Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Parking Charges set to Soar!
Hi All,
Just noticed this on an unrelated discussion about parking charges. Haringey Council is set to increase our parking charges by up to 2/3 in this report. This will put our parking charges on a par with Camden which pay an average of just under £100 for a permit. We'll be paying £95. That'll make us more expensive than all our neighbouring boroughs except Camden:
Waltham Forest £22.50
Barnet £40.00
Islington £85.00
Enfield £70.00
Hackney £92.00
Just noticed this on an unrelated discussion about parking charges. Haringey Council is set to increase our parking charges by up to 2/3 in this report. This will put our parking charges on a par with Camden which pay an average of just under £100 for a permit. We'll be paying £95. That'll make us more expensive than all our neighbouring boroughs except Camden:
Waltham Forest £22.50
Barnet £40.00
Islington £85.00
Enfield £70.00
Hackney £92.00
Tags for Forum Posts: CPZ, Parking Charges, Permits, public spending cuts
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Alan, it is conceivable that everyone in the borough stops parking illegally one day. This is not a reliable source of funding for the CPZ schemes. These must pay their own way, including the basic cost of enforcement, from the parking permits. Do you agree with the argument banks used recently to justify their exorbitant overdraft penalty fees (they would have to charge everyone a higher basic fee if they couldn't slam people who are bad with their money, or probably just have very little)?
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Lots of things are "conceivable" John. As Wittgenstein wrote: "It is an hypothesis that the sun will rise tomorrow: and this means that we do not know whether it will rise".
Now I sincerely hope that everyone driving in or through Haringey will stop entering junctions where the exit is blocked, or bus lanes (unless driving a bus). It's even conceivable that from tomorrow not-morning when the sun fails to rise, absolutely nobody will park on a pavement, a double-yellow line, or anywhere they're not supposed to.
But unlike social media websites, councillors and council officers can only spend so much time airing opinions and speculations about what may, might and should be. At some point, hard decisions need taking. I favour decisions based on facts and evidence. And not just selective policy-led-evidence which supports particular conclusions. Preferably the facts and evidence should be in reports which are comprehensive, well-researched and of a high professional standard.
So residents can see, understand and have a part in this, as far as possible the whole process should be publicly accessible, and in clear English.
So if there's a steep fall in the income from PCNs with, say, an accelerating trend which threatens the whole Parking Service budget, then let's all see those figures.
But let's also learn from what happened before. Ian Willmore a former councillor, describes a meeting many years ago, when a manager explained that a build-up of street litter "was due to an unexpected leaf fall." As it was autumn at the time, Ian said: "Life's full of surprises for you, isn't it?"
Can I also suggest you re-read GN8's comments below. I don't agree with all her views. But on this topic her facts and figures are helpful.
As is her view of the law. Because, unless Eric Pickles changed things in the last fortnight, local councils don't have complete freedom to set charges for all their services. Some charges are fixed by Government Regulations. Some have to be set broadly so as to cover costs. The Parking Account falls within the latter group.
A last point. Do I take it, John, that you haven't asked the Council to supply full details of the £9 million Parking Service costs and what surpluses are spent on?
-
-
There was a review, Adrian. It was mentioned in section 2 of the report you linked to – the Parking Charges Report due to go to the cabinet on 16 November. It’s referred to as “The 2010 Parking Charges review” and was said to be “the first since important changes were introduced in 2007 and 2008”.
I’ve asked for a copy.
As the first review for 3 years (or more?) I’m expecting a thorough, balanced, comprehensive document stuffed with hard facts and solid evidence. Plainly nothing less would justify the changes proposed.
As you’ll have spotted, the charges hike may also be the first increase of many more to come. Para 3(e) of the recommendations in the Parking Charges Report asks the cabinet:”to agree that parking charges be reviewed annually to ensure they remain at the London average.”
-
-
I really get the impression you REALLY want me to ask "the council" for a breakdown of the parking expenditure.
