Local taxpayers are facing a £150,000 bill to cover the cost of West Berkshire Council's traffic wardens not finding enough motorists to fine.

Just four months after hitting households with an inflation-busting 4.1% council tax rise, new figures indicate that public funds will have to be diverted from other services to subsidise the 'green meanies' to the tune of £2800 every week.

The council has now ordered a 'review' of the controversial wardens after their disastrous performance in collecting cash from motorists for parking infringements. The eagle-eyed wardens have been operating on Sundays and bank holidays to catch out visitors to Newbury, but have so far failed to justify the expense of hiring so many.

Meanwhile, district planners are also expected to go £150,000 in the red by the financial year due to a shortage of big planning applications. The 60-strong planning department says it is "actively managing" the headcount, and is 'reviewing workload'.

I am surprised WBC have got time to "actively manage" their headcount. I thought they were all busy "reprofiling" delayed projects.  

This item seems to suggest that law enforcement should only be carried out if it is profitable.

At least WBC didnt invest in ICELAND ,they found another way to waste taxes !

Quoted from user23.3

This item seems to suggest that law enforcement should only be carried out if it is profitable.

That's fine, but should we employ more people than is necessary to achieve the same level of enforcement?

Quoted from Greenham Common

That's fine, but should we employ more people than is necessary to achieve the same level of enforcement?

No, hence the review I would guess. As usual I think that the "news" item is misleading as it doesn't point out that the £400 per day it is costing "us" is spread across the 145,000 people in West Berkshire I assume, which means if it's correct it is costing you and I, 0.3p a day each. Now that seems quite good value to me.

I wonder if the introduction of the wardens has seen a decline in complaints about wrongful parking?

Quoted from user23.3

No, hence the review I would guess. As usual I think that the "news" item is misleading as it doesn't point out that the £400 per day it is costing "us" is spread across the 145,000 people in West Berkshire I assume, which means if it's correct it is costing you and I, 0.3p a day each. Now that seems quite good value to me.

No it is highlighting the fact that the silly feckers at WBC didn't use some common sense and think before implementing a waste of our money. Anyone worth their salt (ie not WBC) would have taken the following approach.

Problem: Parking infringements on both yellow lines and non payment at Car Praks.
Cause: Exacerbated by lack of traffic warden (known by public and abused)
Solution: employ 3 or so wardens to issue fines - if cases do not fall significantly after a few month consider increasing no of wardens.

Then we wouldn't have this waste of money and possible cost of redundancy!

Quoted from user23.3

No, hence the review I would guess. As usual I think that the "news" item is misleading as it doesn't point out that the £400 per day it is costing "us" is spread across the 145,000 people in West Berkshire I assume, which means if it's correct it is costing you and I, 0.3p a day each. Now that seems quite good value to me.

Are there 145,000 council tax payers in West Berks?

Quoted from Greenham Common

Are there 145,000 council tax payers in West Berks?

No, good point, it must be costing us taxpayers a least half a pence a day to keep the streets clear.

Quoted from user23.3

No, good point, it must be costing us taxpayers a least half a pence a day to keep the streets clear.

So what about replying to my comment on the waste of money (ie efficiency) thought not - you like to gloss over "Worst Burkes-hired Council's" constant failings don't you!

Quoted from user23.3

No, good point, it must be costing us taxpayers a least half a pence a day to keep the streets clear.

Or pay 3/4 of the cost of the (withdrawn) travel token system, or 3 new playgrounds.

Quoted from Greenham Common

Or pay 3/4 of the cost of the (withdrawn) travel token system.

I don't follow you, what does that mean?

Quoted from user23.3

I don't follow you, what does that mean?

It means that a £150k shortfall in parking fines leaves a £150k to be found out of other projects so that WBC remains within budget. So £150k's worth of other WBC services do not get implemented.  

I guess the reality is that WBC will simply overspend and try to get back to balance by increasing next year's tax.

Quoted from blackdog

It means that a £150k shortfall in parking fines leaves a £150k to be found out of other projects so that WBC remains within budget. So £150k's worth of other WBC services do not get implemented.  

I guess the reality is that WBC will simply overspend and try to get back to balance by increasing next year's tax.

The phrase "shortfall in parking fines" suggests you think they should be fining more people in order to raise £150k of revenue.

Quoted from user23.3

I don't follow you, what does that mean?

I understand that the travel token scheme cost ~£200,000.00 pa.  The wardens or the planning dept are on course to be costing ~£150,000.00 pa.

Quoted from blackdog

It means that a £150k shortfall in parking fines leaves a £150k to be found out of other projects so that WBC remains within budget. So £150k's worth of other WBC services do not get implemented.  

