Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: On the edge Oct 24 2013, 07:00 AM

We seem to have a continuing problem where WBC are still issuing 'illegal' parking fines and installing 'illegal' (unenforceable) road signs. This must indicate that there is a serious unresolved problem with the level of expertise presently available to the Council. Most of us would have expected these schemes, which frankly are not unusual, to have been thoroughly checked before implementation; basic project management.

Therefore, would it not be better to contract this area out to a larger Council who would have access to the appropriate professional competences?

Surely we cannot continue with the existing arrangements which are proving as expensive as they are embarrassing?

Posted by: Mr Brown Oct 24 2013, 08:21 AM

If they are making the same basic mistakes time and again, I would have thought that the auditors would be picking it up and reporting to the Chief Executive. It's odd, though that the Council's PR people haven't managed the news release.

Posted by: JeffG Oct 24 2013, 08:30 AM

It would be helpful to have some examples.

Edit: Oh, there's a link in another thread to an NWN article.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 24 2013, 08:43 AM

There are two reports on today's Newbury Today page, one about parking fines, the other about signage. There have also been threads here, notably the one about Parkway bridge.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 24 2013, 08:49 AM

Don't forget the bollards.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 24 2013, 09:37 AM

Go and by a paper you freeloader!

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 24 2013, 09:38 AM

They allegedly cost the council (tax payer)!

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 24 2013, 09:47 AM

Since when have the council been overly concerned about those things!

What he probably means is that the council's record keeping on this is so primitive, they can't!



Surely if an authority are to fine people they should have a robust system in place to meet expected appeals?

As OTE suggests, on the face of it it looks like the council took on a responsibility that they simply were not equipped to deal with. Rather embarrassing for them I think.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 24 2013, 09:52 AM

I know, those folk blamelessly at the council's mercy, having their cars wrecked.....

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 24 2013, 09:54 AM

At least the council didn't break the law in so far this solution cost them, rather then profit from it. A loose, loose situation!

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 24 2013, 10:09 AM

who cares!

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 24 2013, 10:11 AM

An attitude the council profits from it seems.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 24 2013, 10:15 AM

Councils in general.

parking is a bit of a hot topic, and the NWN are IMHO using a non story in the full knowledge it gets people going.

Maybe the council should just put parking permit charges on a rolling monthly standing order & leave the onus on the car owner to cancel the DD if needs be rather than expect folk to actually read & understand & renew their permits.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 24 2013, 10:26 AM

I agree. A few lines of SQL is hardly "an unsupportable use of council resources", and if such a query would take more than a couple of lines of SQL then their business management systems are miserably inadequate.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 24 2013, 10:29 AM

Or just do what the rest of the 21c does and pass the cost on of issuing reminders (emails/SMS, etc), all made available on line, maybe. Some places have an option to pay a little extra to be reminded.

However, in this story, it is also about a council allegedly wrongly fining people.

Posted by: newres Oct 24 2013, 10:43 AM

The thing is that the council profit from the cost of the fine and then the cost of the permit. It is in their interests for people not to renew as they can then profit twice. But, yes, 1/2 hours work to send out 900 reminders once a year (they all renew in January). £300 in postage, but cheaper than the current system of taking debit card payments over the phone assuming cheques are sent in by return.

It is gross incompetence. If whoever is responsible for parking in Newbury worked in the real world, he would be out on his ear.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 24 2013, 10:46 AM

precisely.

as I said, a non story, but on an emotive topic.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 24 2013, 10:58 AM

The technology to support simpler and more convenient methods of paying for stuff has developed rapidly over the last couple of years. Time was that receiving payment cost firms a considerable overhead because they had to employ clerks to man payment desks or open snail-mail and process cash and cheques, writing receipts, entering payments in ledgers, and making trips to the bank. Credit and debit cards simplified the process a bit but the advent of e-commerce was a revolution. It removed the need for the clerk altogether and automated the whole billing and payment process so that repeat customers can now receive e-mail and sms bills with embedded links to process payment that is more convenient for the consumer and little cost to the supplier. Even the physical parking permit can be printed by the consumer so there's no actual need for a physical delivery. For customers who don't have mobile phones or e-mail e-commerce systems can still interface to snail-mail at minimal cost or the facilities can be provided at public libraries or council offices through self-service terminals. There's really very little need for any human intervention in something like a parking permit scheme where the whole process from marketing to the physical delivery of the permit can be automated. With residents' parking schemes being operated by pretty much every local authority in the country it frankly ridiculous that they haven't all got together to commission a common solution.

