Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Haringey's permit payment site - data leakage woes?
My wife just applied for some visitor permits online. After a bit of a debacle as the council site was down for a bit (I suspect due to problems on Virgin Media tonight) she managed to get the payment pages to load.
Upon completion of payment, she filled out the box with her email address, to get a receipt sent. The receipt has arrived, but the confirmation web page said in fairly small red lettering at the top of the page that it'd been sent elsewhere - to some dodgy looking hotmail address.
The email that we have received has her name, address, and the last four digits of her card number, plus the type of card. Not a great deal of leakage but more than we'd send out to any random person out of choice! If the invoice has gone out to someone else, this seems like a clear breach of data protection regs to me.
Has anyone else noticed this behaviour from the site?
I will be calling HC and also emailing the random address to see if I can get a response. What a crappy payment site. Further evidence to show that it was coded by incompetents it seems! Who on earth signed that design off?!
Tags for Forum Posts: haringey, parking permits online, payment, permit, site
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
THE BBC story quotes NSL as denying vociferously that any such quota system existed. Whether anyone believes them is another matter, Judge Burns appears not to.
We may never know whether or not a similar informal quota system exists, or existed, in the Borough of Haringey, but punters could be forgiven for thinking one has operated. The ardent operatives are zealous to a fault.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
"We may never know."
Oh, please, Clive. Never know what? Whether an allegation which I've never heard anyone make is untrue? This is the: 'When did you step beating your wife/husband', question.
And it's not as though councillors don't get told things. (Some of which turn out to be right and others completely wrong.) Former councillor Ray Dodds had his ethical whistle blowers among ex-Parking Service staff. So did I. But never about a quota system per shift. Or any other quota system, come to that.
Do you know something different?
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
-
-
Oh please, Alan!
I did not say that we may never know whether or not Haringey is holding a Martian flying saucer at River Park House!
I suggested something a tad more credible, i.e that we may never know, whether or not a quota system is (or has been) in operation, in the same way in Haringey, as the parking quota system that we now know was in operation in another London Borough.
The only way we now know Kensington & Chelsea operated such a policy, is thanks to the Court action of a gutsy warden and a public-spirited local resident there.
Such an (unlawful) policy in this Borough is hardly something that LBH is going to 'fess up to, is it?! And wardens aren't going to spill the beans as they'd lose their jobs.
If there ever was such a Quota policy in LBH, after the recent publicity about the other London Borough, is it conceivable that LBH officials may attempt to dispose of any written evidence, admissible in Court, that might attest to such a policy? If that is plausible, it's another reason why we may never know – in a formal, legal sense, rather than Hearsay.
I appreciate that I'm engaged in speculation, but its not totally without foundation. You might allow that a social media web site doesn't have the same standards of evidence requirements of a Court of law, and nor should it. (NB. Joe seems to have some indirect evidence).
I think one other point you've missed, is that the public could be forgiven for thinking such a quota system was in operation. I know its difficult to single out the service performed with the greatest ruthlessness lack of humanity drive in our Borough, but I suggest that the Civil Enforcement Officers might just scoop that prize.
-
-
You raise a very important point, Clive. What standards of evidence does a social media website have?
Supposing I made some comments on HoL - "credible" of course - about Clive Carter? Perhaps something complimentary; or perhaps not? And suppose I pointed out that while my musings may or may not be accurate, "we may never know".
After all, Clive Carter, a modest man, is hardly going to "fess up to it", is he? In fact, given the publicity from posting on this website, isn't it at least "conceivable" that Clive Carter "may attempt to dispose of any written evidence"?
I appreciate that I'm engaged in speculation, but it's not totally without foundation. And another point is "that the public could be forgiven for thinking" that what I posted had some basis in fact.
_________
Clive, you did a thorough careful, forensic job when you reported Cllr Charles Adje to the Standards Committee. The people of Haringey owe you a debt of gratitude.
Yet, every time you make speculative allegations about things which may be possible but have no evidence to support them, you risk undermining your own future credibility.
-
-
Alan thank you for your kind remarks about my formal Complaint about Cllr. Adje. I'm pleased you mention this because it's a good example of the attributes of speculation.
While I had the benefit of the first two Walklate Reports – on which my Complaint was based – there were significant parts that were speculative. Speculative, because the hard evidence didn't come out until after Martin Walklate completed 18 months of further investigation, culminating in Walklate 3.