I guess the reality is that WBC will simply overspend and try to get back to balance by increasing next year's tax.

Perhaps they should find it by getting rid of the "deadwood" staff - oh that would be more than £150k saving wouldn't it!

Quoted from user23.3

The phrase "shortfall in parking fines" suggests you think they should be fining more people in order to raise £150k of revenue.

Are there more people to fine, or are there too many wardens for the amount of parking infringements?

Quoted from Greenham Common

I understand that the travel token scheme cost ~£200,000.00 pa.  The wardens or the planning dept are on course to be costing ~£150,000.00 pa.

Right I get it now. I tell you what, if we got rid of the Council, Police and other law enforcement agencies all together we'd save loads of money.

Quoted from user23.3

Right I get it now. I tell you what, if we got rid of the Council, Police and other law enforcement agencies all together we'd save loads of money.

That wasn't the point I meant.  You were attempting to explain away the 'over budget' as a trivial amount of money.  I simply wanted to give a tangible example of what that money means.

Quoted from Greenham Common

That wasn't the point.  You were attempting to explain away the 'over budget' as a trivial amount of money.  I simply wanted to give a tangible example of what that money meant.

No, it is the point when you start to think of law enforcement purely in terms of cost.

Quoted from user23.3

No, it is the point when you start to think of law enforcement purely in terms of cost.

Everything comes down to cost.  The fact the Council are to review the system, suggests that they also think of law enforcement in terms of cost.  Otherwise, why did they not just come out and say that's the cost of enforcing parking restrictions?

Quoted from user23.3

No, it is the point when you start to think of law enforcement purely in terms of cost.

No it is when we talk about efficiency ( a word you clearly don't understand). Don't employ more people or resources than is required to do the task.

Quoted from Greenham Common

Everything comes down to cost.  The fact the Council are to review the system, suggests that they also think of law enforcement in terms of cost.  Otherwise, why did they not just come out and say that's the cost of enforcing parking restrictions?

They obviously have to review their spending however law enforcement shouldn't just come down to cost.

Let's say the Police did such a good job one month with prevention that there were no crimes in Newbury, do you think it would be prudent to close down the Police Station and sack all the Police Officers? Of course you wouldn't, even though in the short term we'd save quite a bit of money.

Quoted from user23.3

The phrase "shortfall in parking fines" suggests you think they should be fining more people in order to raise £150k of revenue.

No, I don't think they should be fining more people - but WBC seem to  - I assumed this after reading Cllr Betts' comments on the issue.

However, what I mean by a shortfall was that it seems that (when they put this year's budget together) they put a figure on the anticipated revenue from parking fines. And now they are seeing that they are not going to achieve this target, but a sum £150k lower.  The difference is what accountants will often refer to as a shortfall.

What concerns me most is that they could be so far wrong - £150k is an awful lot of parking offences.

Quoted from user23.3

They obviously have to review their spending however law enforcement shouldn't just come down to cost.  Let's say the Police did such a good job one month with prevention that there were no crimes in Newbury, do you think it would be prudent to close down the Police Station and sack all the Police Officers? Of course you wouldn't, even though in the short term we'd save quite a bit of money.

Neither did I say that enforcement should pay for itself.  I never suggested that there should be a removal of services, indeed, I never suggested anything, I merely pointed out that the projected lost revenue is the equivalent of 3/4 of the cost of the abolished travel token system.

What I'd like to know and is the most important question, is why there is such a shortfall.

Quoted from Greenham Common

Are there more people to fine, or are there too many wardens for the amount of parking infringements?

Perhaps reduce the amount of wardens and increase the amount of 'free' parking' days.  A win win news item for the council.

Quoted from Greenham Common

What I'd like to know and is the most important question, is why there is such a shortfall.

That's simple - they are not very good at guessing.  

Its not the only instance where wild overestimates of revenue have gone into budgets. Shaw House is another case - charge £5 to get in and it will raise the thousands needed to make the budget work - but it doesn't, it just dissuades people from visiting.

Of course another explanation would be that someone had to make the figures work out, so they work out the costs and then 'estimate' the revenue to fit.

Quoted from blackdog

That's simple - they are not very good at guessing.  

On this very forum we worked out their combined annual salaries, and their admin and back-up costs.

We divided that by their number, and that by 6 days a week. Worked out at issuing 14 tickets a day each, just to break even.

There's no real guess work here. The only problem seems to be that if they do their jobs very well  and all parking violations in Newbury stop, (which should be their goal) then all the costs fall on the tax payer.


Threep.

I am somewhat surprised by the Tories' financial incompetence at WBC.

Take the car park increases. Car parks generate £2m for WBC per annum. They increase from 70p an hour to £1 an hour to generate an extra £1m. People choose to go elsewhere, so they end up with £300,000 LESS.

