Updated: Council halts fines for Lendal Bridge drivers

York Press: Lendal Bridge in York Lendal Bridge in York

COUNCIL chiefs have stopped issuing fines to drivers breaching controversial traffic rules on York’s Lendal Bridge and Coppergate – but are recording the routes in case penalties can be handed out later.

Traffic adjudicator Stephen Knapp last week said City of York Council had no power to issue penalty charge notices (PCNs) to motorists breaching the restrictions. The authority has since said it has received legal advice that it was acting “within the law”.

The council intends to appeal against the Traffic Penalty Tribunal’s judgement, although cabinet member for transport Coun Dave Merrett said he would have to quit if it is found thousands of drivers should not have been fined.

Darren Richardson, director of city and environmental services, said: “Following legal advice, restrictions will remain in place and recordings will be taken of any breaches of the restrictions along both Lendal Bridge and Coppergate.

“Fines will not be issued upon these recordings until further legal process. Drivers are urged to continue to adhere to the restrictions in place.”

He said 95 per cent of drivers obeyed the Lendal restrictions during the trial, and breaches had “peaked and started to decline”. He said after trial data collection was completed, enforcement levels were reviewed and reduced, meaning since the experiment ended on February 27, PCNs had not been issued to every private vehicle breaching the restrictions.

In an email to Lib Dem leader Coun Keith Aspden, council chief executive Kersten England said the legal advice could not be made public as it “will be used for the internal appeal process with the adjudicator”.

Coun Aspden said the advice and any legal costs should be published, saying: "We need to see the legal advice, know how much it cost and understand how much money Labour is prepared to throw at any legal battle.

“This is public money and the public have a right to know. I am concerned a decision appears to have been taken in secret to oppose the original ruling.”

The council said the advice from a QC would form the basis of any legal action it may take, and “no resident or organisation would ever weaken their case by putting it into the public domain ahead of proceedings”. Andy Docherty, head of legal services, said councillors could discuss seeing the advice with him, but had no right to a copy.

Coun Merrett said last week that he was "obviously pleased" with the legal advice. On his position if it was deemed fines were unlawful, he said: "If that is what happens at the end of the day, I accept we have got it wrong to that extent, then I would have to resign or whoever."

More than 53,000 motorists were sent PCNs during the six-month Lendal Bridge trial, which ended on February 27 but with the restrictions kept in place until the Labour cabinet decides on its future next month. Almost 10,000 Coppergate fines were issued between the end of September and the end of February.

In a statement last Friday, Ms England said the legal advice meant the council was "confident we are operating both Lendal Bridge and Coppergate schemes within the law".
 

Comments (195)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:51am Sat 5 Apr 14

Bailed Out says...

It's difficult to belive that these people are elected to listen to and act for the people of York.
It's difficult to belive that these people are elected to listen to and act for the people of York. Bailed Out
  • Score: 13

12:15pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Sage9 says...

I wonder how many people will want to attend the next Cabinet meeting where all this is to be discussed.
I wonder how many people will want to attend the next Cabinet meeting where all this is to be discussed. Sage9
  • Score: -35

12:25pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Sage9 says...

Another thought. The Oxford case involved a ticket issued for an event on 10 July 2008 with High Court judgment issued on 27 April 2010. Mr Dale's ticket was issued for an event on 21 August 2013. On the same timetable we will be expecting a result around election time! Expect any Court application to be delayed!!
Another thought. The Oxford case involved a ticket issued for an event on 10 July 2008 with High Court judgment issued on 27 April 2010. Mr Dale's ticket was issued for an event on 21 August 2013. On the same timetable we will be expecting a result around election time! Expect any Court application to be delayed!! Sage9
  • Score: -188

12:41pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Dave Ruddock says...

This is getting like a Infant school tantrum. the "Trial" (if that what it was) period has ENDED, by last count 40 days. so the trial period has ended and this shambles of a council are still issuing penalty notices and seems DEAF to hearing what the erectors have said. Wish that as a Government council, get the idea in their heads that they have sealed there own fates at the next elections (and be aware other government parties, dont follow this "Alice in Wonderland path"
This is getting like a Infant school tantrum. the "Trial" (if that what it was) period has ENDED, by last count 40 days. so the trial period has ended and this shambles of a council are still issuing penalty notices and seems DEAF to hearing what the erectors have said. Wish that as a Government council, get the idea in their heads that they have sealed there own fates at the next elections (and be aware other government parties, dont follow this "Alice in Wonderland path" Dave Ruddock
  • Score: -452

12:42pm Sat 5 Apr 14

andy fowler says...