In particular, there is a key piece of speculation about which I was hesitant and expressed in qualified terms. But it was in fact mere speculation that turned out to be the crucial point on which the Standards Committee eventually Found (former council leader) Cllr. Adje to have brought the Council into disrepute, and awarded him a four month suspension. I think its worth reporting the key phrase:
"The key Briefing Note to the Chair of 16 April 2007 was not copied or shown to other Trustees – Cllr. Adje confirmed that to Martin Walklate. Is it going too far to suggest that the Chairman withheld this crucial piece of advice from this fellow trustees? "
(middle page.13 of my Complaint, para 15)
It was the deliberate withholding of the key Briefing Note, that the Standards Committee Found. In a sense, it was important to speculate as widely as possible, because Cllr. Adje has a reputation for evasiveness and that is not simply my opinion. I think this example is instructive.
Detectives and the police – with less information than I had – often work on hunches, hypotheses and suppositions, and they follow leads. Hard evidence sometimes comes only after investigation, but that investigation is normally prompted by some reason, rather than a fishing expedition.
I appreciate your concern for my future credibility, but I suspect that you nonetheless recognise the background that affected my – and others – thoughts on the matter of the motivation of parking wardens.
You might at least allow there is now hard evidence of the "quota" practice in at least one London Borough.
I can understand your reluctance to concede that it is often believed by the public that this practice is widespread amongst councils (not only Kensington and Chelsea).
You might privately admit that, if this practice did exist in Haringey, evidence would in any event, be hard to come by for the reasons I gave above.
But the public can see for themselves the tactics employed by the wardens and are forced to wonder what motivates them to the degree of predation they see with their own eyes.
If I remember correctly, it was in Camden that a doctor who stopped her car to assist a stroke victim, received a parking ticket for her trouble. Where was the humanity in that? What might have driven the parking warden in those circumstances?
Is it so wrong to speculate in a land of free speech?
-
-
Hunches, hyphotheses, speculation, can all play their part in uncovering the truth about something. But what you presented to the Standards Committee - and persuaded them to take action on - was none of these. It was facts and evidence carefully argued.
Wikipedia pages have four questions at the foot asking readers to rate the information as: Trustworthy; Objective; Complete; Well-written.
-
-
THE excreble Lease to Firoka was shrouded in secrecy. When councils engage in obsessive secrecy, its often a sign they're up to no good!
Why all the secrecy?
Secrecy encourages speculation. It is hard to believe that, as Chairman of the Trust Board, Councillor Adje did not know about the secret User Clauses, including the promise of Casino use, and their implications.
In my Complaint, I included the following clause not as hard fact, but by way of background. Was this speculation reasonable or not?
Cllr. Adje’s agreeing to include the casino clause might not necessarily represent questionable conduct, but it nonetheless might represent bad faith with fellow councillors: on 21 March 2006 the Council Executive had voted against setting in motion an expression of interest in a casino for AP, to the DCMS’s Casino Advisory Panel.
Permission for a casino seems not to be in the spirit of his colleagues’ vote, whose expressed will was not to start the casino process. The clause (3.11.2.6) allowing for a future Casino appears to be one of the aspects of the Lease that Cllr. Adje most wanted kept secret, possibly from fellow councillors as much as the public.
Page 9 of the Complaint
There are other things that could be speculated about the disgraced Councillor, but should not publicly be speculated, for the lack of hard evidence thus far.
I further speculate that this aspect suggests that, due to conceit, Cllr Adje believed that he knew better – not only better than his fellow Trustees – but also better than his fellow councillors, with the probable exception of ex-Councillor H. Lister (a known pro-casino councillor).
I hope Alan that on reflection, you might allow there is a role for "speculation".
-
-
Permalink Reply by Joe Bailey on
-
Exactly right in my experience Alan, and the dinner wasn't even that nice for the few I've been to. Industry self praise events run by cunning folk who know that those who like to pat themselves on the back are prepared to pay a fair chunk of money to do so ;)
Clive, I can say with some degree of certainty that there must be a quota system in place... My wife is having a tangle with a cab company who park all over double yellow lines and who were very rude to her when she asked them to move so she could pass. Indeed, so rude, I'm tempted to start another thread.
