Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Jay Sands Feb 17 2015, 12:54 PM

In today's Telegraph: A council has painted under-sized car parking bays and is hitting motorists with fines for being outside the space.

Retired architect Stan Green toured the town's car parks in Newbury with a measuring stick to confirm his fears.

The Government has recommended since 1994 that all council parking bays should be a minimum of 2.4 metres by 4.8 metres, but Mr Green has found bays up to a metre short.

West Berkshire Council admitted that last year alone it fined 142 motorists £50 for "not parking wholly within the bay" in Newbury. It said it will not display warning signs, but continue to rely on the "discretion and common sense" of its traffic wardens.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/11417281/Drivers-fined-for-being-outside-too-small-car-parking-bays-in-Newbury.html

Posted by: gel Feb 17 2015, 01:24 PM

NWN Piece:
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2015/west-berkshire-council-denies-small-parking-bays-are-to-draw-in-more-funds


Stan's protest covered on another thread here, and WBC's disregard for his findings;
presumably if you were fined for being outside bay, in an undersize one you could confidently appeal:

https://www.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=28302

Good the Telegraph embarrassing WBC apart from NWN's piece.

Posted by: Mr Brown Feb 17 2015, 09:06 PM

It's one thing to say that the Councillors have little expertise or detailed knowledge, but to admit the officers don't either is really quite worrying!

Posted by: spartacus Feb 17 2015, 09:35 PM

Sadly no sign of Stan and His Coat of Many Colours.

I think this is a bit of a non-story to a certain extent. If you (or most drivers) got back to your car and found a ticket on your windscreen because your car was hanging over the line by a few inches or even a foot you'd challenge the ticket surely? Wouldn't you?! (details on how to do so are printed on the ticket).

If, on the other hand, you had a look at the way your car was abandoned and thought you were bang to rights then you might not. But if you thought that the ticket was issued incorrectly, or by an over-eager warden just looking towards his annual bonus <snigger> you would argue your case rather than meekly hand over £25 or whatever it is.

142 tickets may have been issued but I wonder how many were challenged and cancelled.


But if you have a new car and don't want it dinged then maybe these short illegal bays are just what you're looking for. So you can dump your car and claim the bay was too small for a car to park anyway

Posted by: x2lls Feb 17 2015, 09:56 PM

Yeah, that makes sense. duh

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 17 2015, 10:49 PM

As has already been noted, cars have got bigger, so parking bays need to be bigger too. Yes, that will reduce the number of parking spaces, but I don't want my car dinged, and I'd also quite like to be able to get in and out with relative ease when I park. The 2.4m x 4.8m is a minimum recommendation, but WBC should start thinking of itself as a service provider and provide a quality service - gawd knows I pay enough in tax to cover it. That was the most frustrating thing for my in the council's comments - the very best they would aspire to was the very minimim, but that is such an awful attitude towards customer care.

Posted by: spartacus Feb 17 2015, 11:18 PM

Give 'em an inch (or in this case 2.4 or 4.8 metres) and the great unwashed will still sit there behind the wheel and complain that they can't get their 4x4 monster trucks into a space designed for a standard family car. It the council whats to blame innit...

Posted by: On the edge Feb 18 2015, 06:58 AM

That misses the point somewhat. WBC are the enforcement agency and rigorously enforce the rules and guidelines they produce apparently only when it suits. So, what they sow, they reap.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 18 2015, 07:05 AM

And I suspect that our council does indeed feel that contemptuously towards us, their paying customers, and it needs to change.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 18 2015, 03:51 PM

What with all the other road sign problems they have had, such as the Kings Road West signs not complying, The wharf Bridge signs, you would have thought that the problem Manager who did not know the regulations would have been got rid of..........or is the new Manager a clone of the first?
Surely it cannot be only our two Local Authorities that are unable to find suitably able staff. especially seeing as how much they appear to be paid?

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 18 2015, 07:02 PM

Come on Sparty, this is cobblers! WBC didn't know how big the bays are meant to be and even when they were advised, they will not issue any notice to their 'boot boys' to take undersized bays into account: "some will, some won't" is a pathetic response from the council.

