Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
A parking conundrum in Crouch End
My neighbour got a ticket the other day, for parking across two pays on our road, Nelson Road, N8. The only weird thing is: We do not have parking bays. We just have lines. There is ONE random line, and that’s it. That was under his car, and he was told he was across two bays.
He is disputing it, of course, but I am now wondering: How can we get this weird line removed, and why is it there in the first place? We’re now getting a bit paranoid about jobsworth parking wardens giving out parking tickets when there’s no good reason for it. They’re just a pain in the a** to dispute, and no one wants the hassle, even though it’s pretty clear there’s no bay there, see photos.
Here's the one little line in question:
See - no bays!!!
Any suggestions?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Anette on
-
Let me find out, I don't know. I have emailed Ann Cunningham, and will post back here when I get a reply. I'll also ask our neighbour what's happening with his fine when I see him.
James, didn't mean to jump on you, sorry if you read it as that.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Anette, you might like to see this Parking Services email that was leaked to me by a Haringey employee who was concerned about the truthfulness of the council in a FoI answer to me. The council had made a bare-faced, blanket denial of the existence of PCN targets.
I've reproduced the email, redacting the names of the employees, leaving the boss's names. It might be useful background when you deal with Ann Cunningham, who is likely to know all about "expectations" or "forecasts", of which your neighbour may have fallen foul.
Although the subject of the email is on-street performance (also, expectations, achieving, figures, totals and levels), it is still striking and revealing that there is not a word about any need for accuracy or correctness—much less, service to the public.
- Attachments:
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Clive, they don't have targets. And you know they don't. Repeating this serves no purpose except to damage your own hard-earned credibility in important areas where you got things absolutely right and need to be listened to.
Key examples are the appalling misjudgements by both politicians and senior officers in the AB CD case for example. And with the past behaviour of Cllr Charles Adje. (Who may well be standing again as a Council candidate.)
-
-
Alan I fully accept that the council has now banned and no longer permits the word "targets", because they could get into trouble if they continued to use that word.
I'm quite happy to let others judge whether or not in Haringey, for CEOs the words Targets, Expectations and the all-new "Forecasts" might have a similar meaning, in practical terms: i.e. repercussions if the beat, or tour-of-duty forecasts are not met.
I'm sure there are rational explanations for what is driving (non-rational) CEO behaviour and my thesis is, that it's the PCN targets.
-
-
That's my understanding of what is meant, Alex.
Though I don't think it needs the Daily Mail. Many people still don't 'get' that imposing arbitrary targets is a bad method for driving up performance. And can increase costs; skew performance; and lead to "gaming" and cheating the system.
And that management measures are not the same.
-
-
Sorry, I shouldn't have used this shorthand. As you'll appreciate Clive and I have had this debate before. Some of it on HoL.
So it may be helpful if I explain that I draw my ideas here very substantially from John Seddon's Systems approach. For people who haven't come across him, I suggest this video as an entertaining summary intro.
A management measure to evaluate performance might be - as mentioned in Mr Heffer's email posted by Clive - looking at the written logs and going on the streets. (Managers "walking the job".)
From my own conversations with Ann Cunningham - the senior manager - one measure will be to look at the numbers of PCNs in precisely the way you suggest. Though Clive is right to be highly critical of the approach in Paul Cox's email on 10 April 2008. Ms Cunningham agrees with Clive. Mr Cox got things wrong.
Unfortunately, the other people getting things wrong are my councillor colleagues who have treated the Parking Service as a cash cow for backfilling budget gaps. Of course, given the Government cuts, we can all understand why. But once a Public Parking Service turns into tax collection, it loses its way and forgets at least part of its public purpose.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
-
-
Alex the email attached below (from 2008) was sent to me, not by the Daily Mail, but by a Haringey employee concerned about the integrity of a council FoI reply to me last year. Alan has already seen a copy of this earlier email.
You'll see that the word "target" is mentioned seven times (no diffidence about "target" back then). The existence of targets is more than embarrassing for the council: it may be unlawful to call them by the "management measure" that dare not speak its name.