Posted by: newres Oct 24 2013, 10:59 AM

Why a non story? The council are illegally issuing fines. In order to make it a story, would they need to smash up their cars instead of issuing an illegal fine?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 24 2013, 11:00 AM

I couldn't agree more.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 24 2013, 11:00 AM

Of course it is a story; being an allegation doesn't make it untrue. This then makes one think what else the council might be doing wrongly.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 24 2013, 11:01 AM

People need jobs Simon. Pure & simple.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 24 2013, 11:04 AM

That is something I can agree with you on, although for some this would sniff of socialism!


What would be hard to sign up to an annual roll-over automatic renewal like insurance companies do?

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 24 2013, 11:05 AM

If a few dozen examples could be found I'd agree with you.

The NWN may as well start running 'stories' on any old supposition, may be, what if or rumour.

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

Well you can either have large numbers of the population paid not to do anything ( it works for farmers after all ) or find a balance between totally pintless jobs & gainful employment.

I notice that someone is paying for a 'fish run' to bypass Shaw Mill & allow fish to move between the Kennet & Lamourn rivers.

Is that a waste of tax payers money in theese austere times, or a useful contribution to society which also employs many people?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 24 2013, 11:09 AM

This case isn't a rumour, and comes on the back of a number of parking management 'errors'. West Berkshire Council's parking management system is being clearly brought in to dispute. Not only that, they seem to fail in getting the PR organised properly too.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 24 2013, 11:12 AM

I don't know enough to comment about it, but it wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't an ecological value here that isn't immediately apparent; however, the management of the parking in West Berkshire appears incompetent and there are valid reasons to believe that.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 24 2013, 11:15 AM

As a vociferous critic of council spending I can see nothing wrong with this. My Councillor and his party mentioned investing in their election literature, so I had a choice. He got in and did what he said, it's a capital spend and also in line with Central policy......unlike robes or flags

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 24 2013, 11:18 AM

one case.

but to try & gve the story more credence we have the usual 'Oooo, if it happened to me how many more cases like mine are there out there???'

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 24 2013, 11:19 AM

funny that.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 24 2013, 11:26 AM

You old socialist you - will the real Richard Garvie please stand up!

Seriously though, I don't agree that it's the role of the state to create busy-work just for the jobs. It wasn't right to prop up our anachronistic heavy industry in the seventies, and creating administration non-jobs isn't right now. If the Big Fat State didn't tax us so hard British manufacturing might just be able to create some real jobs.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 24 2013, 11:30 AM

That has been brought to our attention, but it is not the first time the council have wrongly fined someone for an alleged parking offence.


And in this case, due to the primitive system the council have in place, the council are unable to confirm whether this was a systemic failure, or a 'clerical' error. This is why organisations attempt to install robust systems to mitigate any such incidence. The council are not in a position to refute anything.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 24 2013, 11:39 AM

So heavy industry was right to fail, but if we wern't taxed so much we'd have a maunfacturing base.

Why do I have this feeling you are thinking along the lines of 3 men on cloth caps, wholem,eal trousers & sandals making hand turned toilet roll holders from knarly bits of wood they have foraged?

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 24 2013, 11:47 AM

they haven't done so. just the usual

'we don't know'. 'we have no recollection of that'

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 24 2013, 11:53 AM

You're in danger of moving into user23like scatter-gun argument territory!


History shows if something isn't self supporting, or sustainable (e.g. non-jobs) it will fail. What is also true is mechanisation and IT are removing jobs too.

This is all mute anyway, in this incidence the council failed to employ people to oversee a system that could have been self supporting. Parking permits are a reasonable idea for the circumstances, but in this case, the council failed to make use of a service requirement that might have created sustainable jobs and failed to ensure good record keeping which I would have though would have been mandatory.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 24 2013, 11:57 AM

Now there is a meatier bit of the story. Why don't the council know who has paid & why?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 24 2013, 12:07 PM

That has been my argument here. Not only that, why was this person taken to a tribunal which has now cost the council (tax payers) even more than it otherwise needed to have done?

Posted by: motormad Oct 24 2013, 12:11 PM

While the signage for the bridge and parking areas may be questionable I've never had a parking ticket or a fine. Ultimately we are using get out clauses to avoid paying for our mistake (eg driving over the buses only bridge).

However there are regulations there and legally the regulations should be upheld
Cost is not an excuse. Sure they made enough out of us anyway.

Idiots.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 24 2013, 12:13 PM

perhaps keeping such information isn't required.....


the parking tribunal is the only authority when you have a dispute. that is the way it works. If the council decides leniencey, the penalty is anulled. If not you can either pay up, or take it all the way.

the council don't write their own rules with regard to parking regulation.

Posted by: ihowgate Oct 24 2013, 12:31 PM

The fact is that our Council are using the parking system to raise funds at the expense of the tax payer, they have been caught out more than once and are not about to change their tune becaus ethey have some big senior managment salaries to justify and they believe they are higher than, the courts, the police, the information commissioner, the LGO and even higher than God.