Posted by: gel Feb 18 2015, 08:57 PM

Stan's story makes another national!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2959069/Motorists-fined-parking-outside-bays-bungling-local-authority-spaces-short.html

Posted by: MontyPython Feb 18 2015, 09:54 PM

Are WBC unable to move with the times then? Perhaps you think they should have left it so people only had somewhere to tie up their horse!

Posted by: spartacus Feb 18 2015, 09:59 PM

fuck me... links to the Daily Wail..... this site really has hit a new low

Posted by: spartacus Feb 18 2015, 10:00 PM

Funny you should say that. Guess what is part of the conditions for the Ikea store

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 18 2015, 11:00 PM

Errrrrrr.......No thanks.!!
First sight of the "F" word on here I believe. ..... this site really has hit a new low!

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 19 2015, 12:20 AM

I smell a mischievous fellow trying to get a thread locked that he finds embarrassing!

Posted by: HJD Feb 19 2015, 10:08 AM

To be honest Biker I think the Tumble Weed has been blowing over this site for some time, I thought the other one had problems but this one just seems to have all the candidates required for a new series of Grumpy Old Men . I check in to see if there is anything of any interest most days but wonder why I bother, I find it utterly depressing most of the time .

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 19 2015, 11:55 AM

Do you know mate, I have been thinking the same for a while now.
I mainly check in to pass the time during the long, bike free winter months.
There is little of interest comes up and, apart from the regular council bashing (which seems to get no-one anywhere, remember, as has already been said, they are Teflon coated. We all end up paying the rates anyway as we have no choice, (other than go to prison)), subjects seem to be sparse.
I try and inject a little humour sometimes but it usually falls flat.
I also try to think of new subjects but perhaps Newbury is not exciting enough, or perhaps it is me!
Never mind, season starts soon (watch out BM!) if you fancy a ride or meet HJD (if you are still biking) then give me a PM.

Anyway, back to the council beating!

Posted by: Jay Sands Feb 19 2015, 12:30 PM

I agree the forum is usually full of complaints but I guess if you get nowhere with officialdom and your family are fed up with hearing you banging on about the same old thing this is the last refuge.

Talking about humour did anyone see Fascinating Aida last week at the Corn Exchange? I was surprised at the number of very mature people in the audience who clearly knew all about dogging.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 19 2015, 12:40 PM

I wish I could say I disagree, but I can't. There isn't much point, nothing's going to change...not even after the election. Thinking about it, I can't see much point in that either; so at least I'll save a walk on polling day.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 19 2015, 12:44 PM

Another free-loader! If you don't like it, make the difference. We're not here to entertain anyone, although that is always welcome when it happens.

Posted by: The Hatter Feb 19 2015, 04:43 PM

Everyone keeps saying there won't be any difference so I still can't see what good my vote will do - it's pointless. I've seen the adverts telling people to vote, they don't explain why. If you want to see what people think, the Facebook pages are better.

Posted by: user23 Feb 19 2015, 05:06 PM

Posted by: The Hatter Feb 19 2015, 05:43 PM

No extremist parties stand round here so that isn't likely to happen.

Posted by: spartacus Feb 19 2015, 05:56 PM

aah... I think you're confusing this site with ones which have moderators


You are Marvin and I claim my £5 prize

(cheer up you miserable bugger)

Posted by: spartacus Feb 19 2015, 06:04 PM

...is it safe to Google that one if you're not sure?


Keeping the thread vaguely on a traffic related theme.....

Posted by: spartacus Feb 19 2015, 06:31 PM

As for the tumbleweed comment I don’t think that’s necessarily true as there are a variety of different threads raised each month. It’s just that they all pretty much end up rounding on the same subject. If it’s not Newbury Town Council that’s getting it over allotments it’s the ‘bungling WBC incompetents in their Market Street ivory tower and gold plated pensions’ that are getting it.

