Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Online Parking Services Shut down, 2 - 10th May
The following from Haringey Council's Press Office:
The online parking permit and penalty charge payment services will be closed down for nine days between 2nd and 10th May to enable upgrading of the system.
Residents are urged to renew resident permits, order more visitor permits if they are running low, or make any new applications well before the 1st May.
We apologise for the inconvenience but we need to do this to upgrade the system which will allow access to a greater range of online parking services and enable the council to provide a better overall service in the future.
Residents will not be able to use the online services during this time or be served as normal at a Customer Service Centre to:
* Renew or make a first application for a Resident Permit
* Order Resident Visitor Permit Vouchers
* Pay for a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN)
There will be very limited opportunity to purchase any sort of permit at a Customer Service Centre during this period.
The council is taking extra steps to ensure that all renewals that are due before 10th May are completed before the system is shutdown.
During this shutdown period residents will still be able to pay a PCN via the automated telephone payment line by calling your 0845 1300130. Full details can be found on the penalty notice.
Between now and the shutdown there are still several ways to apply for a resident permit or resident visitor permit voucher.
Online: by visiting www.haringey.gov.uk/parking
By post: by completing an application form and sending it to PO Box 55235, London Borough of Haringey, N22 9DF.
Tags for Forum Posts: parking, parking permits online
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Hi Annette
The council said they would reply by 11th May. By law, authorities are supposed to make a meaningful reply within 20 working days after having made a request. In my experience of making a number of FoI requests, I think only one or two came within the period; most came on about the last lawful day.
It's useful to think of the FoI Act's clauses as an estimate, or the provision for a maximum period of 20 working days as, in practice, a minimum.
Section 16 of the Act mandates local authorities to be helpful. Sometimes the responses are indeed helpful.
-
Permalink Reply by Anette on
-
@ Clive, so nothing from you for the next week at least then. Alan, have you had a reply to your letter yet? Very interestested to hear what their response is.
-
-
Annette - hold your breath!
Tomorrow is the day when the council gives the most helpful, comprehensive answers they've ever given to any request made under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (2000).
Tomorrow there begins a perfect online parking system, after the longest preparation for a "system upgrade" that I've heard of. If the council contractor is a small company who've never attempted something like this before, they deserve to be cut some slack.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
My apologies for not keeping on the case. Officers are supposed to reply to councillors within ten working days. But they emailed asking me for clarification on my request. Which led to delay as we were away attending a family funeral. Hopefully I’ve now sorted out the problem, and have asked for an early reply.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
-
-
Dear Annette, Alan and others
10 Questions about the Online Parking Service Shutdown
The council has answered my FoI request 10 minutes ago.
The response is interleaved with my 10 questions and begins about half way down on this page.
-
-
@ Clive: I have now read through the answers, and am none the wiser. So they think 10 days of shut down is fine, as all permits had been renewed prior? What complete and utter bollocks! How do they know? How can they legislate for people's needs during this period? How did they plan to accommodate people like me, who moved house? If I had moved a week later I would have had a big problem.
I still don't understand how thy justify the 10 days, when the likes of HSBC with WAY more data to look after can do maintenance overnight.
Their reply is a non-reply if I ever saw one, and is, quite frankly a complete waste of time to read. Who do these people think they are? Have they no respect for other people's time? No concept of service?
ARGH!
-
-
@ Billy Hole: I'd probably rather sit at home and stick needles in my eyes! It's unbelievable.
Lunchtime is a bad time, the poor lambs at the "sevice" centre would want lunch too. At precisely the same time as other people, hence reduced capacity. Where's the sercice minded thinking behind that one?
Sorry, forgot, the Council does not have to provide any kind of service over and above the bare minimum. Sometimes less.
-
Permalink Reply by Kevin O'Shea on
-
I have to agree it is an extremely poor answer...
Parking Services generates enormous cash flow for the council and should be better run with better communication to the public it serves. It just feels they have completely lost sight of the fact that residents of the borough are the customers and as such they need open, honest and effective explanations when things like this happen.
Currently the service is so poor with so many issues relating to parking; in fact I am not sure I know someone who hasn't had a problem with the service since the dedicated parking office closed. In an effort to cut costs I assume (even though the service generates such a large revenue) the new process was simply not thought through properly and the staff in the other service centers not equipped to deal with it...The new process that was put in place added complexity and so many more opportunities for it to go wrong, which inevitably it did...
If the parking services had sent out a message along the lines of: 'we know there are problems and we have made some mistakes in our planning, but with the implementation of this new system we aim to resolve many of these issues, make the system easier, quicker and more convenient' going on to state the benefits we will get and why they chose the service provider they did (i.e. they have successfully run parking services with their online system and seen great benefits etc.) then the council / parking services could have avoided such irritation and bad feeling from the very residents that support the system. For me its just common sense, but it seems at times the council forget the voters / residents who support their jobs, truly are the most important people in the chain and keeping them happy should and must be a priority.
My feelings towards the parking service have worsened, which given they weren't very high in the first place is deeply disappointing.
I would be happy to attend a committee, or offer advice on how to run a more effective service... And no I have no experience whatsoever, I just think I could do a better job than what is currently being done... I am writing to Gary Weston today to ask for a position as an adviser/consultant citing my experiences...
NO Penalty for poor service, the system crashing and data leakage!! Come ON... ITS BASIC STUFF MR. Weston!!!!
Civica Financial Results
> Turnover up 8% to £182.7 million
> Gross profit margin maintained at 68%Profit of £127m!!! Glad we could be of help Civica... I look forward to my money lining your pockets next year and receiving the same service... don't worry I don't want any back if your system fails or you lose my data...
-
-
I still think it was worthwhile doing, because you can compare the depth and sincerity of the answers.
For example, Question 10 was answered completely, no criticism.
Question No.2 was almost wholly content-free and amounted to little more than a restatement of the question without any obvious attempt to be sincere or to helpful, as mandated under Section 16 of the FoI Act. In particular, there is deliberate avoidance of any reference to the norm for "system upgrades", to which I drew attention.
The lack of a meaningful reply to No.2 is the more apparent when the council claims (in relation to Question 8) that they are aware of the contractor having previous experience. If this is true, why should it take a week and a half?
"No income loss has or will occur, given all necessary permit renewals were completed prior to shutdown" does seem questionable as the service was down for a week and a half.
-
-
When I asked the question, I was thinking mainly in terms of income delayed (NB the time value of money) and disruption causing extra costs.
I also asked about any extra costs incurred. One might have supposed that, since this avenue of purchase was being shut down, the council might have made temporary provisions elsewhere to address the unmet demand in the same way that buses sometimes form a "rail replacement service" while tracks are up for maintenance.
The response states that "Alternative payment methods have also been available for payment of Penalty Notices during this period", but it is not clear if these alternative payment methods were in existence anyway.
In other words, there is no answer to the question about any extra costs incurred: I think we can assume that, beyond flagging up this extraordinarily long shut-down, no extra measures were taken.
I query the phrase "all necessary permit renewals were completed" (given as the reason for no income loss). This seems to be based solely on renewals in that period. It doesn't take account of people's lives: work, holidays, illness, bereavement. More fancifully, there might be the (admittedly incredibly rare) instances of people moving into the Borough or unbelievably, moving within the Borough.
Apart from the questionable level of service, it's unclear from the answers whether or not this "system upgrade" is costing extra or not.
-
-
Clive, totally agree. Are you going to pursue this to get a proper reply, or is this it? It's not much of a FOI reply if you can be fobbed off with complete nonsense like this, is it?
That we have to deal with people like these and we have nowhere else to go depresses me no end.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