It's a real shame for the green meanies that they face the sack if this fails, when higher up the chain, the man who worked this out (and lives in Eastleigh!) is high and dry.

Look at the BIG PICTURE, folks....Newbury WILL need 15-20 wardens in 5 yrs time,so WBC are not going to reverse on this one,mates!

Quoted from Uncle

Look at the BIG PICTURE, folks....Newbury WILL need 15-20 wardens in 5 yrs time,so WBC are not going to reverse on this one,mates!

Why? do you know something we don't? Are we all going to stop paying for our parking??

Those who chance their arm to avoid paying for their parking generally do so when they no there is no warden. When there is a reasonable chance of being caught it is better value for them to buy a ticket. We don't need, and are unlikely to, the numbers WBC have employed.

Of course if it is WBC's intention to ensure they catch everyone who spends a couple of minutes over their allotted time (and therefore put a final nail in the coffin by driving everyone away) they will need them!

Quoted from Uncle

Look at the BIG PICTURE, folks....Newbury WILL need 15-20 wardens in 5 yrs time,so WBC are not going to reverse on this one,mates!

How many does Newbury have at the moment. it's less than 15 isn't it?

Quoted from user23.3

Right I get it now. I tell you what, if we got rid of the Council, Police and other law enforcement agencies all together we'd save loads of money.

I don't understand how you can be so obtuse. It is very clear what picture is being painted. Reducing everything to a daily cost to each ratepayer is so silly. The points that have been raised regarding costs and measuring that against other schemes that have been scrapped (travel tokens for instance)are valid and you well know it. BUT.... I'm beginning to wonder if you work in the WBC finance department due to your failure to grasp common sense profit and loss.

Quoted from brian

I don't understand how you can be so obtuse. It is very clear what picture is being painted. Reducing everything to a daily cost to each ratepayer is so silly. The points that have been raised regarding costs and measuring that against other schemes that have been scrapped (travel tokens for instance)are valid and you well know it. BUT.... I'm beginning to wonder if you work in the WBC finance department due to your failure to grasp common sense profit and loss.

You've contradicted yourself there, you've said reducing everything to a daily cost to each ratepayer is so silly but that I also fail to grasp common sense profit and loss. Which is it?

Law enforcement should never be primarily about profit and loss. What about cases where there is no financial gain, murder, rape, do the Police stop investigating them because there's no financial profit in them?

We are not talking about life or death.  We're are talking about a foot or two over a white line, or 15 minutes late getting back to the car, etc.

Quoted from user23.3

Law enforcement should never be primarily about profit and loss. What about cases where there is no financial gain, murder, rape, do the Police stop investigating them because there's no financial profit in them?

I would be more impressed if real crime had been targetted rather than a few old guys in green uniforms attempting to generate income for WBC. Please come back, as I am sure you will, to remind me that parking on yellow lines is a crime.

Quoted from Greenham Common

We are not talking about life or death.  We're are talking about a foot or two over a white line, or 15 minutes late getting back to the car, etc.

A car blocking an access way for the emergency services could be "life or death".

Where do you draw the line then on the investigation of crime and which have to be cost effective and which don't?

Quoted from brian

I would be more impressed if real crime had been targetted rather than a few old guys in green uniforms attempting to generate income for WBC. Please come back, as I am sure you will, to remind me that parking on yellow lines is a crime.

What sort of "real crime" are you talking about here?

Twisted again by User23.3  

How can you associate rape and murder against parking attendants, or perhaps you mean don't let rapists and murderers park in Newbury, and we will all be safe from now on, as they will have to park elsewhere!!!!

For God's sake, we're talking about parking attendants, not criminals!

User23.3 Quoted A car blocking an access way for the emergency services could be "life or death". ....

...so in that case are you suggesting that we need more wardens (or police) to guard every access which may be blocked by a car.
If a car is bocking an access, unless it is within a "parking hatch" or restricted, then the wardens have no jurisdiction over the motorist anyway. It is a police matter, under the guise of obstruction. Just the same as if a vehicle is blocking your drive. No hatch or parking regulation across your drive, not the warden's responsibility!

Quoted from LocalRes

Twisted again by User23.3  

How can you associate rape and murder against parking attendants, or perhaps you mean don't let rapists and murderers park in Newbury, and we will all be safe from now on, as they will have to park elsewhere!!!!

For God's sake, we're talking about parking attendants, not criminals!

It's not "twisted", I just find it strange when some people start talking about "real crime".

All crime is real crime.

Quoted from user23.3

A car blocking an access way for the emergency services could be "life or death".