Has no one noticed the inordinate number of people who get fined by our council for parking on the high street in the pedestrian zone. These poor people simply don't understand the sign posting because it is so incredibly unclear. It seems to suggest that the signs are for pedestrians to pay attention to and with the absence of yellow lines and the absence of the word 'parking' anywhere in the signs it leaves the motorist to think that the parking bays which line the street are there for them to use. Then no sooner than they do than they get slapped with a £70 fine.

I wrote to the council about this and asked why they did not put up clearer sign posting which would aid the motorist to comply and make the traffic flow better and aid the pedestrian in the process. They told me that they had put it past the ministry of transport and that their scheme complied. I said but teh public don't understand - they said we don't believe you. So I did and reported a survey - 20 motorists were shown the sign and 17 got its meaning completely wrong, one knew the answer as he was a councillor who had voted on teh scheme, one knew the answer as he had been fined by teh scheme before and one got very close but was narrowly wrong. The council still refused to put up clearer signs and when I complained they initially refused to lodge my complaint, then they rejected my complaint and eventually they told me I was not allowed to ask them questions any more about this issue. In the middle I asked them how parking fines compared with other roads with clearer signs - they refused to answer the question but did compare our highstreet with a parking facility in town and the figures were not greatly different which seeing as the high street is only open for 2 hours a day during shopping time and the car park is open all shopping hours is a scary comparison. I also asked whether anyone had been injured or killed since I first raised the issue as I was concerned about pedestrian safety. The Council told me that no one had, but a DPA request i made later showed that someone had apparently been killed and they had burried the issue because they could not tell whether the incident had actually been with a car in the area or if the person had stumbled into the area after being hit by the car.

The whole system is corrupt, the taxi drivers tip off the wardens to come and nab unsuspecting motorists who simply have not understood a sign post that the Council refuse to replace or improve upon (though they will put up signs telling people to lock their bikes) because it would reduce their potential to mug local people of money and hide behind the law in doing it.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 24 2013, 12:47 PM

Read what I posted: anachronistic heavy industry should fail, but that's not to say that heavy industry itself is anachronistic.

After WWII our European neighbours rebuilt their docks and modernised to handle containers, while in the UK we resisted containerisation, in part because the thought of modernisation with the loss of employment for thousands of stevedores was too painful, but also largely because the management of our nationalised docks was self-satisfied, arrogant, and incompetent.

Likewise steel. Britain led the nineteenth century technological innovation, but the industry sat on its hands in the twentieth century. The British steel industry failed in the seventies, but it was the post-war failure to modernise and invest which really killed the industry.

Likewise the British car industry. America was always dominant, but Britain had a relatively healthy industry, but it failed to modernise and sat on its laurels, and while the Japanese and others started producing more attractive models more cheaply and with every-improving quality, our nationalised production became ever more naff.

Likewise coal. It was once an efficient industry but declined steadily in the twentieth century as other countries modernised so that it became cheaper to import coal, for example from Argentina and China, and the miner's response to the oil crisis of the early seventies put the tin hat on the industry politically.

Likewise the rail industry. Britain had led the way in the early nineteenth century and had an impressive rail network that would have served the nation well in the twenty-first century, but the appalling strategic mismanagement of the Beeching Report along with the awful industrial relations and lack of investment destroyed the rail industry.

The same themes run through the whole of British heavy industry - nationalisation and incompetent management by the upper-class twits of empire with complacent Edwardian attitudes to competition by Jonny-Foreigner, and arrogant Victorian attitudes to the hoary-handed sons-of-toil who did the actual work.

Heavy industry could again succeed in Britain, but we need to compete with the rest of the world, and the rest of the world has not been snoozed.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 24 2013, 01:07 PM

Quite so Simon. We have a good local example. Huntley and Palmers; good old British mismanagement brought the World lead to its knees and ultimate death.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 24 2013, 01:19 PM

We criticise third world countries because officialdom takes bribes. Arguably our clean incorruptible system is far more honest. Really? Then what are the self determined unjustifiably high salaries we pay our public officials, or the job security if not the self same thing? In any other business, these failures would have been rewarded with a P45.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 24 2013, 01:24 PM

You have just rang the user23 bell.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 24 2013, 03:04 PM

Has no one noticed the inordinate number of people who get fined by our council for parking on the high street in the pedestrian zone. These poor people simply don't understand the sign posting because it is so incredibly unclear. It seems to suggest that the signs are for pedestrians to pay attention to and with the absence of yellow lines and the absence of the word 'parking' anywhere in the signs it leaves the motorist to think that the parking bays which line the street are there for them to use. Then no sooner than they do than they get slapped with a £70 fine.