Gawd knows (note I didn't use the 'F' word then.... I nearly fucking did though) why the guys and gals working in the highways departments in particular are such regular targets for abuse. I guess it's because everyone who has had their licence for more than ten minutes thinks that automatically qualifies them as SMEs on all matters traffic related (without taking into account the red tape that DfT tie around every aspect of legislation)

It’s one reason why I moved into contract work as you can then be a moving target and can pick and choose the highways projects from different local authorities or the Highways Agency as they become available. The poor sods in permie work in the Market Street ivory tower are pretty much sitting ducks for you lot to throw your pearls of wisdom at.

After a few years of slating by lazy journalists, grandstanding Councillors scoring cheap points and others bashing you with pearls you can feel yourself transforming into our friend HJD there.... the miserable paranoid android....

...ohh I'm so depressed....

Posted by: newres Feb 19 2015, 06:31 PM

So true. It's filled with a bunch of stereotypical, right wing, provincial, bicycle hating bores. With one or two exceptions.

Posted by: spartacus Feb 19 2015, 06:34 PM

As a matter of interest though, just where are these undersized parking bays? I mean, we're taking Stan the Man's word for it so far... Has there been a specific bay or car park mentioned or reported on so this can be verified?

Posted by: newres Feb 19 2015, 06:35 PM

Well it could be because time and time again they don't adhere to the law proving that they are either total incompetents or corrupt.

Posted by: The Hatter Feb 19 2015, 07:14 PM

Does this mean you've decided to become a stereotypical, right winger?

Posted by: HJD Feb 19 2015, 07:18 PM

Another Free – Loader ! Perhaps so if by that you mean I don’t contribute much. To be honest, unlike some I do have other interests other than political matters which personally I find as dull as ditch water, on which this forum seems to mainly exist on lately. So I just can’t be asked wasting my time by joining in banging on about the same old thing over & over again. As regards to the old cherry ‘If you don’t like it, make the difference’ comment that’s exactly what I think some should be doing Andy, probably not as easy as hiding behind a keyboard though .

Oh, & Spartycuss
...ohh I'm so depressed....

I’m just off out for a pint or 2 to cheer myself up. And as soon as the weather picks up I’ll get the Bike out of the garage & go for a blast through Gt. Shefford. Life may feel better then .

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 19 2015, 07:31 PM

No, he means folk who don't buy the hard copy of the paper then come on this site and read the (belated) news and then use the forum and then complain about it.


Don't forget to fit the aftermarket cans first though!
(Mine are Arrows).

Posted by: On the edge Feb 19 2015, 07:36 PM

I have some sympathy with this. It must be pretty demotivating and dispiriting working for an organisation where the customers and the management think you are rubbish. This episode is simply a graphic illustration. Customer Green goes to the press with what seems to be a real corker, the Council respond by in effect agreeing and blaming it on staff in attention!

Perhaps then and illustrated by your personal example, we actually need to eliminate or wholly slim down 'local councils' and leave the works and service delivery to specialist agencies.

Sure, any customer facing organisation will have its critics and will get things wrong. Because if that a good many therefore have good leadership and effective management. What happened here yet again shows our local council is deficient in both.

Go back a good few years and I seem to remember a departing CEO saying WBC had a leadership deficiency. Nothing has changed......no wonder you're depressed.

Posted by: MontyPython Feb 19 2015, 07:58 PM

An interesting scenario User - but what is the root cause?

Whilst some may be too lazy to vote - a very large number (probably the majority) do so because neither the politicians or public employees represent their views engage with them or deliver results. Our local authorities WBC and NTC highlight this in their attitude and actions. If they recieve a petition against one of their policies or projects they will count it as one objection (despite it being signed by thousands) and then count two letters from individuals separately - hardly democracy. Then if someone highlights the inefficiencies of the council more than once call the vexatious and refuse to supply further information.

So User, you, your colleagues and the politicians are a major part of the problem!

Posted by: JeffG Feb 19 2015, 08:31 PM

How about single-issue parties (which some might be tempted to label as having extreme views)?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 19 2015, 08:35 PM

Well, interesting you should say that. I'll drop you an e-mail.

Posted by: spartacus Feb 19 2015, 08:36 PM

Hope the rozzers catch you, you dirty leather clad demon....

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 19 2015, 08:57 PM

Except for a well known cider maker!

