.

One disgruntled motorist says that keeping the sign up for six months after the charges were introduced has let people people park there in the belief that charges don't come into effect until July 28 2015.

Glenn Renshaw claims he notified the council of the "misleading and unclear" signs in September 2014. However, this week the council said it could find no record of his complaint.

Mr Renshaw, who uses the road every day said: "People in Newbury will probably know that on street parking came in last year, but what about people coming in from outside the area?

"From my understanding, quite a few people have been booked. I think they (the council) should pay back anybody who was booked within that time as a result of the signage.

"Why did it take them until February 2015 to replace the sign?

"There have been many complaints about parking recently and it feels like the council is abusing its position."

Mr Renshaw put a picture of the sign on the NewburyToday forum last week and within 18 hours it was replaced.

A spokeswoman for the council, Peta Stoddart-Crompton, said: "There is no nefarious reason for a year not being shown.

"It was always the intention that the signs would remain in place after the introduction of the parking restrictions and be amended with all reference to the date being removed after about six months.

"The signs were not taken down, as they still serve as a warning of the parking restrictions in place.

"The reference to dates has however been removed from the signs. This was on our task list prior to the forum post so no, it wasn't due to that."

The council said it did not agree with Mr Renshaw's views that the signs were misleading or confusing to motorists and said it would not be compensating motorists who received a ticket.

However, it said all motorists had the right to appeal to the Independent Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Speaking to the NWN in 2013, a spokeswoman for the Department of Transport, Melanie Purkiss, said: "The Department provides clear guidelines to councils to help them produce signs that comply with the regulations."

"It is not for central Government to police council's traffic signs – this rightly falls to elected local politicians who are accountable to their residents and communities."

The council has come under fire recently after it was revealed that some of its parking bays were smaller than government guidelines.

Last week, the NWN also revealed that the council had not received hundreds of thousands of pounds owed to them in parking revenue from Parkway developer Standard Life Investments.

[Mr Brown]

Real local paper story that one! Why on earth didn't the Council people just apologise for lousing up and tell anyone who thinks they've been wrongly charged to get in touch but I loved the fact it was on someone's 'to do' list. An unconscious attempt at humour!

[Cognosco]

It is truly worrying how the Council are unable to grasp just why the signage should have been replaced with a new appropriate sign as soon as the charging had come into force?

Just when you thought our local Authorities had reached new lows of incompetence they amaze you with even more feats of idiotic incompetence!

[Exhausted]

It is truly worrying how the Council are unable to grasp just why the signage should have been replaced with a new appropriate sign as soon as the charging had come into force? Just when you thought our local Authorities had reached new lows of incompetence they amaze you with even more feats of idiotic incompetence!

The worry here is that these are visible signs of the council's lack of care and their belligerent attitude but what about the things that we, the electorate, don't and can't see.

Once again, a simple sorry chaps would have done and perhaps a little contriteness by offering to review the parking fines which had been issued would have been nice. A few quid handed back is an insignificant amount compared with the Parkway giveaway.

[On the edge]

Sad, really sad. Imagine you work there, just one of the minions. It must be terrible, whatever goes wrong, if management cant blame the customers, they blame you. No wonder they pay well; how else would they attract any staff!

[Andy Capp]

It has always been the case, inept, unintelligent PR. All unnecessary too.

"Would like to thank a member of the public for bringing this to our attention and although we feel it would be not in the public interest to spend tax payers money to repaint the bays, we will ask that parking wardens take into account the bays size when deciding if a parking infringement has taken place; however, we understand that 95% of cars on the road are able to park properly within the current allocated space"

or

"We acknowledge that the bays are smaller than government guidelines; however, parking pressure on the town led us to size the bays accordingly. We understand that 95% of cars on the road are able to park properly within the current allocated space. We will ask that parking wardens take into account the bays size when deciding if a parking infringement has taken place."

[GMR]

One of the signs, at Old Bath Road, tells motorists that charges are going to come into effect on July 28 – but doesn't specify which year.

And the reason? The reason being is to mislead those that park there in the belief that it is free until July 28^th. Putting a year date on the signs would have informed the public better, thus no extra charges for not having a paid ticket. But doing that would miss the point of the councils objectives; and that is to get more money, by hook or by crook.

A spokeswoman for the council, Peta Stoddart-Crompton, said: "There is no nefarious reason for a year not being shown.

Whether that is true or not, it still was misleading and a misleading sign could/ and has gained them extra monies in fines.

"It was always the intention that the signs would remain in place after the introduction of the parking restrictions and be amended with all reference to the date being removed after about six months.

Six months in the case of being found out, however, if it had been year when it was brought to the councils attention then the above would have read "…removed after one year". They must pay somebody to have an answer for every occasion. Probably lawyers.

"The signs were not taken down, as they still serve as a warning of the parking restrictions in place.

Nothing wrong with that statement, other than it also added a date that was long gone by and with no year date on it. This misled people into parking in that area on the understanding that they could park there free – of this year – until 28 July.

"The reference to dates has however been removed from the signs. This was on our task list prior to the forum post so no, it wasn't due to that."

And I was just psychic. Of course, if I had mentioned it on the forum in a year's time, then they would have said the same.

The council said it did not agree with Mr Renshaw's views that the signs were misleading or confusing to motorists…

Unless of course you happen to be the motorist. However, if it wasn't misleading to the motorist then explain how you managed to get people to park there under the belief that they could park there free until July 28.

…and said it would not be compensating motorists who received a ticket.

Of course not; the whole point of the misleading signs is to make more money so that you can justify taking even more money when the wages discussions comes around again.

However, it said all motorists had the right to appeal to the Independent Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

For misleading signs? But how do they/ or would they know that they were misleading until somebody brings it up? Not everybody buys the NWN or lives in the area. So shouldn't the council inform those that were misled so that they can take action?

Speaking to the NWN in 2013, a spokeswoman for the Department of Transport, Melanie Purkiss, said: "The Department provides clear guidelines to councils to help them produce signs that comply with the regulations."

And in this case they broke it by misleading the motorist into not getting a ticket to park in that place.

"It is not for central Government to police council's traffic signs – this rightly falls to elected local politicians who are accountable to their residents and communities."

Yes; but what happens when the politicians are of the same party of those that work in the council? Look at the latest scandals, such as cash payments etc.; so are our politicians the right people to overlook the councillors?

[JeffG]

And the reason? The reason being is to mislead those that park there in the belief that it is free until July 28th. Putting a year date on the signs would have informed the public better, thus no extra charges for not having a paid ticket. But doing that would miss the point of the councils objectives; and that is to get more money, by hook or by crook.

That is absolute nonsense and you know it. Even the strongest council detractors here would not say anything so stupid (or possibly actionable, if the council could be bothered).

[Andy Capp]

That is absolute nonsense and you know it. Even the strongest council detractors here would not say anything so stupid (or possibly actionable, if the council could be bothered).

I don't see anything actionable. I don't think it is that stupid either. Or at least no less stupid that an sign that displays things like 'wef'.