The signs are perfectly clear. It isn't the council's fault that people do not understand what 'At Any Time' means.

Road signs are for pedestrialns to pay attention to, but not motorists? There are no signs saying 'Parking' because you can't park....

Same goes for those caught speeding on roads lit by streetlights.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 24 2013, 03:08 PM

You forgot to metion the role of the unions in all those industries, the difference in labour costs & safety between say a UK coal mine & one in China, or an Indian steel factory & a UK one, the way in which colossal amount of tax payers cash was used to modernise the continental rail network, the very nature of Globalisation in manufacturing, the way in which foreign nations used import duties to prevent overseas competition for their domestic car manufacturers etc etc etc.

You can't simply say that the everything was the fault of 'management'.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 24 2013, 03:16 PM

And then behold: Thatcher... she saw all this coming!

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 24 2013, 03:18 PM

She's off on an overseas junket to get more biscuits.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 24 2013, 03:19 PM

and the nation were thankful.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 24 2013, 03:21 PM

But at least the civil servants did their bit by offering a free plateful of biccies to all & sundry & arranging for meetings every 25 minutes.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 24 2013, 03:42 PM

Yeah, contributing to the American economy; no change there then.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 24 2013, 03:44 PM

naturally.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 24 2013, 04:23 PM

No, I was mindful of those factors, and you're right that it's not entirely fair to blame the Fall of Empire on the ruling classes, but it was largely a failure of leadership, industrial and political, that allowed Blighty to decline, and the decline continues. We're a small Northern European country that, for a peculiar combination of religion, geography, politics, invention, and luck stumbled out of the middle ages a world super-power with a formidable Navy, and then with some audacious agricultural innovation became the first society to industrialise, doing so with relatively little social unrest, then capitalising on our prodigious scientific and industrial invention to lead the renaissance and, by the end of the nineteenth century, rule half the world.

And then, having won the wars, we lost the peace. Through the whole of the twentieth century British industry was steadily overtaken by the rest of the world. By the sixties the baby-boomers began to demand all the material stuff that they felt the world owed them and that their parents had gone without. Come the seventies our moribund industry just couldn't afford what we felt we were worth and the wheels fell off.

The Unions and Thatcher had very little to do with it because the damage had been done over the preceding eighty years, and although I agree that our unrealistic social attitudes about what we're worth and what we deserve damage our ability to compete in a world market, I would still argue that it's a failing of politics to set us right.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 24 2013, 04:34 PM

When your sated, warm & happy in the knowledge that the little creature comforts that change the mediocre into the passable are always going to be there, no amount of poking with a stick, no matter how big, is going to alter that.

Neccessity is the mother of invention, enterprise & innovation. With the arrival of the tv diner, cheap foreign holidays & social mobility the nation became one of 'that'll do'.

Britain didn't fall back, the rest of the World just caught up.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 24 2013, 04:44 PM

Hey, you know me - all I'm asking for is an allotment. Even the bronze-age inhabitants of Wash Common had allotments while the Ice Age slush was still melting.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 24 2013, 04:58 PM

What Thatcher did was cripple union power. I think the problem the UK had around that time was that it was hugely in debt, while it went about organising the rebuilding Germany. Due to fortune and our location we 'accidentally' won the war; that was our 'undoing'.

Posted by: MontyPython Oct 24 2013, 07:23 PM

and don't follow the ones that are written so it seems!

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

Trust Ian to bring God into it.....

Who woke The Howgate Beast up?

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 24 2013, 08:13 PM

Once, twice - just human error, not ingrained malpractice.

Posted by: spartacus Oct 24 2013, 08:22 PM

Maggie's gone but the Union's continue to think they're living in Thatcher's Britain and try and cripple the country. Unite have had their bluff called and managed to increase the numbers using the JobCentre at Grangemouth by around 800.....

Posted by: MontyPython Oct 24 2013, 08:39 PM

More than twice even WBC know they have done it on numerous occasions, they just won't refund those people allegedly because they haven't got records.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 24 2013, 08:41 PM

if there are no records, how do they know & how can it be proved? Genius!

Posted by: desres123 Oct 24 2013, 08:44 PM

well as stated before I fail to understand why the council need to send reminders out to warn you that your permit is going to expire maybe they should ask spec savers to send leaflets out to permit holders then it be win win it wont cost the council anything extra and spec savers may get abit more business

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 24 2013, 08:47 PM

do you work for the council of sommat?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 24 2013, 08:49 PM

Sadly, I doubt a pair of glasses would improve you punctuation!

They don't 'need to', it is just common courtesy and an idea that is also common practice. It needn't cost anyone other than the recipient any money either.