Posted by: spartacus Feb 19 2015, 10:02 PM

As a contractor I'm all for it, but it tends to come at a much higher price than having relatively lower paid FTE council staff on your books. In my firm, low-life highway engineering graduates can currently expect at least a £4k uplift on the salary their counterparts in local government can.

An FTE Senior Technician in the highways teams is in the G Band of WBC pay scales
http://info.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=30385 It's not great considering cost of housing around these parts and comparative pay in the private sector. Technician pay is in the B-F band, which starts at £13,100.

People with engineering degrees or a few years experience in that sector are going to drift away to councils in cheaper areas to live or are going to be tempted to switch codes to private, especially now, as work is picking up with regard new build highway infrastructure. There's a lot of Highways Agency works out to tender just now and we are recruiting as many engineers as we can.

With fewer Council staff to do the work it becomes a necessity to employ agency staff.

For the council taxpayer that could mean a couple of scenarios, neither of which is particularly great;

1. Either their council tax goes up to help pay for necessary road maintenance/resurfacing projects under the control of specialist providers (who are better paid than FTE council bods so a higher proportion of available budget is going just to help pay for the staff, rather than for a few tonnes of extra tarmac)

or
2. Council tax remains level but fewer highway projects are fulfilled. With a higher percentage of highway budget set aside paying for agency staff, the parameters for keeping on top of the network will have to change and 'intervention level' targets for potholes needing filling will mean that a hole will have to be 4 inches deep before it gets a bag of tarmac and a spade slapped on top, as opposed to the current 2 inches.

Get used to bumpier ride in future





meh.... trust me, I'm happy.... this is my happy face....

Posted by: On the edge Feb 20 2015, 10:16 AM

Again, I wouldn't disagree with any of that. As you say, the route we are presently following will become increasingly uncomfortable. Ironic really, when we spend huge amounts on cars and lavish great care on them. but are unwilling to pay for the roads and parking places to enjoy them properly....or is it because we are never given the choice.

That's where real leadership cuts in, the real role of our Councillors. The real answer to Stan's protest should have been on the lines, 'Yes, we know, but the electors want to maximise every space for parking, even if it causes minor inconvenience to some. Our electors also know we only strictly enforce regulations where it's clear that the party concerned has been irresponsible. If you disagree, let your Councillor know, but remember, if we change this, that means we'll have even less to spend on mental health care, doing up derelict buildings and the like - your choice'. Bit verbose, but the nub is there.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 20 2015, 05:39 PM

Of course, that is exactly what they should have said, but it seems WBC are either incompetent or have petulant view of the constituent.

Posted by: spartacus Feb 21 2015, 11:01 AM

You're not a Councillor in Northants by any chance are you?

Announced yesterday "Biggest shake up of Northamptonshire County Council for 125 years is approved"

http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/local/biggest-shake-up-of-northamptonshire-county-council-for-125-years-is-approved-1-6590494

http://www.northampton-news-hp.co.uk/Northants-County-Council-approves-plans-outsource/story-26053507-detail/story.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-31544256

This caused quite a stir in our offices yesterday and the management were pretty much licking their lips (quite disgusting really as they'd not long got back from their lunchtime pub get-together)

Northants CC have approved a major slash and burn operation in an effort to 'save' between £68m and £148m depending on which news article you read, which will see staff numbers cut (decimated) from 4,000 to 150!!

Many Local Authorities, all with their own financial pressures, are likely to follow suit. Early days, but the general view seems to be that this may achieve a quick hit for LAs in the short-term but there could be significant change to 'essential frontline services' (despite assurances they will be protected)

Coming to a Council near you soon (I suspect)

Posted by: user23 Feb 21 2015, 11:59 AM

Interesting how outsourcing deals like this are widely reported in the press, but when it invariably goes wrong, an insourcing deal isn't.

Here's details of http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/liverpool-council-scrap-liverpool-direct-6755018 in the local press for example, because BT, a company with a much larger infrastructure that either of those councils couldn't find the savings needed. Also interesting to see employees will lose their private sector perks, when they return to the public sector.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 21 2015, 12:00 PM

Frankly I hope it does. I love the distorted news flash about the 'loss of jobs' all it really means is that the workers won't be employed by the Council. The only worrying thing about this is the ability of the Council's to specify and manage contracts. As we've seen illustrated by Parkway, that doesn't seem to be a skill at which they are proficient.