Now as for making fun of my argument with Wittgenstein, meh.
Chances of sun coming up tomorrow, very close to 1.
Chances of PCN incoming being stable over time, closer to 0.
The surplus is a BAD thing. Ideally it should be low. Then of course there is a possibility some years that the income from PCNs will not cover the cost of maintaining the CPZs. Imagine if the gardens residents rising bollards were paid for out of PCN income? Once we get the situation where pretty much only residents can park in there, no money is left for maintaining the bollards.
PS FOI request sent... but I'm not expecting anything dramatic.
-
-
F.o.I. request: My aim, which I assume you share, is for residents to pool their information as part of a wider decision-making process. HoL is part of that process - which includes formulating questions and digging for the answers.
Income from Penalty Charge Notices: Predicting income from fees, charges and fines is not an either/or business. But income from PCNs has been relatively stable over six years.
Of course, I accept there's no guarantee this will continue. Currently there may even be steep drop. But we don't need odds on this from William Hill. The last seven months' actual figures will do.
The Surplus and the Law
The immediate issue with hoisting charges to run a bigger surplus on the Parking Account is not Good/Bad - but is it lawful? The report gives legal advice to Haringey's cabinet. Most oddly, it says nothing on this point.
-
Permalink Reply by GN8 on
-
I found out about Haringey intention to increase the CPZ Charges about 2 month ago and spent considerable time and effort to both research it and publish my findings on our website
the most relevant to the discussion here would probably be:
CPZ GREEN OR GREED which contains up to the minute figures showing how the CO2 emission based CPZ scheme, totally failed at achieving it’s stated aims which is to reduce CO2 emissions and Change peoples car buying habit.
FOLLOW THE MONEY where you can find out how much money Haringey pocket from Parking and how much of that is net profit surplus...
IN THE NEWS The In the news page http://www.greenn8.org/cpz/news.html covers the latest stories + how Richmond council scrap their CO2 CPZs as they admit they are a total failure...
I also wrote to members of the opposition including our local councillors, Lib-dems leader, dep leader and the shadow member of transport (see below) the response I got clearly demonstrate they continue to be NO OPPOSITION! and intend to do Sweet FA about it - I expect CPZ increased charges will be rubber stamped and rise as planed.
sent on the 3.10.10
Dear councillors
I am writing to you to share information regarding the issue of CPZ, it’s expansion, it’s status as an ineffective green tax and the unlawful level of charges which are set to generate profit.
Since we (Neil, Martin and myself) co-operated on this topic while we were consulted on CO2 Emissions Permits some 3 years ago, I thought you may be interested in this information.
If you recall, I contended that Haringey proposed CPZ charges, were set to a level which will create a surplus/profit after expenses and that doing so, is against the law as it still stands today.
Well here we are 3 years on and I am sad to say I told you so... I had a look at Haringey parking annual report and hey presto a surplus of £2.5 mil is there for all to see.
Haringey CO2 emissions are back to the levels they were in 2005 (according to the figures just released by the dpt of energy and climate change) and there are more 4x4 cars in CP zones then ever before. In other words the CO2 emission CPZ Policy has failed to achieve it’s aims but everyone pays a lot more!
Now Haringey are set to expand the zones even more and are warning on the consultation leaflets that although they quote prices on them, they are likely to rise again after a review has taken place this month.
I contend that with £2.5 mil surplus from parking, there is absolutely no justification to put the price up. Further more, it seems that with an income of £2.0 mil from parking permits and a surplus of £2.5 mil, we could have Free CPZ permits and still enjoy a surplus of at least £0.5mil
Below is an email I sent to our members, at the end of it you can find links to extended information published on our site, which give reference to all my claims here.
Please feel free to share with other colleagues as you see fit.
I will be very interested to report back to our members; your response, your views, and your plan of action in this regard.