Posted by: desres123 Oct 24 2013, 08:51 PM

nope and dont normally support the council but I dont understand why people need reminders when all they need to do is look at the expiry date of the permit and put it as a reminder on their phone or diary do they want the council to hold their hands all the time

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 24 2013, 08:52 PM

Problem is being nice costs money. Not being nice costs someone else money.

Posted by: newres Oct 24 2013, 08:52 PM

What kind of organisation wouldn't keep records of these sort of things? Sounds like untruthfulness to me. I assume whatever statement they made would have been carefully worded such that they can claim it wasn't a deliberate lie.

In the case of the most recent example, the article says that 40% of the neighbours were also ticketed so I am guessing that they received the same illegal penalty notice. Incidentally, my guess is incompetence rather than dishonesty otherwise they wouldn't have let it go to appeal

Posted by: desres123 Oct 24 2013, 08:53 PM

sorry couldnt find the grammer checker

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 24 2013, 08:55 PM

A spell checker failed to show I used a wrong word too!

Posted by: desres123 Oct 24 2013, 08:57 PM

maybe admin should add spell checker

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 24 2013, 09:00 PM

So you are saying whatever happens, it will cost someone money. I don't see what is so hard to have a reminder service that is paid for by the recipients of the service.

Posted by: newres Oct 24 2013, 09:00 PM

It was the council that imposed the resident's parking zones. No one asked for them. The least they could is make it easier for people who suddenly have this imposed upon them. A reminder or an auto renewal really ain't asking for the earth.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 24 2013, 09:00 PM

Any organization that isn't required to.

Too much supposition as to the 40% - no-one knows if there were, or were not displaying an expired or invalid permit, or none at all, or if even 'at least 40%' is just hyperbole.....

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 24 2013, 09:03 PM

Anyway ladies... the real debate should be why the freak did the council take this all the way to a tribunal!!! They were demonstrably in the wrong!

Posted by: desres123 Oct 24 2013, 09:03 PM

well thats a good point maybe the council should have an option when applying for a new permit if you wish for a reminder then it will be another £5 wonder how many will take thatservice up

Posted by: spartacus Oct 24 2013, 09:04 PM

The regulations relating to parking restrictions are a mess of red tape and legal mumbo-jumbo, with multiple cross-referenced regulations that would make your head spin. These can all too easily be brought into question when the very very small print is examined under the microscope.

And with more and more staff not having English as their mother tongue, getting to grips with the finer detail of 'Traffic Law English' can prove tricky. Frankly some of the English speaking products of our 'education system' struggle to string a sentence together of written English, so dealing with the finer details of these intricate regulations would be WAY, way beyond their capabilties.....

It is a recognised problem. So much so that DfT are completely revising (dumbing down?) their weighty Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions bible from a tome of over 1000 pages down to a more manageable and less prescriptive 100 or so pages. This will give less opportunity for challenges to be made over the signs not complying on a technical error. But this won't happen until early 2015.


Until then we're left with situations like the signs on the Parkway bridge. These were perfectly legal and in accordance with said regulations..... except "for the want of a lightbulb"


Yet people still complained they didn't understand the blue sign. Or they didn't know that 'Only' referred to the blue sign. or complained it wasn't big enough. It wasn't visible enough. The road markings with 'BUSES & TAXIS ONLY' wasn't understood.


While the restrictions are still being designed by humans, the signs are being manufactured by humans and enforced by humans, you're going to continue to get human error....

Posted by: newres Oct 24 2013, 09:06 PM

I assume because they didn't know that they were issuing the wrong tickets. It doesn't say in the article that this was the grounds for the appeal. If it was I doubt the council would have pursued it.

Posted by: spartacus Oct 24 2013, 09:16 PM

Sorry, but that is just bollox...

My family used to live in Westfields and the whole of the estate was surveyed around 2004 with a letter drop and response questionnaire. The problem then, as now, was that town workers were parking in our roads and as most of the houses had no garages or driveways we had nowhere to park. We responded that we wanted the scheme, and we got it!

And as parking schemes have to go to public consultation if the residents didn't want residents parking introduced they would be able to object. (IF enough bother to get off their backsides and respond...)

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 24 2013, 09:18 PM

Which would suggest the when someone appeals, no-one checks the veracity of the penalty!

"Bill Bloggs fined for not displaying a permit, then what is that photo of then?"

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 24 2013, 09:20 PM

A fair description of the origins of Newbury town's road layout!

Posted by: spartacus Oct 24 2013, 09:47 PM

Mind you, while the restrictions and well understood traffic signs (well you're meant to know some basic signs as part of passing your driving test anyways....) are still a bit too confusing for the hard of thinking, the local traffic management lot will always have their work cut out.