Where do you draw the line then on the investigation of crime and which have to be cost effective and which don't?What sort of "real crime" are you talking about here?

Don't be so infantile. You know exactly what I meant.

Quoted from brian

Don't be so infantile. You know exactly what I meant.

Please answer the question, I see all crime as real crime.

Which crimes do you see as real and which as not real crime. I'm interested to know where you draw the line.

Quoted from user23.3

Please answer the question, I see all crime as real crime.

Which crimes do you see as real and which as not real crime. I'm interested to know where you draw the line.

Parking offences are not a criminal offence if that's what you are driving at.

But snapping off aerials in the Queens Rd area, or wherever it was, is the lower end of crime. Criminal damage.

Do you see a yellow line offence as criminal then.?

Quoted from user23.3

All crime is real crime.

Quite! And a parking offence is not a crime. You have to be tarred with the word "criminal" if you commit crime - parking is a civil offence, and totally unrelated! Surely you should know that!

This thread is not about crime or criminals, it is about traffic wardens - get back on track!

Quoted from Uncle

Look at the BIG PICTURE, folks....Newbury WILL need 15-20 wardens in 5 yrs time,so WBC are not going to reverse on this one,mates!

Newbury doesn't have 20 parking wardens - West Berkshire does.  Most of them will be working in Tilehurst, Pangbourne, Theale, Thatcham, Hungerford etc.  Newbury may well have the largest contingent (6 perhaps?) but all this talk of 20 Newbury wardens is as wildly inaccurate as WBCs prediction of the revenue from fines.

Quoted from blackdog

Newbury doesn't have 20 parking wardens - West Berkshire does.  Most of them will be working in Tilehurst, Pangbourne, Theale, Thatcham, Hungerford etc.  Newbury may well have the largest contingent (6 perhaps?) but all this talk of 20 Newbury wardens is as wildly inaccurate as WBCs prediction of the revenue from fines.

Correct, most don't to get the facts get in the way of a good rant.

I'd rather crimes against the community like anti-social parking were investigated than crimes such as a snapped off aerial often affecting just one person, but that's just me.

Quoted from user23.3

Correct, most don't to get the facts get in the way of a good rant.

I'd rather crimes against the community like anti-social parking were investigated than crimes such as a snapped off aerial often affecting just one person, but that's just me.

No wonder WBC get it so wrong - if they all have such a differing opinion to the general public that they are supposed to be there to serve.

Quoted from user23.3

Correct, most don't to get the facts get in the way of a good rant.

I'd rather crimes against the community like anti-social parking were investigated than crimes such as a snapped off aerial often affecting just one person, but that's just me.

Anti social parking is not... NOT  a crime. Snapping aerials is. It wasn't one aerial in the recent instance by the way. What about snapping trees on Stroud Green then. That or a yellow line non criminal offence.

Which would be more important in your book. Parking on a yellow line outside your house or bunging a stone through your front room window.

Quoted from brian

Anti social parking is not... NOT  a crime. Snapping aerials is. It wasn't one aerial in the recent instance by the way. What about snapping trees on Stroud Green then. That or a yellow line non criminal offence.

Which would be more important in your book. Parking on a yellow line outside your house or bunging a stone through your front room window.

Why not go the whole hog Brian - according to Users wonderful logic a parking offence affects so many of us it should be dealt with as this serious crime. Something that only affects one person can fall by the wayside - perhaps the murder of someone with no relatives falls into this latter category in his book??

The point is, user23.3 suggested £150,000.00 wasn't much money, in the scheme of things, but it is enough to finance 3/4 of the travel token system that the council decided they couldn't afford.  He reckoned that the short fall is the equivalent of only 0.5p a day, for every council tax payer.  Well I'd rather pay 0.625p a day to re-install the travel token system, than pay 0.5p for a generously sized team of parking attendants.

Quoted from Greenham Common

The point is, user23.3 suggested £150,000.00 wasn't much money, in the scheme of things, but it is enough to finance 3/4 of the travel token system that the council decided they couldn't afford.  He reckoned that the short fall is the equivalent of only 0.5p a day, for every council tax payer.  Well I'd rather pay 0.625p a day to re-install the travel token system, than pay 0.5p for a generously sized team of parking attendants.

I wouldn't say roughly one parking attendant per 10,000 people is that generous a ratio.

It is a lot more than was originally thought adequate, but I note you are avoiding the point.

Quoted from user23.3

I wouldn't say roughly one parking attendant per 10,000 people is that generous a ratio.

It is irrelevant to the number of people. The measure should be to the number of offences committed.

Quoted from Greenham Common

It is a lot more than was originally thought adequate, but I note you are avoiding the point.