-
-
To pick up on few points raised in this discussion
1. According to the 2 separate legal advice given to Richmond council before they went ahead with their CO2 emission charges, it is unlawful to set the level of permit's charges to create revenue.
2. According to legal advice given to Haringey within the current report (section 8) any income from Parking PCN etc is still ring fenced and can only be spent on:
"provision and maintenance on and off street parking, provision of public transport services, environmental improvements, maintenance of roads Highways and road improvements or environmental improvements."
sadly or luckily it can not be spent on free bus passes for the elderly, education, housing or anything else but the mentioned above...
A surplus is NET PROFIT and is left over AFTER ALL EXPENSES.
3. Also it seems it is not lawful for a council to force a CPZ where local residents don't want it!
which explains the council incremental approach of deliberately creating displacement to get residents to DEMAND a CPZ on their road.
4. Reading the report to Cabinet it seems the main reasoning behind the latest charge hike is to bring the charges to the level of London average. I don't see why this is needed? Or how Haringey residents are going to benefit from such a move? It must be the only justification which makes it legal somehow...
As I wrote before setting the charges higher will create a larger surplus and that would clearly be SETTING THE CHARGES TO CREATE REVENUE which is still unlawful as far as I am aware!
As we have seen from the example of what went on with Ally Pally, Haringey council has no problem with unlawfulness, if their risk assessment advice is - that there is a little chance someone will take them to court.
I wonder what could be the judgement of a judicial review regarding SETTING THE CHARGES TO CREATE REVENUE?
According to the report there should be a statutory consultation after cabinet votes it in (I don't hold my breath, do you?) Haringey couldn't care less about petitions... And since there is NO OPPOSITION in existence, maybe judicial review is the only real course of action...
-
-
provision of public transport services
i.e. Freedom passes. All the councils do it.
-
Permalink Reply by Oh no: nevermind! on
-
Brilliant: just as significantly the second car charge will be a whopping £130, and the parking meter charges are going up!! We have four car households here on Allison Road! (two cars per flat! and three per household!). Maybe this will put them off but I doubt it.
Also they want the higher cost meter charging to create a faster turn around of shoppers: more of them staying less time which means you've guessed it - more parking by more out of towners who cannot park!
People round here appear biologically attached to their cars; and think it's a long walk from their front door across the pavement (or to the next road) if you can't park in your own road!! Parking, parking: apparently rubbish collection and parking are the top issues in any neighbourhood.
My theory is we are still baboons (who can drive).
-
-
Depreciation, assuming you didn't buy a banger, will always incentivise you to drive rather than use public transport.
-
-
Regarding the following list which is copied from the report instructing Haringey cabinet to vote to increase CPZ charges TO BRING HARINGEY IN LINE WITH LONDON AVERAGE...
Waltham Forest £22.50
Barnet £40.00
Islington £85.00
Enfield £70.00
Hackney £92.00
I found out that:
* Barnet announced they suspend all action on creating new CPZones!
* Enfield which is mentioned in Haringey report as having CPZ permit at £70, is inaccurate and misleading. Enfield has 12 zones out of which 4 (only a 1/3) are charged at £70 the rest 2/3 are @ £30 a year! if this is the case in Enfield I wonder what will I find if I look at all of them?...
I also found the following which may be useful to some:
In a landmark case at the London Parking Adjudicator, Barrie Segal, the founder of AppealNow.com, got the Controlled Parking Zone for the central zone of London’s West End declared illegal.
Barrie represented transport company, Keystone Distribution UK Ltd in a case against Westminster Council where he claimed that the Council’s massive F3 Controlled Parking Zone in the heart of the West End was illegal and that no parking tickets could be issued to motorists on single yellow lines in that zone. Barrie’s argument was that Zone F3 did not have the correct signs at each vehicle entry point and therefore the zone was illegal. After a site inspection the Parking Adjudicator agreed with Barrie.
http://www.lmag.org.uk/modules.php?name=News&file=article&s...
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2025 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