I mean c'mon Ian.... Do you REALLY not know what a No Waiting symbol looks like? It's the red circle with a blue fill and a red line through it. Really? And you found 20 people who also didn't know what it meant? Were they schoolchildren?





Which probably says more about the strictness of the written driving examination than anything else....

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 24 2013, 10:59 PM

Yes, the clever bloke took a picture of his car + permit & we all know that a picture never lies......

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 24 2013, 11:27 PM

dannyboy, I know it's late, but I think you will find the story is that the council took the photo!

"For, instead of correctly fining him £50 for not renewing it, the council tried to impose the maximum £70 charge for failing to display a permit – when its own photographic evidence showed that he had."

Posted by: newres Oct 25 2013, 06:10 AM

Have you ever seen no waiting signs without yellow lines before? I haven't. I would be guided by what is on the road and would not think to look anywhere else for guidance. If I ever got a ticket there (not that I would) I would challenge it. It verges on entrapment in my view.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 25 2013, 06:54 AM

I think you are saying the WBC staff no longer have the competence even to understand the simplified instructions laid out by DfT. That means we must expect error. Although in reality, the actual DfT instructions were not that difficult to follow - on your evidence, it looks as
if our Council cannot even secure a good clerk capable of following a few rules. As you say that means we must expect error, but the benefit must be a significant reduction in staff costs; we no longer need pay for expertise or competence..

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 25 2013, 08:34 AM

On this occasion, I understand the council did the right things and sought special permission from the DfT to not put down double yellow lines; didn't want to spoil the nice new road surface!

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 25 2013, 09:05 AM

I did miss that nugget of info. Which makes it even less of a story. Basically it boils down to a simple human error in the parking fines dept, you know, pressing the wrong key whern processing a valid endorsement.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 25 2013, 09:09 AM

What really gets me is that everyone who does decide to ignore the roadsigns on Northbrook St parks on the 'pavement', which is a no no regardless of yellow lines & or signs.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 25 2013, 09:40 AM

Yes, of course. There's the urban clearway sign above which is time-limited, and this clearway sign too, both of which designate areas where you may not stop at all without the need for yellow lines (which in any case don't prevent waiting).

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 25 2013, 09:49 AM

I agree, let's cut the poor Parking Fines Department some slack, with such chubby fingers mistakes will happen.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 25 2013, 09:51 AM

You don't work in West Berks appeals dept. do you? You seem qualified!


You mean the greenmeanie got it wrong or the council's appeals precess is not robust enough to filter these errors? Or indeed, don't check appeals before going before 'the beak'?

But despite that, why couldn't the spokesman for the council just say sorry, it was an administrative error? Their PR dept. is just as inept in the matters I think. It makes them look arrogant, which just adds fuel for the 'vexatious ones'!

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 25 2013, 10:02 AM

You don't know that.

I doubt they do check appeals.

Mistakes happen. Years back I got stopped for having a headlamp out & got a week to fix defect. I did but didn't bother to tell the police, so I got a summons. The evidence sheet was for a different car, stopped in a different location. The clerk had attached the wrong bits of paper together.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 25 2013, 10:03 AM

Coudn't agree more.

In my experience PR types are generally arrogant twerps.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 25 2013, 10:08 AM

I reworded it, but just as you frequently postulate, I'm doing so too, although this is my hunch in this case.


Of course mistakes happen, but considering the cost of wasting everyone's time going before the panel (for the sake of £20.00), I'd have thought someone would check the claim/appeal, surely?

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 25 2013, 10:12 AM

It would seem that the cost of filtering out mistakes is greater than the cost of letting them go to tribunal.

It is a modern phenomenon.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 25 2013, 10:43 AM

Well, I'd prefer if the Council would speak for themselves, but I can see that it might have gone down like this: Greenmeanie issues the ticked because the parking permit has expired, resident complains it's unfair because she didn't know the permit had expired, council takes the view that they can't let them off the ticket because even if it was a genuine mistake it would encourage others to try it on with an old permit. Resident takes the complaint to the Tribunal, and it's only when the adjudicator looks at the penalty that the council's error is discovered - that they tried to fine the resident £70 for not displaying a permit, when in fact they had displayed a permit but it had expired.

Maybe the council's error was pointed out to them and as a matter of policy they simply ignored what the complainant said, but maybe it was a technical administrative error which was never actually complained about. If the latter then it's the fines department's job to get the technicalities right, but mistakes do happen.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 25 2013, 11:32 AM

But this isn't 'filtering mistakes' this is about responding to a legitimate complaint. This is a story, and hope we get more headlines like this if it happens again.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 25 2013, 11:36 AM

If the NWN had more diligent journalists, we would probably know, but sadly, not only is this about an intransigent council, but news reporters failing to publish all the pertinent facts!

