For shame

[patdavies]

This story in my local paper is something I found faintly amusing.

 

This is DarwinUK's employer; it would appear that he is not raising as much revenue as they thought.

 

You also have to ignore the claptrap at the end. The warning period was prior to the start of DPA when the newly employed CEOs were walking round leaving sticky notices on cars (illegally) that stated that from the start of DPE, they would have been ticketed.

[green_and_mean]

This story in my local paper is something I found faintly amusing.

 

This is DarwinUK's employer; it would appear that he is not raising as much revenue as they thought.

 

 

He did mention that he let most people off, lol!!

[green_and_mean]

The councillor responsible for the scheme, Emma Webster (Con, Birch Copse) said: “Quite often, in the initial stages, the number of tickets is often lower than one might expect,

 

I think someone should tell her when a new scheme starts the PCN issue is HIGHER due to ignorance of the regulations and drivers not used to the area being enforced by CEOs instead of the occasional passing PC. PCN issue actually drops off as compliance increases due to drivers getting caught and drivers being more aware.

[crem]

Surely the council's target should be that nobody gets a PCN because they all park correctly and within the time on P&D bays? So why does the council have a budgetted income from these fines?

Edited April 24, 2009 by crem

[lamma]

they used the standard spreadsheet.

 

so what of it runs at a loss ? Income is not the aim, it is done to keep traffic moving so its a service.

 

Strange how councils always claim its not about the money - unless the boot is in the other foot.

[green_and_mean]

Surely the council's target should be that nobody gets a PCN because they all park correctly and within the time on P&D bays? So why does the council have a budgetted income from these fines?

 

Because its not their money they are spending and they have to have a budget, they cannot just employ 25 CEOs and say to the elected Council they don't know how much it will cost. In a perfect world no one would get a PCN but sadly we do not live in a perfect world.

[lamma]

budget ? nothing to do with budgets. as well known councils talk about 'needed income' all the time but they are only talking about operational budgets NOT the complete financial statements which are very different things.

 

Like all council services it is a service, if it runs at a loss its just the same as all their other services - councils are not profit making organisations.

 

they spend OUR money giving us services. It is up to us to comment on which service is giving value for money. the council's job is to serve.

 

Someone should FOI their CPE planning spreadsheet.

[green_and_mean]

budget ? nothing to do with budgets. as well known councils talk about 'needed income' all the time but they are only talking about operational budgets NOt the complete financial statements.

 

Like all council services it is a service, it of runs at a loss its just the same as all their other services - councils are not profit making organisations.

 

they spend OUR money giving us services. It is up to us to comment on which service is giving value for money. the council's job is to serve.

 

Statutary Guidance on Parking

 

CPE financial objectives

14.

For good governance, enforcement authorities need to forecast revenue in advance. But raising revenue should not be an objective of CPE, nor should authorities set targets for revenue or the number of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) they issue.

15.

Enforcement authorities should run their CPE operations (both on- and off-street) efficiently, effectively and economically. The purpose of penalty charges is to dissuade motorists from breaking parking restrictions. The objective of CPE should be for 100 per cent compliance, with no penalty charges. Parking charges and penalty charges should be proportionate, so authorities should not set them at unreasonable levels. Any penalty charge payments received (whether for on-street or off-street enforcement) must only be used in accordance with section 55 (as amended) of the Road Traffic RegulationAct 1984.

16.

Previous guidance said that local authority parking enforcement should be self-financing as soon as practicable. This is still a sensible aim, but compliant applications for CPE (see next section) will be granted without the scheme being self-financing. However, authorities will need to bear in mind that if their scheme is not self-financing, then they need to be certain that they can afford to pay for it from within existing funding. The Secretary of State will not expect either national or local taxpayers to meet any deficit.

[lamma]

effectively - yes its should be, its stated purpose is to keep traffic moving so as long as it does that it is indeed effective.

 

economically - does not mean profitably. as long as they are running a compliant service at a competive cost then that is effective.

 

Sec of State can 'expect' what he wants - councils routinely ignore what the Sec of State says they 'should' do. His expectation is just that, an expectation not a 'must do'.

 

Once this council has settled down and knows what income it derives from enforcing parking in the manner it is supposed to be enforced i.e. not as a revenue source it will know how much it can spend.

And as I mentioned earlier, everything a council does is a service to us, it all costs money - our money, the 'value call' is ours.

 

The purpose is managing traffic.

 

and once again youignore the point about the complete financial accounts and the difference between that an Operational Budgets.

 

For those that doen;t know the diffrence I suggest googling for

'Whole of Government Accounts'

or

 

WGA

 

and download the spreadsheet that councils fill in.

 

 

Do people really think that the Icelandic banks were the only investments that councils make with their surpluses ? When wa sthe last time your council reported on its investment income and its surpluses - and its attempts to relaase 'locked' surpluses such as that from parking.

While they still whine on about 'operational budgets' and income shortfall - while hiding the consolidated financial accounts.