Internally, Parking Services may refer to The Word Formerly Known As Target by anything they like: for all we know, it could now be known as 'Dartboard'.
For external purposes, these are now re-cast as "forecasts". Haringey's Press Officers had to think hard to come up with that one, which is why those in the PR department are paid so much money.
Targets may or may not be a legitimate tool to assess staff.
But these targets dartboards don't seem to exist in some other areas of council activity, where the prospect for multi-million pound income generation is less clear (e.g. Trading Standards).
And of course, targets tend to encourage the dubious cases, like the one involving Anette's neighbour. This case appears as unreasonable. If it was me on the receiving end, I'd feel pretty sore at the council.
What the council doesn't appreciate, is that their "forecasts" or "management measures" encourage contempt for local government.
- Attachments:
-
-
From Paul Cox, cc, CAi.pdf, 162 KB
-
-
-
Alex you are right that this revenue does form part of the council's budget. More than that, it is part of their general budget (the consolidated pool) although some would tell you—misleadingly—that the monies are "ring fenced".
The council has come to depend on this form of income: but is this desirable?
In the 12 months to last March, the Parking Account surplus reached £6,000,000 and that, after a lot of costs: the impact on residents is greater than that figure suggests.
The surplus is big enough to pay the salaries of the 80 to 90 highest-paid Haringey council officers.
The term "forecast" only came about because the press office were obliged to re-word "target" when confronted by journalists with the evidence you've seen.
Alan has also defended this performance measure on the basis that, how else could they do it?
The difficulty is that the management "measures" tend to create both more efficient working and the manifestly unreasonable issuance of PCNs in order to meet targets.
-
-
Alex: I reply to my own post because I am unable to reply to yours at nested position 8.
The only evidence of PCN's being issued incorrectly is the number that are successfully challenged, plus anecdotal evidence such as Anette's neighbour's undoubted 'issue', which looks like entrapment.
Obviously, there will not be a deliberate policy to issue unwarranted PCN's in order to hit targets, or for any other reason. There may be targets for teams as a whole, but the targets that matter are any to which individual CEO's are subject. Some CEOs may feel under pressure to issue a PCN in an unclear violation when they're below-target, but you can't expect evidence to take the form of a survey of CEOs on the matter.
The renaming of Target to Forecast by the council's PR experts is clever, but only up to a point.
Targets are set by bosses for staff to achieve or to carry out, as a performance measure. Weather forecasters make predictions themselves.
Meteorologists are not normally sacked for failing to meet their own forecasts, even if some folk might like them to face sanctions!
-
-
-
Alex, you've raised some interesting points. Can I add another, which is that local councils are legally prevented from subsidising their Parking Account from a council's General Fund. So forecasting and keeping tabs on the Parking income and expenditure is not just reasonable but essential.
Miss Feezance and Mr Mustard's Barnet blogs support your suggestion about using the proportion of successful appeals as an indicator. With the added possibility that Barnet's contractors could improve the accuracy and fairness of the system - should they have a disposition to learn from the successful appeals.
Both these bloggers are aiming to encourage more people to appeal if they appear to have a winnable case. Plainly, neither Barnet nor Haringey should interpret a lack of appeals as agreement with a PCN.
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
Just for my information, Alan - I always understood that income from parking enforcement could not be added to the General Fund but had to be spent on parking and road improvements ? ie, my £40 goes to fill a pothole and not to carpeting the Council Offices . Or am I wrong ?
-
-
-
Hi Rachel, see my update on this discussion with photos. The have given us one brand new little line. And it still makes no sense. It would be really good if you could help follow this up, as it makes even less sense now. I was told this morning that someone would come round and inspect, and instead we have a new line!
I am about to send another email to Ann Cunningham, and I will copy my neighbours who's had PCN's issued. I am wondering if there are more, but am not going to go door to door and ask, as I don't know that many of them.
This stupid line must be removed, it's causing confusion, and gives over zealous parking wardens an excuse to pick on innocent people and waste their time, and it is really not acceptable. Would love to know what you find at your end. Thanks again!
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