To take your version, we would have to assume that the complainant appealed knowing that they had no grounds to win an appeal. It is possible, but I doubt it.

Posted by: motormad Oct 25 2013, 11:45 AM

The more people know about it, surely the more people will fight their claims and the less money the council will generate.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 25 2013, 11:47 AM

Without a doubt there will be.

Of course it is about catching mistakes - the council should have a). fined the correct amount, . spotted the error.

but, as I said it is cheaper not to look for . & let things run their natural course.

Now, what can't be costed is the SNAFU of having the local paperun stories about council incompetence.....

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 25 2013, 11:49 AM

That would be so if the majority of the claims are spurious....

...leaving the council to generate income elsewhere.....

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 25 2013, 12:08 PM

Cheaper for who(?).


The moral of the story is always appeal; what does one have to lose(?).

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 25 2013, 12:51 PM

Actually what I think mostly happens with all kinds of council complaints is not that the complainant knows they have no grounds, but that the complainant doesn't understand that they need grounds.

It's my experience that people in general have almost no conception of their rights and invariably ground their indignation in some vague sense of injustice. Sometimes that's enough because apart from sociopaths most people share a common sense of justice and it's almost always the simplest and best thing just to go with that.

But if there is a need to escalate the complaint I'd guess that actually very few people would know how to frame their argument.

And then there are indeed honest-to-goodness sociopaths, and it's in the nature of their personality that they can at times insinuate themselves into positions of authority for the very reason that they enjoy d1cking people about. Grounding your complaint on your rights just infuriates them because they're all about being in charge.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 25 2013, 01:06 PM

Like I said, the moral of the story seems to be that one should always appeal a lapsed parking permit if it is the maximum fine.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 25 2013, 01:35 PM

the council.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 25 2013, 01:52 PM

Is this a fact?

Posted by: On the edge Oct 25 2013, 02:01 PM

A common sense of justice is of course the foundation of English Common Law. It's part of our constitution, which again isn't written that wrongs be tried by our peers. For the very reasons you state, Authority hate it and seek to abolish or codify it at any given opportunity. The latest was the Blair government's deliberate and unchallenged destruction of several hard own freedoms.

Be very very wary of any politician who says that we need a written constitution.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 25 2013, 02:04 PM

Or that it is right to overlook justice because 'we can't afford it'!

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 25 2013, 02:06 PM

You'd have to ask them.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 25 2013, 03:04 PM

So no then (?).

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 25 2013, 03:13 PM

Since when have we left facts ruin a good bit of forum banter?

No, I do not know empirically that is is cheaper as presently done. But, logic tells me that if something isn't being done at present, then there surely is a cost in doing it, even if to the casual obswerver the way it is being done seems illogical.

Where I used to work we had a rebate scheme which involved presenting photocopy invoices to a manufacturer.

Only certain products qualifyed.

I concluded that it was cheaper to tell the office junior to photocopy any invoice with that manufacturer's name on it than to educate them as to which were the rebatable lines. So they copied every invoice & I threw away the irrelavent ones. This way we didn't miss any invoices and the rebate cheques were higher.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 25 2013, 04:06 PM

And everything I post is supposed to contribute to that banter!

If was really serious about trying to make a difference, debating on a forum which has user23 'contributing' wouldn't be the first place I would start!


I don't see it as a matter of logic, but one of ethics.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 25 2013, 05:56 PM

Ethics are always optional, logic, well, is logic. Ethics come from the heart, lofic from the brain. Mr Spock always had it right.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 25 2013, 06:13 PM

Er, yes, but regardless, I believe West Berkshire Council's methods are or appear unethical. Ethics is as important as logic, or what ever you point was!

Posted by: Exhausted Oct 25 2013, 08:49 PM

To be a little pedantic, there are two statements on that sign.
First it is a pedestrian zone and secondly it is a no waiting zone.

However if you read it as one statement, whilst it is a pedestrian zone, there is no waiting. It could, in that case, be construed that the rule only applies when it is a pedestrian zone.

I know that is not the spirit of the sign but it is up to the knob heads who design them to be 100% clear in what restriction they are attempting to impose.

I rest my case M'lord.

Posted by: Strafin Oct 26 2013, 08:55 AM

Human error, like forgetting to renew your permit? Or not seeing a tiny yellow sign on the wall where are no yellow lines, funny how some are an outrage and some are completely reasonable in your eyes!

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 26 2013, 01:39 PM

I don't think I have every been outraged by anything on this forum. Thats my point. You miss the yellow sign & park on the pavement you get a ticket. You forget to renew your permit, you get a fine. You press the wrong button & the fine is thrown out.

big deal. gey over it, move on.