I think the point is they are legally bound to provide parking enforcement whereas they as they don't have to provide travel tokens by law, as far as I'm aware.

Given that in the eyes of many, the Police did not provide this service at an acceptable level prior to it being haned over to the Council I doubt they had any reliable figures for offences to go on and I would have thought that six Parking Attendants (if it is that number) to cover all of Newbury's streets and car parks sounds a sensible amount to start with.

Quoted from user23.3

I think the point is they are legally bound to provide parking enforcement whereas they as they don't have to provide travel tokens by law, as far as I'm aware.

I'm not sure the law comes into it - doesn't the pressure comes from the government in the form of performance requirements backed by a certain amount of grant funding?  All part of the system that ensures that local democracy is a sham and that central government controls almost everything.

The travel tokens were withdrawn when the free bus travel scheme was introduced nationally.  It is a shame that it was not possible to give people the option rather than totally withdraw a system that was more useful to some.

Quoted from user23.3

Given that in the eyes of many, the Police did not provide this service at an acceptable level prior to it being haned over to the Council I doubt they had any reliable figures for offences to go on and I would have thought that six Parking Attendants (if it is that number) to cover all of Newbury's streets and car parks sounds a sensible amount to start with.

Six was a guess (I know because I made it), given the preponderance of tickets handed out in Newbury there may well be more.

Quoted from user23.3

I think the point is they are legally bound to provide parking enforcement whereas they as they don't have to provide travel tokens by law, as far as I'm aware.

Good effort, but the point I was making is that you were trivialising the amount it was costing.

What are they legally bound to do regards parking?

My main question is, however, why is there such a big budget deficit?

Quoted from user23.3

Given that in the eyes of many, the Police did not provide this service at an acceptable level

Presumably the old bill were not as legaly bound to provide parking enforcement, well not to the level the Council feel the need to be anyway.

Quoted from user23.3

prior to it being haned over to the Council I doubt they had any reliable figures for offences to go on and I would have thought that six Parking Attendants (if it is that number) to cover all of Newbury's streets and car parks sounds a sensible amount to start with.

Like you said, 'if that is the number'!

The Council are not legally bound to employ traffic wardens, they have a very general obligation.  The Police are there to keep the peace; that is all.  Therefore, if the community are happy the Council can do what they must and leave what they may.  However, through our elected representatives, we have said that we want far tighter parking restrictions - hence the Councillor with that brief has acted.  He knows what the public want - most of them voted for his party.  Simple answer folks....

Quoted from 40

Therefore, if the community are happy the Council can do what they must and leave what they may.  However, through our elected representatives, we have said that we want far tighter parking restrictions - hence the Councillor with that brief has acted.  He knows what the public want - most of them voted for his party.  Simple answer folks....

At the time of the last election I remember, the council were not in charge of parking enforcement.  

I do remember some areas near town were blighted with parking problems and a lack of enforcement, but it is far from a Newbury and district wide problem; as far as I can tell.  

Wouldn't disagree with your reading of what was being promoted at the time.  So perhaps we need a concerted campaign - ' Dear Mr Councillor; You are not doing what you said - please explain. '  I suppose this forum is doing just that; a place to expose error.

Quoted from user23.3

I wouldn't say roughly one parking attendant per 10,000 people is that generous a ratio.

Any idea how many police officers we have per 10,000 people.

Quoted from brian

Any idea how many police officers we have per 10,000 people.

I suspect you could get them in a modern taxi.  

Quoted from brian

Any idea how many police officers we have per 10,000 people.

No. Do you, I'd be interested to know.

Quoted from user23.3

No. Do you, I'd be interested to know.

Funny thing about that, if I did I would have not asked the question I would have said that there are X policemen per 10,000 residents compared with  X meanies per 10,000.

I"ll give it a bash..........50,000 residents....12 g/m"s = ONE G/M for every 4.1666 [approx] ..someone who may know the police numbers,could follow on..ok?

Quoted from Uncle

I"ll give it a bash..........50,000 residents....12 g/m"s = ONE G/M for every 4.1666 [approx] ..someone who may know the police numbers,could follow on..ok?

I take it maths isn't your strongest card? (or you're getting commas mixed up with decimal points)
If there's 50,000 residents served by 12 G/Ms then it's ONE G/M for every 4,166 residents

Anyway, rather than dreaming up imaginary figures lets use the figures according to the 2001 Census for West Berkshire
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pyramids/pages/00mb.asp
144,483 men, women and children living in WBC land in 2001.  Take out the children between 0 and 14 years of age and that's 116,397 people (would have excluded the 15-19 year olds but that bites into the group who could be counted as 'drivers' or 'road users')

Are there just 12 green meanies?  Seems low.... let's say there's 15.  In which case that's one 'meany' per 7,760 residents of West Berkshire.  

