Author Topic: Savile Row FOI: £9,500 loss per month!!  (Read 11702 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nitro159

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 38
Re: Savile Row FOI: £9,500 loss per month!!
« Reply #30 on: 05 May, 2011, 04:47:34 PM »
Oh my its been a while, got any sauces for this roast?
« Last Edit: 01 January, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Guest »

Offline BailiffHunter

  • Moderator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
    • http://bailiffhunter.blogspot.com/
Re: Savile Row FOI: £9,500 loss per month!!
« Reply #31 on: 05 May, 2011, 10:19:44 PM »
It seems we all are causing problems re their MEV`s parking provisions :-ev-: :-ev-: Keep going all. Chip chip away at it :-ev-:
« Last Edit: 01 January, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Guest »
\"When the facts change, I change my mind\"

Offline Bennage

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 183
Re: Savile Row FOI: £9,500 loss per month!!
« Reply #32 on: 14 May, 2011, 04:50:46 PM »
Would any press be interested in a cabinet member publicly stating that the DfT are a bunch of muppets?
« Last Edit: 01 January, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Guest »

Offline BailiffHunter

  • Moderator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
    • http://bailiffhunter.blogspot.com/
Re: Savile Row FOI: £9,500 loss per month!!
« Reply #33 on: 14 May, 2011, 06:12:24 PM »
Hold fire on that thought as I explained to BE last night what I plan to do with that nugget of a comment from the B/S kid :-ev-:
« Last Edit: 01 January, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Guest »
\"When the facts change, I change my mind\"

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4368
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Savile Row FOI: £9,500 loss per month!!
« Reply #34 on: 15 May, 2011, 09:12:21 AM »
Quote from: "BailiffHunter"
Hold fire on that thought as I explained to BE last night what I plan to do with that nugget of a comment from the B/S kid :-ev-:

BH is plotting. :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-:

Watch this space... ;)
« Last Edit: 01 January, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Guest »
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline DastardlyDick

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 1697
Re: Savile Row FOI: £9,500 loss per month!!
« Reply #35 on: 17 May, 2011, 12:48:24 AM »
For anyone that's interested, the term "Muppet" is of military origin and is the acronym for Most Useless Person Purbright Ever Trained  ;D
« Last Edit: 01 January, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Guest »

Offline Esinem

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 641
Re: Savile Row FOI: £9,500 loss per month!!
« Reply #36 on: 17 May, 2011, 12:59:10 PM »
Quote from: "DastardlyDick"
For anyone that's interested, the term "Muppet" is of military origin and is the acronym for Most Useless Person Purbright Ever Trained  ;D
I love etymology!
« Last Edit: 01 January, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Guest »
Wastemonster City Council can      NoToMob are watching you!

Offline Esinem

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 641
Re: Savile Row FOI: £9,500 loss per month!!
« Reply #37 on: 17 May, 2011, 01:06:34 PM »
The next thrilling round in the Esinem v The Bullshit Kid. Ding! Ding! Seconds out of the ring  :-ev-:

Gasp as the BS Kid ducks and side-steps that inevitable knock-out punch! What him stagger and reel. When will he go down for the count?

From: Lee Rowley
[mailto:lee_b_rowley@yahoo.com]

Sent: 16 May 2011 08:33
To: Bruce
Subject: Re: No exemption provided for illegal parking by mobile CCTV enforcement & FOI request lies

Thank you for your e-mail.
 TMOs

Officers have advised the following on the TMO issue:

"The general exemption, is written into our Parent order TMOs and not the specific TMO’s for locations which is where the confusion may arise.

For example –The parent Waiting & Loading (i.e. yellow lines) TMO 2002 no.41 states under Part III ‘Exceptions and Exemptions From Restrictions - Excepted Vehicles’ –

“13         The restrictions imposed by Part II of this Order shall not apply in relation to the following vehicles, that is to say –

(d) vehicles when used in the service of a local authority in pursuance of statutory powers or duties provided that in all circumstances it is reasonably necessary in the exercise of such powers or the performance of such duties for the vehicle to wait in the place in which it is waiting”.