I can't wait for a realy big local **** up - there probably have been many, but we'd never know because of the diversonary 'news' stories every one gets worked up over instead.....

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 26 2013, 02:04 PM

That's bollox, These news items are as such because there isn't a more urgent one that is known about, but personally, the council ripping people off is news. You don't think so, I can get over that too.

You talk about people getting worked up over things, yet you prowl these forums spending no end of time reminding people of the 'error of their ways' (yet when pressed you have not proof you are right either - although I think you know more than you let on.

You and user23 need to realise people post for different reasons and who has the right to say what is appropriate to discuss or not, certainly not user23, or indeed you sometimes.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 26 2013, 02:23 PM

People do post for all manner of reasons, normally because they feel hard done by & want the aprobation of their peers to vindicate their position.

I just think that the sense of perspective is way out of kilter with the catual topic under discussion.

The council have not been ripping people off in this instance. They simply made a error.

This forum, is just something for a bit of a laugh - I can be pretty much be assured every day that someone will be sptiing feathers over the most trivial of matters & will post accordingly.

Oh, and the pathetic insinuation that 'I must know more than I let on' or am in the employ of the council is tedious & the last resort of many who post on here.

ta ta

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 26 2013, 02:36 PM

That is their prerogative, others see it differently. very little you have said changes that. Usually you say you have no proof or know anything for fact.


They are ripping people off, buy relying on people's deference to do their 'dirty work'.


And in equal measure, we can be sure to have your 'mock voice of reason' and 'pseudo laissez-faire'.


Touched a nerve by the looks of it, but that is your inference. Blackdog has a much more measured way of dealing with such innuendo.

I made no comment about you being an employee, but I do think you know more than you let one. You don't have to be an employee to be able to do that.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 26 2013, 02:40 PM

you can touch what you like.

it isn't mock anything.

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 26 2013, 02:53 PM

You will have no doubt heard the "it was an error" in many courtrooms to explain why an accused should be not be punished for lackadaisical practices to say the least. It would appear then that our local authority is full of errors not only over parking etc but many other examples of so called errors over the last few years? Would it not seem prudent then for someone in high management in the relevant local authority to admit there was an error made and ensure that practices would be amended to eliminate it happening again? But of course being Newbury that will not happen as they are never in the wrong and much time, effort and expense is provided to try show this!

Doth he protest too much?

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 26 2013, 05:03 PM

I think you do, yes.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 26 2013, 06:05 PM

Even I agree with you on that!

Posted by: Strafin Oct 26 2013, 10:49 PM

The council knowingly issuing parking tickets illegally, once they had been made aware of that by their own employees isn't human error, it is cynical bullying.

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 27 2013, 08:42 AM

If they had been told, and if they failed to act on that information, then every penalty/fine thereafter was not legally claimed. It isn't bullying.
Further, if they have been imposing penalties they had no right to 'whoever' made the decision to ignore the knowledge or even ignore the opportunity to check the information, has something to answer for.

I can see it could be difficult for the Council to pro-actively return money to the right person now, but they should be more pro-active in publicising exactly what error has been mad and inviting those wronged to claim...

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 27 2013, 09:48 AM

An authority that exploits people's deference towards them and uses that to avoid implementing proper controls to avoid mistakes, is a form of bullying: appeal...if you dare!

Posted by: newres Oct 27 2013, 10:20 AM

I agree. They act like some sort of enforcement body rather than the servants of the local population that pays them. There is a toxic culture in West Berks Council. Heads should but won't roll.

Posted by: user23 Oct 27 2013, 01:40 PM

Part of a local highways authority's role is to act as an enforcement body for traffic regulations.

Posted by: Nothing Much Oct 27 2013, 01:52 PM

Forgive me, but isn't there a
Local Government Association that acts on behalf of bodies such as WBC and
The Highways Agency that acts on behalf of Government to oversee regulation of traffic on major networks.

I am not sure that either body looks after parking in Northbrook St

Mingling two separate tasks into a 'local highways agency' has yet to happen.
ce

Posted by: Berkshirelad Oct 27 2013, 05:40 PM

But there is also a local Highways Authority (not Agency) which is responsible for all non-HA public roads. In most cases it is the county council, but for us in a unitary authority, we are stuck with WBC

To digress and add another revelation of misconception, there was an article in the NWN about cars turning back along the Broadway in Thatcham instead of carrying on to the A4. Somebody claimed that motorists were already turning illegally here. They are not, there is no definitive signage disallowing the 'U' turn. They may be writing on the road saying Ahead Only, but this has no enforcement validity on its own.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 27 2013, 05:45 PM

Good explanation, councils, services, agencies, authorities and it's always the other one to blame! Wonder why Gilbert and Sullivan aren't as popular as they were....