As for the police, Thames Valley is policed by around 4,125 police officers (full-time equivalent), 3,397 police staff, 530 police community support officers (PCSOs), and 260 special constables, assisted by over 500 volunteers.  Those figures cover all of Berks, Bucks and Oxon.  

In the days when TVP undertook their Traffic Warden duties seriously, Newbury was considered to warrant 2 wardens. The new regime considers that Bartholomew Street alone requires THREE wardens (CEO's). There was an altercation going on there yesterday afternoon just after 5.00pm.

They strenuously deny it, but I am convinced that WBC are using this as a revenue stream. Their CEO's are hiding in doorways and alleyways specifically to catch motorists who are parking in the loading/unloading bays.

Quoted from spartacus

Anyway, rather than dreaming up imaginary figures lets use the figures according to the 2001 Census for West Berkshire
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pyramids/pages/00mb.asp
144,483 men, women and children living in WBC land in 2001.  Take out the children between 0 and 14 years of age and that's 116,397 people (would have excluded the 15-19 year olds but that bites into the group who could be counted as 'drivers' or 'road users')  Are there just 12 green meanies?  Seems low.... let's say there's 15.  In which case that's one 'meany' per 7,760 residents of West Berkshire.

The thing is, even at 116,397, how many do and don't drive?  And also, how many people drive in and out of the WB zone.  Even then, there will be large areas that aren't seemingly covered by the GMs.  I think it is all rather bogus to count them in this way.

Are parking offences on the decline?  Have the areas, that were blighted with 'out of townies' parking in restricted zones, felt the benefit of the GMs?  Put simply, are they effective in stopping parking misdemeanour's?  Notwithstanding, the Council installed 'new ways' of parking wrongfully.

At the end of the day, central Government will have been partly behind this, in the way they finance Councils and expect them to collect tax-like revenue, so who ever is in charge would have done roughly the same.

Quoted from spartacus

As for the police, Thames Valley is policed by around 4,125 police officers (full-time equivalent), 3,397 police staff, 530 police community support officers (PCSOs), and 260 special constables, assisted by over 500 volunteers.  Those figures cover all of Berks, Bucks and Oxon.

So what are the legible populations of Berks, Bucks and Oxon then?  

The title ot the thread was

Quoted Text

Green meanies costing us £400 a day

.

The council have completeley over estimated the amount of parking violation in the district despite introducing several new restrictions such as Station Road parking meters (for which there are 7 for 52 parking spaces) and evening parking charges.

Although the wardens do cover all of West Berkshire it appears (http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=10883) that Newbury is where most effort is being concentrated.

Having run my own business for many years I am sure that with a little thoughtful planning the Council could probably have issued about 90% of the tickets with as little as 4 or 5 staff and hence perhaps turned a profit not a loss.

This whole operation has been total overkill and perhaps someone should lose their job.

Quoted from bill b

This whole operation has been total overkill and perhaps someone should lose their job.

yes, parking king Martin Baker perhaps!  String him up!

Frankly, I think the whole parking thing is sick.  I don't give a stuff if the town centre dies or not (which it won't).  I use it less and less, save for a few visits to the pub and I don't drive for that!  I used to go in for a bit of 'idle' shopping, but I don't bother now.

Quoted from buttonf1

YAAWWWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

Yawn indeed, five pages about traffic wardens.

If you don't like them don't park anti-socially, then you won't be giving them a "revenue stream" and they'll have to cut back on the numbers. With 3000 tickets issued in Newbury already though it looks like there is a real problem with this sort of anti-social behaviour and they are much needed.

Quoted from spartacus

I take it maths isn't your strongest card? (or you're getting commas mixed up with decimal points)
If there's 50,000 residents served by 12 G/Ms then it's ONE G/M for every 4,166 residents

I take it common sense isnt YOUR stong suit......I think my point was clear[unlike my decimal "comma"]

Quoted from spartacus

Anyway, rather than dreaming up imaginary figures lets use the figures according to the 2001 Census for West Berkshire

I take it my 50,000 is being "attacked" by you as "dreamy"....but I was quoting newbury,not W.B.,and you might find I am very close!

Quoted from Administrator

Local taxpayers are facing a £150,000 bill to cover the cost of West Berkshire Council's traffic wardens not finding enough motorists to fine.

Just four months after hitting households with an inflation-busting 4.1% council tax rise, new figures indicate that public funds will have to be diverted from other services to subsidise the 'green meanies' to the tune of £2800 every week.

The council has now ordered a 'review' of the controversial wardens after their disastrous performance in collecting cash from motorists for parking infringements. The eagle-eyed wardens have been operating on Sundays and bank holidays to catch out visitors to Newbury, but have so far failed to justify the expense of hiring so many.