The parent Parking Place (i.e. paid-for bays) TMO 2001 no.185 states under Part III ‘Supplementary Provisions – Restriction On Waiting By A Vehicle In A Parking Place’–

“28 (1)   Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Order any vehicle may wait during the permitted hours in any part of a parking place if the use of that part has not been suspended and if:

(c) the vehicle is being used for fire brigade or police purpose or, not being a passenger vehicle, is being used in the service of a local authority in pursuance of statutory powers or duties provided that in all the circumstances it is reasonably necessary in the exercise of such powers or in the performance of such duties for the vehicle to wait in the place in which it is waiting”.

The same exemption written into all relevant parent orders such as those for diplomatic bays, disabled bays, electric charging bays etc."CCTV

To answer your question - I'd call it the Department for Transport being inflexible and unhelpful. 

Savile Row

I understand officers are due to come back to you on this through the FoI requests you have put in, so I will let that process go forward.

I hope that helps.

With best regards,

Lee

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Lee


TMOs

Thank you for confirming my supposition that no valid exemption exists for illegal parking by mobile CCTV enforcement vehicles (MEVs). As you are already abundantly aware, what it might say in the Parent Order TMO’s is irrelevant as it contrary to the Parking Adjudicator’s ruling, which clearly states: “there are no provisions in the TMA or any of its regulations that create exemptions to parking restrictions in TROs for vehicles engaged in camera enforcement.”

(Source:
http://www.manchester.gov.uk/egov_downloads/200910_Parking_Report_to_the_Joint_Committee.pdf)

So, based on this, it is undeniable that neither WCC nor NSL have any valid legal exemption for $CAMera cars to park any differently from the general public. Irrespective of what you might have been told, thankfully, we have no equivalent to Hitler’s Enabling Act of 1933, thus, the Parking Services Department cannot make up its own rules and is subject to the same laws as the rest of us.

As it is reasonably foreseeable that such illegal parking might lead to death or injury, it could be construed as contributory negligence in any resulting personal injury litigation. Furthermore, I believe that the failure to display proper warning signs, correct faulty and confusing prohibition signs and operating covertly are a failure of a duty of care. I therefore request that your MEV crews immediately cease to break the law, park safely and with sufficient visibility to be a deterrent. We have already made our views on inadequate and non-compliant signs which seem calculated to maximise the potential for ‘blood money’ at the expense of our safety. Mark my words: “Somebody will die as a result of this greed”.

CCTV

I see you still offer no explanation of WCC’s apparent “muppetry” in haemorrhaging money on useless CCTV systems, save blaming the DfT for its silly rules about needing equipment that actually met standards which make it ‘fit for purpose’.

Savile Row

So, given you have dodged my questions yet again, I take it that you are in no way concerned that WCC have lied on FOI Requests and that you quite happy to collude in such dubious practices? If I am mistaken, please advise what action will be taken.

The more evasive you are, the more I am convinced of my suppositions. There appears to be no legitimate explanation of the choices and tactics made in pursuit of civil enforcement. Indeed, it makes me wonder if any personal benefits accrued to those responsible for instating the enforcement contracts as I have heard little to convince me that it has been done in the public interest. However, I cannot say I am surprised at your evasiveness since we all know that enforcement is primarily an illegal revenue generator and giving straight answers would be tantamount to an admission and that would never do, would it?

Yours sincerely
 

Bruce



 :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
« Last Edit: 17 May, 2011, 01:18:30 PM by Esinem »
Wastemonster City Council can      NoToMob are watching you!

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4368
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Savile Row FOI: £9,500 loss per month!!
« Reply #38 on: 17 May, 2011, 02:01:11 PM »
Ladies and gentlemen he's back, and he's meaner than ever! :aplude: :aplude: :aplude:
« Last Edit: 01 January, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Guest »
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline Piquet

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 49
Re: Savile Row FOI: £9,500 loss per month!!
« Reply #39 on: 17 May, 2011, 02:45:23 PM »
Quote
c) the vehicle is being used for fire brigade or police purpose or, not being a passenger vehicle, is being used in the service of a local authority in pursuance of statutory powers or duties provided that in all the circumstances it is reasonably necessary in the exercise of such powers or in the performance of such duties for the vehicle to wait in the place in which it is waiting”.

