Traffic warden sacked from post after refusing to issue tickets to motorists

The_Slithy_Tove

roddydogs wrote: »

The more money raised from ILLEGAL parking, goes towards keeping the Council tax lower, whats wrong with that.?

Several things.

For a start, we know that tickets get issued in dubious circumstances, both pivate and public, and why should a very minor infraction lead to a fairly hefty penalty (more than something like a speeding fine)? Dishing out a large number of tickets, a good proportion of which get appealed will cost more in the end, with the costs of the appeals process, and potentially not getting the income from the appealed ticket. IF there are incentives for issuing tickets, they ought to be based on a points system, with big negative points for seccessfully appealed tickets. That would stop tickets beingdished out willy-nilly just to reach a target, regardless of their validity or fairness.

Secondly, councils are not allowed to use income from fines as part of their overall budgets, for the very reasons set out - it leads to target-based ticketing, rather than common sense policing.

Trebor16

Sirdan wrote: »

If you actually believe that maybe you shoul have a look a how much councils pay their Chief Executives .

It's not illegal parking for the vast majority of councils as they are operating under the decriminalised parking regime.

Furthermore over 60% of councils tickets appealed are over turned..maybe because the rush to issue and grab your cash over rides the duty to issue properly and fairly ..says it all really.

A few years ago the chief executive of Suffolk County Council left and was replaced by the infamous Andrea Hill. Her salary was £225000, an increase of £75000 over her predecessors salary, which in itself was a massive 50% increase. All this at a time when they were doing their best to cut costs on providing services to the elderly and vulnerable citizens of Suffolk.

Trebor16

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Several things.

For a start, we know that tickets get issued in dubious circumstances, both pivate and public, and why should a very minor infraction lead to a fairly hefty penalty (more than something like a speeding fine)? Dishing out a large number of tickets, a good proportion of which get appealed will cost more in the end, with the costs of the appeals process, and potentially not getting the income from the appealed ticket. IF there are incentives for issuing tickets, they ought to be based on a points system, with big negative points for seccessfully appealed tickets. That would stop tickets beingdished out willy-nilly just to reach a target, regardless of their validity or fairness.

Secondly, councils are not allowed to use income from fines as part of their overall budgets, for the very reasons set out - it leads to target-based ticketing, rather than common sense policing.

Therein lies the inherent unfairness of the system, especially in London. The fines that can be levied for legitimate council PCN's are disproportionate. The fact that because you live in London you have to pay more if you are given a PCN than in other parts of the country is ridiculous.

TrickyWicky

Kite2010 wrote: »

But I bet the targets still exist, councils use parking enforcement as a large revenue making operation, I bet if there was some rule that stated that any monies raised from ticketing goes straight into a large pot in central governement (the council seeing nothing from that pot) ticketing will decrease.

No they use 'averages' now to determine who isn't working as hard as the others.

Also if they're not able to raise enough tickets then they can change the beat-patrols to try and raise the number of tickets raised.

Alexis27

roddydogs wrote: »

The more money raised from ILLEGAL parking, goes towards keeping the Council tax lower, whats wrong with that.?

Nothing, but there is a problem if there is a large proportion of tickets that should not have been issued and are unenforceable.

I won at adjudication against Manchester City Council because there was only one CPZ sign and the existing one was tilted away from the road. They have stated that 'a sign is on order'.

This was back in the spring. Lo and behold, no new sign and the existing sign has tilted even further away from the road since!

Is it FAIR that a number of people have since been ticketed on that very road because the council can't be bothered to make the CPZ enforceable under law?

TrickyWicky

roddydogs wrote: »

The more money raised from ILLEGAL parking, goes towards keeping the Council tax lower, whats wrong with that.?

But it doesn't. The money raised is only allowed to be used as an investment in the local areas traffic schemes whether taht be road maintenance, new bus services, line repainting or car park maintenance.