However, if you think about it, this approach is simply the logical conclusion of what's been happening for ages. The Council is simply in place to deliver a range of services, the terms for which are proscribed nationally. So, in effect, all they have become is a complaints department. Nothing more, nothing less.

If we are to have a devolved power structure as a counter to devolution, the local Councils are too small to be the real local tier of government. Today's commerce and communications mean that strategic planning etc needs to be on a much wider scale.

Yes, there is a crying need for real local government but the present model is time expired and spent.

Posted by: blackdog Feb 21 2015, 09:42 PM

Wasn't so long back that WBC outsourced a large chunk of their operation - then took it back in-house when the contractor fell apart having found they couldn't do the work for the agreed price.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 21 2015, 10:35 PM

Quite true, but I also seem to remember it was all wound up behind closed doors and nothing made public because of 'commercial confidentiality' so, in those famous words 'they would say that wouldn't they'.

Posted by: user23 Feb 21 2015, 11:37 PM

As highlighted above with both Liverpool and Lancashire councils, private sector outsourcing rarely delivers the savings that are promised. It's a familiar story, and insourcing has http://www.localgov.co.uk/Why-insourcing-is-looking-up/24845, however there are still a few areas that fail to heed the warnings, as seems to be happening in Northamptonshire.

Posted by: user23 Feb 21 2015, 11:38 PM

<double post>

Posted by: On the edge Feb 22 2015, 07:07 AM

Cost isn't necessarily the prime consideration, any more than the only agency is a plc.

Posted by: user23 Feb 22 2015, 10:01 AM

That's true, but with http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/dec/18/local-government-financial-settlement-councils-breaking-point-cuts-spending, and further cuts to come no matter which of the major parties form the next government, cost is usually the major consideration.

It's one of the reasons why the private sector firms in the examples above have failed to deliver public services well. Businesses are rarely faced with a 40% funding cut, yet expected to deliver broadly the same services.

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 22 2015, 01:59 PM

All well and good but if the council had acknowledged that they had wrongly marked the bays, stated that they would ensure that the greenmeanies would be instructed to use discretion on those bays that are incorrect and agreed to look at the fines that had been issued, everybody would have been happy especially if the council had said simply, "At the moment, we can't afford a repaint."

Posted by: MontyPython Feb 22 2015, 03:51 PM

Indeed the problem with User and WBC is the inability to admit that a mistake has been made, accept the responsibility and apologise. As a result they don't appear to learn the lesson, because they continually try to deny there is a problem!

Posted by: user23 Feb 22 2015, 04:14 PM

Doesn't it say that in the original post?Where are these bays anyway, and do people actually want fewer parking spaces in that car park?

Posted by: On the edge Feb 22 2015, 04:58 PM

Actually, that's just the point. Good customer relations would have produced just such a response - which would be very difficult to argue with! But no, the iron necked soviet style approach is institutionalised so it seems.

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 22 2015, 05:06 PM

It may do but I quote Mr Mark Edwards.....

"I’m afraid I don’t have any further breakdown of the statistic, and I won’t be issuing any instructions to my CEOs.

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 22 2015, 05:11 PM

Both Mr Mark Edwards and Mr Mark Cole of WBC were quoted as saying .........

.......that they rejected Mr Green’s suggestion of putting up signs to warn motorists that they risked breaking regulations, insisting that it should be left to the county’s 14 civil enforcement officers (traffic wardens) to decide whether to issue fixed penalty notices or not.

Ah well, "I won’t be issuing any instructions to my CEOs. "

Posted by: On the edge Feb 22 2015, 05:16 PM

Oooh you've touched a raw nerve there Exhasted, they aren't very good in the Traffic Signs Department as we keep seeing! (Or not on certain bridges)

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 22 2015, 06:57 PM

Why should it matter where these non regulation parking bays are? They should not be there surely is the question?