Are $camera Cars registered as Passenger Vehicles?
« Last Edit: 01 January, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Guest »
I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing.

Offline BailiffHunter

  • Moderator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
    • http://bailiffhunter.blogspot.com/
Re: Savile Row FOI: £9,500 loss per month!!
« Reply #40 on: 17 May, 2011, 03:00:31 PM »
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

So the B/S kid first called the DfT "Muppets" and now they are "Inflexible and unhelpful" :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl:.  Well Mr Jedwoood you can continue saying all these priceless things as they are bound to be repeated elsewhere :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-:

"Inflexible and unhelpful" why I wonder. Maybe because they lay down the law and you think you can feckin break it and do what you please :bashy: :bashy: :bashy:

Keep at it Esinem, I think we have really hit a nerve with this one!!! :aplude:
« Last Edit: 01 January, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Guest »
\"When the facts change, I change my mind\"

Offline Pat Pending

  • Global Moderator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2505
Re: Savile Row FOI: £9,500 loss per month!!
« Reply #41 on: 17 May, 2011, 04:01:49 PM »
I suspect there are some e-mails between the Bull Shit Kid and DFT that would be very embarrassing for WCC on this subject. 
« Last Edit: 01 January, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Guest »
Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Beer in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up,  totally worn out and screaming "WOO-HOO, what a  ride!!"

Offline Esinem

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 641
Re: Savile Row FOI: £9,500 loss per month!!
« Reply #42 on: 17 May, 2011, 06:53:54 PM »
[font=georgia:24qqo6ln]'Our Kev' just replied:[/font:24qqo6ln]

[font=Arial:24qqo6ln]On your second point, since enforcement at this location began on 15 September 2008 until 25 [/font:24qqo6ln][font=georgia:24qqo6ln]Marc[/font:24qqo6ln][font=georgia:24qqo6ln]h 2011, 6,962 PCNs have been issued for offence code 32.[/font:24qqo6ln][/i][font=Arial:24qqo6ln][/font:24qqo6ln]

[font=Arial:24qqo6ln]That's £835,440 @ £120 a time. Of course, with discounts, appeals and non-payment, I guess it's a fraction. Anyway, that's an average of about 165 per month (nearly £20k)...and that was down to only 38 in the month after they recommenced enforcement. I wonder if we helped reduce offences by nearly 75%?[/font:24qqo6ln] :rotfl:

There is no doubt that a little effort by us can make a big difference. This is why we need to keep the pressure on one council at a time. They cannot sustain losses like this for long without questions being asked and 'interviews without coffee' being offered.
« Last Edit: 17 May, 2011, 06:57:43 PM by Esinem »
Wastemonster City Council can      NoToMob are watching you!

Offline BailiffHunter

  • Moderator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
    • http://bailiffhunter.blogspot.com/
Re: Savile Row FOI: £9,500 loss per month!!
« Reply #43 on: 17 May, 2011, 06:57:02 PM »
I knew it was 2008 when they started there. I thought I was going mad earlier...2011 they "Commenced there" my arse!!

Do they all really think we are stupid.......on second thoughts....don`t answer that!!! :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
« Last Edit: 01 January, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Guest »
\"When the facts change, I change my mind\"

Offline Esinem

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 641
Re: Savile Row FOI: £9,500 loss per month!!
« Reply #44 on: 19 May, 2011, 11:32:02 AM »
If anyone is out and about, please check the tax disk and let me know what class the $CAMera car is registered as?
« Last Edit: 01 January, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Guest »
Wastemonster City Council can      NoToMob are watching you!

 


Supporters of the NoToMob

In order to view this object you need Flash Player 9+ support!

Get Adobe Flash player