Meanwhile, district planners are also expected to go £150,000 in the red by the financial year due to a shortage of big planning applications. The 60-strong planning department says it is "actively managing" the headcount, and is 'reviewing workload'.

Can I just add a little point,here,ADMIN,....the shift hours of these "12 JUST MEN",are going to be increased to 1am when the new cinema opens,that"ll put the viewing costs up for some film addicts!

Quoted from Uncle

I take it my 50,000 is being "attacked" by you as "dreamy"....but I was quoting newbury,not W.B.,and you might find I am very close!

The figures quoted in the news item are for the whole of West Berkshire, if there's 12 of them in total (I've no idea if this is the correct number or not), then these cover all 145,000 people in the district, not just the 28,339 people in Newbury.

Quoted from user23.3

The figures quoted in the news item are for the whole of West Berkshire, if there's 12 of them in total (I've no idea if this is the correct number or not), then these cover all 145,000 people in the district, not just the 28,339 people in Newbury.

I have NEVER seen a GM in our area, or the rest of Greenham, nor Speen, nor Wash Common.  Any in Turnpike?

Quoted from Uncle

I take it common sense isnt YOUR stong suit......I think my point was clear[unlike my decimal "comma"]

  

Quoted from brian

Any idea how many police officers we have per 10,000 people.

TVP is 4,125 officers strong.  Add the 530 PCSOs and 260 specials? That’s 4,915 active officers (there are additional support staff but not included)

According to the 2001 census the population of Berkshire was 800,118 (using the figures under the six local authorities), Bucks was 479,026 and Oxon was 605,488.  So those police officers serve 1,884,632 people of all ages in Thames Valley.

So..... One police officer per 383 people living on ‘their patch’ or 26 police officers per 10,000 people


But at the end of the day, those are only the bare statistics.... you can make them provide whatever answer you want to reach.....

Quoted from Greenham Common

I have NEVER seen a GM in our area, or the rest of Greenham, nor Speen, nor Wash Common.  Any in Turnpike?

Are there any parking restrictions in Turnpike?  Why would they waste their time visiting if there’s nothing for them to enforce??  Any in Greenham that are being regularly abused?  Again, unless people are parking on double yellow lines (if that’s all that’s in the area) WHY would they visit??

Quoted from spartacus

Are there any parking restrictions in Turnpike?  Why would they waste their time visiting if there’s nothing for them to enforce??  Any in Greenham that are being regularly abused?  Again, unless people are parking on double yellow lines (if that’s all that’s in the area) WHY would they visit??

I was replying to a post which I quoted!!!

Quoted from user23.3

The figures quoted in the news item are for the whole of West Berkshire, if there's 12 of them in total (I've no idea if this is the correct number or not), then these cover all 145,000 people in the district, not just the 28,339 people in Newbury.

See it now?  

And your point is?


Or are you implying that only those residents who have parking restrictions DIRECTLY outside their properties should be included in any odd sums when dividing up the proportion of our wardens allocated per resident?

Quoted from spartacus

Or are you implying that only those residents who have parking restrictions DIRECTLY outside their properties should be included in any odd sums when dividing up the proportion of our wardens allocated per resident?

I think that there is a valid point in that the enforcement seems to be targetted at certain areas. Newbury town centre seems to be one. I assume that this is because more fines can be issued in an area that is busier.
I don't know how this per person calculation should be divided or even if it matters. Parking enforcement is valid. What isn't valid in my view is that the budgets are overruling the reason for enforcement. This means that more tickets need to be issued to cover the enforcement costs when this money could be used to better effect elsewhere. I think that whether is 1p or 50p cost per person is irrelevant.

Quoted from spartacus

And your point is?

Simply that user23.3 is suggesting, or implying, that these GMs are for the benefit of everyone.  I don't agree that this is true.

Quoted from Greenham Common

Simply that user23.3 is suggesting, or implying, that these GMs are for the benefit of everyone.  I don't agree that this is true.

You could argue that the wardens are not for the benefit of very many at all.  They are certainly not good for those that park illegally.  And - as the former illegal parkers will have to park legally now - there will be less spaces for those who park legally, so they are no good for them. They are evidently not to the benefit of council tax payers or of those benefitting from WBC largesse as they are a drain on WBC's coffers. So the main benificiaries are those who have residents permits, now they only have to compete for parking with all the other permit holders - but they have to pay to park in their street, is that a benefit?

As a matter of interest does anyone know the ratio of permits to spaces in the various residents parking areas?  