I've heard rumours of one or two authorities mis-using their PCN funds and indeed one of them was so shoddy its own staff used to believe that the PCN funds paid their own salary - I even had one old codger shout it at me when I argued that was tosh. A good number of my colleagues also didn't believe that yellow lines were an instant offence simply because that authority gave observation time. One day I brought it up at a meeting and there were a lot of stunned faces :cool:

Coupon-mad

TrickyWicky wrote: »

No they use 'averages' now to determine who isn't working as hard as the others.

Also if they're not able to raise enough tickets then they can change the beat-patrols to try and raise the number of tickets raised.

See, this still makes no sense. How can CEOs have any sort of target or average to be judged against their colleagues by?

Why the heck is the job of a CEO about trying to achieve PCN issue? Why can CEOs not move cars on when there is a driver on site, be very visible instead of hiding round corners (like they do in Brighton, hide round corners I mean!) and aim to keep traffic flowing as their main target?

TrickyWicky

Coupon, quite a lot of questions there so I'll try to answer them in the best way I can by answering inside your quote in blue:

Coupon-mad wrote: »

See, this still makes no sense. How can CEOs have any sort of target or average to be judged against their colleagues by? CEOs rarely get the same beat/patrol twice. Therefore you normally end up with a mixture of beats and on those beats are the same offences / contraventions. Roads don't get up and walk away and likewise neither do cashpoint machines near bus stops etc. Therefore by rotating CEO patrol patterns, there is generally an average PCN issue per day. Some officers naturally issue less whilst others issue more. Then you get the lazy sods who sit in cafes half the day who will skivve then rush out to hit anything that stands still for 20 seconds (believe me, I've known a few).

Why the heck is the job of a CEO about trying to achieve PCN issue? The government under Brown made targets illegal and at my last workplace we had none and the boss never spoke of any. What they did do however was show us a chart of who was where in a rank type style so that everyone knew how well they were 'performing'. Whilst those at the bottom were always spoken to with 'concern' there was rarely any serious action taken against them. What did happen however was that their PCN issue became so low that they were caught skivving for several hours and consequently sacked for loss of trust - something even the unions couldn't fight. They knew what they were doing and they chose to continue taking the mick at your expense (as a tax payer). Most CEOs will try to stay out and issue PCNs as its the only realistic way of proving you've been out there working. Why can CEOs not move cars on when there is a driver on site Most of those who work for councils will however contractors or ex army/police people have this habit of being hostile towards the motorist and their colleagues and want to be 'the best'. I've seen this with many CEOs over the years and it doesn't do anyone any favours. be very visible Most are however many motorists are so busy doing their other things that they don't notice the CEO standing by their vehicle tapping it up instead of hiding round corners (like they do in Brighton, hide round corners I mean!) and aim to keep traffic flowing as their main target? I've known the odd one or two that hide but usually further down the road not round a corner. I even knew one who kept a regular 'customer's tax details on his person so that he could type up the ticket and issue from down the road, walk past and splat it - ex army bloke who thought he was fighting some sort of war against the motorist. Generally, CEOs as long as they have a direct line of sight, are allowed to observe vehicles from any distance however this always leaves the door open for the hiding behind corners thing. I know a few do it but try telling a parking manager of this and you'll make a rod for your own back. Sometimes its best to leave them to it and wait for that ultimately smart member of the public to catch them (and believe me, it does happen!). As for keeping the traffic moving, CEOs don't have any legal juristiction to direct traffic but they can ask traffic to move on if parked on lines etc. You'll always get some who favour the PCN over finding the driver while others will go out of their way to solve the parking problem by getting it moved (once the PCN is issued it can sit there all day). Some will even break up traffic queues where there is a bottleneck in the local traffic system (eg where people queue up on lines waiting to get into a shopping centre car park. Waiting on the lines isn't allowed so it's quite possible to issue a PCN and if you have that power, you can then ask them to move on instead.