Anyway, yesterday she stopped a traffic warden who'd just walked past, and he said that the cabbies just move and come back after laughing at and being generally very rude to the wardens, thus getting around the five minute rule (she actually felt sorry for this one, that's how badly behaved this cab company is!). She asked the warden to stick around, and he said "he had to go give other tickets to meet his target and couldn't waste time", or words very much to that effect. Seems fairly clear that they have a certain number of tickets that need handing out! Probably it's called a KPI rather than a target or quota though ;)
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Guest on
-
That might also explain why I got a ticket after my annaul permit ran out recently (because it was not sent to me in time) and after I stuck a big note in my windscreen saying please don't hassle me because I am trying to solve the problem.
Over zealous or target driven? I believe (and correct me if I am wrong) the wardens get bonuses based on tickets issued...
Also, as to your cabbie issue. I was issued a ticket some time back in Crouch End after pulling over in the bus zone near the Barclays to drop my wife off. I clearly lingered too long as I was issued a ticket by CCTV! Are there no CCTV cameras near you to render the good public a service Joe?
-
-
I had the same - tickets and a clamp after a permit expired without any notification being sent. What this says to me, is the easy targets (ie people who do pay for taxes, for permits and so on) are the ones who are hit up for a quick buck, but the more persistent offenders who prove a little tricky are left to run riot.
Four cases I can immediately think of, clearly back this theory up (at least circumstantially):
1) An abandoned vehicle a few years ago was given 4 tickets over a few weeks, and the warden walked past the next time, saying he wouldn't ticket it again as there was no point. I stated that it was an abandoned vehicle which had been reported on several occasions, and had no tax. He said "no point in reporting it, they won't do anything so I'll leave it". Great enforcement there! It was moved, only after I called the CEO's PA and offered to have it towed into the Mayor's parking space with a friendly reporter on standby. 24 hours later, no abandoned vehicle.
2) When a permit expires due to delays with parking services - you and I have both had this - no fault of our own and we get ticketed, actually I was both ticketed and clamped at the time, for a day here or there! It was just outside my house - it would have been quicker and more effective to find out who I was then knock on the door and let me know there was a problem, rather than calling in the clampers!
3) An oversized vehicle had a resident's permit incorrectly issued, and Cllr Schmitz was helping me get this resolved with the parking team at HC. He called Anne Cunningham directly in May. The vehicle has only just been made to stop parking this year however, as the owner was making life difficult for parking services. Parking wardens walked past it for months even when I pointed out that the permit had been revoked - they simply wouldn't carry out Anne Cunningham's instructions as seemingly, it was more pain than it was "worth" to them. I should add, Cllr Schmitz made multiple phone calls, and sent many emails to the team over this period, and I think he was nearly as frustrated by the perpetuated chain of inaction, as I was!
4) The cab company riding rough-shot over the wardens that I have already mentioned. Why are they not made to comply with parking laws, and why don't the council work with the PCO to revoke any licenses that the operators may have for such clear civil infringements? Too much effort for too little financial reward. The benefits to everyone else should seemingly be damned!
So, what are the wardens targeted with and why? It seems clear to me that they are there to raise easy revenue rather than to help with any problems. Otherwise, why is this cab company allowed to park all over double yellows, all of the time? Why are oversized vehicles allowed to park for 8 months after Parking Services realise that the applicant falsified his application? Why are abandoned vehicles only given 4 tickets and then ignored? And to boot, why are residents whose permits have lapsed by one or two days treated more like criminals than all of those responsible for the aforementioned infringements?
-
-
"I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) the wardens get bonuses on tickets issued ..."
I will turn that "belief" into a question, Justin, and add it to my councillor's enquiry.
About bus lanes, here's the list of Haringey bus lanes & the restricted times. With another link to information about them on the Council's website.
As a general point, if someone drives into a bus lane to drop a passenger, they are driving and then stopping in a bus lane and can expect a ticket. It's not about how long you linger.
-
-
Don't get me wrong Alan, it was my own fault and I should not have been there, so I took the ticket on the chin! Fair play in that instance and a valuable leson learnt.
I was trying to indicate to Joe that a ticket can be issued by a route other than a warden- the problem for the warden is that the drivers move, and just come back when the warden has gone. If, however, there is CCTV, the cabs would not know when they are being watched.
It would be intersting to know exactly how the wardens are incetivised and what things 'drive' them as it were. Let us know if you get a response.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