You know as well as everyone else that what people don't want is parking bays small enough that it automatically results in penalty charges if you do use them.........all except yourself and the rest of WBC obviously?

Posted by: motormad Feb 22 2015, 11:41 PM

I can't be bothered to read the whole thread so I'll just add -
The daily mail piece, BMW driver is parked like a tw@.

I've never not been able to park either my small german hatchback or the Mrs big german saloon anywhere in Newbury.
While perhaps officially small I fail to have came across any where a normal person couldn't fit a car in normally.

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 23 2015, 09:22 AM

Nor have I MM.
Goodness, a bit of that rarity common sense creeping in!
Also the issue seems to be around the length of the bays whereas the problem most have (e.g. the BMW) is with width.
https://www.facebook.com/BadParkingPatrolUK

Posted by: GMR Feb 23 2015, 05:22 PM

I think that depends on how you look at it. To say their team have no experience means their incompetence can get them more money (and then blame it on inexperience and incompetence).

Posted by: motormad Feb 25 2015, 04:53 PM

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Parking-like-a-****-in-Newbury-and-surrounding-areas/567735763353560?fref=ts

better link.

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 26 2015, 08:49 AM

Love it!!
I think I might be on there somewhere!!

Posted by: Mr Brown Feb 26 2015, 08:08 PM

So it seems there is no problem here anyway! Perhaps the best answer is to introduce what I've seen in several places in the States. No markings at all, just let the drivers sort it out themselves.

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 27 2015, 09:10 AM

Only problem, as with most issues on the road, is the drivers!

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 27 2015, 10:52 AM

he apparent problem not marking parking spaces according to government recommendations. This is obviously a ploy by WBC to give the impression that Newbury has more parking spaces than it really 'should' have.

Posted by: motormad Feb 27 2015, 05:19 PM

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=793488424075083

Look at the men who are doing the measuring.
says it all really....


come on derrick...mmmmmm...*rubs legs*.


On a serious note I'd rather have 10% less parking spaces if it meant people wouldn't ding your door.................

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 27 2015, 07:40 PM

No, they'd still manage it!
I try and park as far as I can from other cars but when I get back there is always someone next to me desperately trying to dimple my doors a bit more!!

Posted by: blackdog Feb 28 2015, 12:59 PM

And, presumably, you'd be happy to pay 10% more? And find the car park full more often.

It seems logical to me to put in a variety of sizes to optimise space usage - in clearly marked small and large car areas.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 28 2015, 01:26 PM

Yes but then you would have to have the largest parking spaces nearest to the town centre and ensure there was a permanent CEO for the Chelsea Tractors, Audi, BMW drivers to ensure the plebs with the little more environmentally but essential cars don't use them!

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 28 2015, 07:54 PM

mmmm. Brian Radford, ace investigative reporter. sport and NWN.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 28 2015, 09:01 PM

mmmm. Do you have to have special qualifications to enable you to read a tape measure then?

Perhaps that's why WBC staff have marked them incorrectly then?

Posted by: MontyPython Mar 1 2015, 03:40 PM

Why would you have to pay more - the car parks make far more than they cost.

Posted by: blackdog Mar 1 2015, 04:15 PM

That may well be the case, though it wasn't so long ago that WBC were losing money on parking (in the early days of the Green Meanies). However, the issue is wider than the cost/profit from the car parks - it also impacts on whatever service would be cut should the parking revenue reduce by 10%.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 1 2015, 05:36 PM

Too right Blackdog! Which also gives lie to the myth that we won't notice the 'missing' revenues from Parkway....

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 1 2015, 06:19 PM

Tell the young vulnerable people who are facing cuts that they won't be missing the revenues then.

Unbelievable!

Posted by: Exhausted Mar 1 2015, 08:28 PM

I thought there was a government rule that car parking revenue must not support anything other than traffic related expenditure. One must assume of course that is the case in Market Street.

Posted by: blackdog Mar 1 2015, 11:21 PM

So the car parking pays for some more potholes to be filled in, or another stretch of road to be resurfaced. Or such is the theory radidly concocted when WBC realised their new on-street parking charge scheme was under threat. I'd like to see the results of an audit that could show that the new revenue actually went to provide additional traffic related expenditure.