When they proposed introducing the scheme into my street there were already more residents' cars than parking spaces - the only effect I could see was that the empty spaces along the road during the day would be policed (to the inconvenience of anyone visiting me) and I would still struggle to find anywhere to park if I got home after 7 in the evening. I moved.

I thought i would share the experience i witnessed yesterday in Pangbourne.

I parked in a car park which is under the control of WBC and duly paid for my 1 hour(50p), next to me was a car displaying a disabled badge clearly in the windscreen.

On my return to the car after some 40 minutes one of the GMs was patroling the car park and he issued a ticket to the car displaying a badge, i pointed out to him that the car had a blue badge but he stated that they were not parked in a disabled bay but a normal bay and therefore were parking illegally.

I felt that this was very unfair as all of the designated disabled bays were full so i waited until the owner returned and gave them my ticket and advised them to complain but also to use my ticket and state that they were in posession of a current ticket covering the time that the ticket was issued.

Quoted from brian newman

I thought i would share the experience i witnessed yesterday in Pangbourne.

I felt that this was very unfair as all of the designated disabled bays were full .

The questions I might ask, were all the bays filled with disabled badge holders. If not what did the GM do about them. The second question is, of those that were badge holders, were they the disabled holder or someone using the badge for convenience. Thirdly, was the person you assisted the disabled badge holder, (ie disabled enough that they needed to use a disabled bay).

I'm assuming here that as you were able to wait around you saw what happened.

Quoted from brian newman

I waited until the owner returned and gave them my ticket and advised them to complain but also to use my ticket and state that they were in posession of a current ticket covering the time that the ticket was issued.

I suspect this comes under something like conspiracy to commit fraud. Now you have posted the information here I hope the motorist doesn't try the use your ticket in that way in case someone from the courts reads this forum.

Quoted from brian

The questions I might ask, were all the bays filled with disabled badge holders. If not what did the GM do about them. The second question is, of those that were badge holders, were they the disabled holder or someone using the badge for convenience. Thirdly, was the person you assisted the disabled badge holder, (ie disabled enough that they needed to use a disabled bay).

I'd be interested to know why they need a disabled badge if they can quite clearly use a normal parking space.

I could be totally wrong, but it sounds like someone's fiddling the system to get free parking so good on the parking attendant for fining them, if that's the case.

Quoted from user23.3

I'd be interested to know why they need a disabled badge if they can quite clearly use a normal parking space.

I could be totally wrong, but it sounds like someone's fiddling the system to get free parking so good on the parking attendant for fining them, if that's the case.

Are you suggesting they do have a leg to stand on?

Quoted from user23.3

I'd be interested to know why they need a disabled badge if they can quite clearly use a normal parking space.

I could be totally wrong, but it sounds like someone's fiddling the system to get free parking so good on the parking attendant for fining them, if that's the case.

The person i spoke to with the disabled badge in the windscreen stated that when they pulled into the car park all disabled bays were taken ( i did not check if they were taken by badge holders) not my job.

The driver next to me, with the badge did not seem disabled ( but i am not a doctor to decide)  they could of had a heart problem etc ( dissability is not always visible).

So what if i gave them my ticket, have non of you passed on a part used ticket , or received one from someone else and used it.

Quoted from user23.3

I'd be interested to know why they need a disabled badge if they can quite clearly use a normal parking space.

I could be totally wrong, but it sounds like someone's fiddling the system to get free parking so good on the parking attendant for fining them, if that's the case.

They used a normal parking bay because the disabled ones were full.
I think you could be totally wrong.

Quoted from brian newman

So what if i gave them my ticket, have non of you passed on a part used ticket , or received one from someone else and used it.

If I had I would have been breaking the law, so I will not admit to doing any such thing!!

Quoted from brian newman

They used a normal parking bay because the disabled ones were full.
I think you could be totally wrong.

They could use a normal parking bay, as I said?
I seem to be right.

Quoted from user23.3

I'd be interested to know why they need a disabled badge if they can quite clearly use a normal parking space.
I could be totally wrong, but it sounds like someone's fiddling the system to get free parking so good on the parking attendant for fining them, if that's the case.

It's not a question of the nature of the parking space, but of availability.  Yes, some may be larger to cater for wheelchair users, but the point is they are RESERVED spaces designed to allow disabled people to go about their business with minimum inconvenience.

Quoted from user23.3

They could use a normal parking bay, as I said?
I seem to be right.

Are you intimating then that blue badge holders should not use normal parking bays ?

There is one solution to all of this.......(although some won't like it)


Go back to the old days. Simple.

If you fulfill the criteria for being issued with a blue badge.....you get one of these...

(free to park in a disabled bay, no ticket if found parked in a standard bay, and unlikely to be used by someone not disabled, or joyriders).
As I said...simple