However, I believe the law (or rule or whatever) only applies to on-street parking. Off-street car parks with the variable sized bays are, in essence, nothing more than a commercial venture by WBC - they can do what they want with the cash. Home care, staff bonuses, whatever.

Posted by: motormad Mar 2 2015, 03:15 PM

I never have paid to park in Newbury, except for the little Mulistory round near Nandos on a Friday night.
Sainsburys etc is never completely full and could happily lose 10% of the spaces if it meant more room for doors. my biggest peeve is spaces that aren't large enough for 2 cars to park and still open doors , usually this is because some potato can't park

Posted by: JeffG Mar 2 2015, 04:29 PM

You mean the Kennet Centre multistory? I wouldn't call it particularly little

Posted by: HeatherW Mar 2 2015, 07:29 PM

Parking bays is another council scandal. Hard working people are trying to do a hard days work and count every penny, while councils up and down the country are trying to take it off them anyway they can. Councils are there to offer a service, not to try to antagonize us. Well, that is the theory, anyway.

Posted by: Spider Mar 2 2015, 07:50 PM

That depends on what you are comparing it with. I've traveled quite a bit as a lorry driver and I can tell you there are a lot bigger car parks than what this town calls parking arenas.

Posted by: Mr Brown Mar 2 2015, 08:57 PM

Parkway seems OK, then I'm biased as I live here. It does seem easy to use and very convenient though.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 2 2015, 09:04 PM

To be really honest, rather than touching up the existing parking areas, which we didn't seem to have much of an issue with until very recently, I'd much rather see a complete overhaul of the Wharf / Museum / Library area to make it much more attractive, easier to use and to eliminate the nonsense of KFC car park access on the junction. WBC keep on about gateways and first impressions - this area us just that for many visitors, yet it has the ambience of a recently flattened development site.

Posted by: Spider Mar 3 2015, 05:14 PM

I think WBC is squeezing business with their parking issues, which creates a not very nice place to visit. I, like others, do my shopping outside Newbury town centre because I don't think it is friendly enough for people who live here, let alone visitors.

Posted by: newres Mar 3 2015, 06:49 PM

I parked in the "long stay" library car park on Saturday in my wife's car and the car was longer than the bay.

Posted by: Spider Mar 3 2015, 07:17 PM

That is great news for the car park attendances. If they catch your car they can find you and more money for the coffers. WBC seem to be very militant in their outlook where money is concerned.

Posted by: HeatherW Mar 3 2015, 07:23 PM

My husband was a fraction over and he got done. He had a very big car. The attendant was putting the ticket on his car when he arrived. The attendant just smiled and said that if you are a fraction over you will be done. Hitler would have been proud of his legacy. My husband said he didn't know whether to cry or salute. I would have kicked the bugger between the one eyed jack.

Posted by: Exhausted Mar 3 2015, 08:51 PM

Now we know that the bays are incorrectly marked for the larger Chelsea tractors, I would have thought this one was worth a tape measure and a camera, assuming we are talking about a car not fitting the bay, followed up by an appeal and a phone call to Mr Radford (investigative reporter) if you get knocked back. A copy of the ticket should identify the CEO and they do take pictures so WBC should be able to provide photographic evidence of the misdemeanour.

Get back at them where it hurts, in the pocket.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 3 2015, 10:42 PM

You could also send a copy of the ticket to the Wardens departmental head with a demand for a refund based on his remarks in NWN, telling him you'll deduct it from your community charge unless sorted.

Posted by: greenmeanie61 Mar 7 2015, 09:56 AM

My advice is if you think a parking ticket has been issued unfairly (for example being issued a PCN for parking outside of the bay markings) and you don't agree with the councils final decision, use your right of appeal and go to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

They are the service responsible for adjudicating disputed parking tickets. If you have a valid case that the PCN had been issued unfairly, they will not uphold it. It is a fair system, free for all to use, where solicitors or barristers use the balance of probability, rather than a beyond all doubt approach to make decisions. 1000s of tickets a year are adjudicated.

See the http://www.patas.gov.uk/ the http://www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/how-to-appeal?BHT-a774b711-6453-4cae-9e63-a3d5082f6b7a.7 or the http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/consumer_w/consumer_cars_and_other_vehicles_e/consumer_driving_and_parking_e/consumer_parking_tickets_e/consumer_disputing_a_council_issued_parking_ticket_e/appealing_to_the_traffic_penalty_tribunal_or_parking_and_traffic_appeals_service.htm for further details.

It is your right, use it!

Posted by: Exhausted Mar 8 2015, 12:54 PM

The question is though, will you use your discretion if the bay is too small for the car and overhangs OR will you issue a ticket and leave it to the driver to sort out on appeal to the council. How have you been instructed.

Posted by: newres Mar 8 2015, 03:15 PM

What do you think?

Posted by: Exhausted Mar 8 2015, 04:46 PM

I know what I think but I wouldn't mind a confirmation or otherwise from the horse's mouth so to speak.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 9 2015, 09:51 AM

And you'll get exactly what you've been told officially. They will use their discression. I have some sympathy for the Green Meanies. They actually do a pretty good job and round here, unlike a good few other places, we have very few reported over zealous parking complaints. Equally, and I'd be the first to say WBC should get the size right, but some motorists don't help themselves. My neighbour for instance, who has just taken delivery of a nice new but unnecessarily huge Land Rover. Just him and his wife, but it's needed because he doesn't like being trapped when it snows!

Posted by: greenmeanie61 Mar 10 2015, 11:26 AM

Instructions from our supervisors have not changed at all and we have had no special advice. We have obviously discussed the news stories, but we all agreed it was a bit of a non-story. We will continue to enforce as we have always done, that being with fairness, discretion and consistency. Each case of parking out of bay is different, but if a space is blocked by another vehicle, preventing that bay from being used, or a vehicle is causing an obstruction to other car park users, then of course we have to issue. As stated before, if you don't agree with the councils decision, take it out of the councils hands altogether and appeal to the TPT; let them make the decision.

Our training guidelines state that the footprint of a vehicle is the tyre footprint, so along as the tyres are within a bay, then a PCN will not be issued. A car with a tyre on a line would not be issued to, unless in very unusual circumstances. A vehicle with the bumper hanging outside a bay (a Jaguar XJ for example, which has a very long boot) will not be issued to unless causing an obstruction, but that is a different matter.

As I say, each case is different. However, out of bay tickets are a small part of the overall number, and its usually a clear book/don't book decision. Our job isn't rocket science after all, and common sense always applies, regardless of what some people think.

In terms of the council bay sizes, they are broadly in line with other car parks in the town, which do vary greatly in size. It must be remembered that most of the car parks were designed over 25/30 years ago, if not longer. Road use and vehicles were very different back then. Resizing parking bays would mean reduced parking capacity, and would require some car parks to be remodeled entirely, at vast cost to the tax payer.

Posted by: Exhausted Mar 10 2015, 05:05 PM

An excellent reply. Thanks for that. Quite clearly indicates that the whole thing was a bit of a non story and that the fairness rule seems to apply. As long as the tyres are inside the bay and any overhang is not causing an obstruction, no ticket.
I do think that the employer should at least when the story was first broken, have at least discussed it officially with the CEOs.

Posted by: Don Mar 10 2015, 05:29 PM

Howdy,

Is there such a thing as a non story? If it hadn't been brought up then we wouldn't have got the reply we did? I am pleased this is a forum where somebody comes on and explains things. Does this forum have an official from WBC or Newbury Town council on here answering questions? I did put something up on the Sign con thread and I would love an in-depth reply.

Don

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 10 2015, 07:42 PM

Welcome Don. The more people that offers opinions the better.

Unfortunately our local Councillors do not read this forum and even if they did they do not do "Answering questions"

There are no officials from WBC or Newbury Town Council who post on the forum

You should be able to quickly tell those who are shall we say, sympathetic to them though, and we usually call them the unofficial Council spokesperson.

Posted by: Biker1 Mar 11 2015, 08:32 AM

Many seem to think so!