When will these clowns ever admit they're wrong??? Yet more of our money thrown down the drain to appease their egos!!!
ALEXANDER OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When will these clowns ever admit they're wrong??? Yet more of our money thrown down the drain to appease their egos!!! ALEXANDER OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! andy fowler
  • Score: -807

12:48pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Sage9 says...

Thinking about it further, they have to appeal. What's another £30K - £50K if you might avoid repaying all those fines, even if the odds are similar to selecting a single number on a roulette table.
Thinking about it further, they have to appeal. What's another £30K - £50K if you might avoid repaying all those fines, even if the odds are similar to selecting a single number on a roulette table. Sage9
  • Score: -3784

12:59pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Guido_Fawkes says...

It is quite clear that the Council have little or no respect for the people of York.

I hope that when the elections come next year people remember everything all of this and show their contempt to the current administration and vote them out!!
It is quite clear that the Council have little or no respect for the people of York. I hope that when the elections come next year people remember everything all of this and show their contempt to the current administration and vote them out!! Guido_Fawkes
  • Score: -3214

1:05pm Sat 5 Apr 14

andy fowler says...

Guido_Fawkes wrote:
It is quite clear that the Council have little or no respect for the people of York.

I hope that when the elections come next year people remember everything all of this and show their contempt to the current administration and vote them out!!
We should be able to have a vote of no confidence in the bunch of clowns.
[quote][p][bold]Guido_Fawkes[/bold] wrote: It is quite clear that the Council have little or no respect for the people of York. I hope that when the elections come next year people remember everything all of this and show their contempt to the current administration and vote them out!![/p][/quote]We should be able to have a vote of no confidence in the bunch of clowns. andy fowler
  • Score: -2496

1:07pm Sat 5 Apr 14

marvell says...

As long as Labour remain in power helped ably by Cllr Alexander's puppet Kersten England (who should be independent but it anything but) then Democracy is dead in York.
As long as Labour remain in power helped ably by Cllr Alexander's puppet Kersten England (who should be independent but it anything but) then Democracy is dead in York. marvell
  • Score: -1739

1:07pm Sat 5 Apr 14

aac2689 says...

andy fowler wrote:
When will these clowns ever admit they're wrong??? Yet more of our money thrown down the drain to appease their egos!!!
ALEXANDER OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Of course they're not going to admit they're wrong.
Just read the deputy leader's twitter ,no one tells her what to do.
[quote][p][bold]andy fowler[/bold] wrote: When will these clowns ever admit they're wrong??? Yet more of our money thrown down the drain to appease their egos!!! ALEXANDER OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]Of course they're not going to admit they're wrong. Just read the deputy leader's twitter ,no one tells her what to do. aac2689
  • Score: -1165

1:12pm Sat 5 Apr 14

jay, york says...

Apart from them both being wonderful historice cities, there is a huge difference between York and Oxfords interpretation of the term "bus lane". In Oxford the only vehicles allowed to use the bus lanes are "registered local busses (not private coach parties), private hire vehicles, taxis and exempt emergency vehicles - this means any (i ) vehicle in the service of or employed by the fire, police or ambulance services when on an emergency call and (ii) police vehicle on patrol. This is exactly how it is worded on the Oxforshire County Council website and restrictions of vehicle use and times in other areas of the city are set out just as clearly. Also, someone posted here yesterday that Oxford does have a much better transport system - and did have prior to the introduction of the bus lanes.
In York, the transport system is totally disjointed and CYC appear to have caved in to pressure from so many local groups to be able to use the "bus lanes" that they can no longer be sensibly seen to be bus lanes. And they have closed part of the inner ring road to certain types of vehicles.

If York are following the Oxford strategy, it should be noted that according to the Oxford Mail their council secretly turned the enforcement cameras off for a period.

I hear now that Merrett has been put forward as the sacrificial lamb as the one to resign if things dont turn out the way CYC want, and we already know that Darren Richardson is leaving - but what about the rest of them? It looks like little jimmy is already trying to distance himself from any responsibility judging from his recent comments by asking for an internal review. And others like Justin7 and Jake777 will just continue to make inane abusive comments on this site (yesterday one comment referred to "dirty tourists) and rig the votes. We should be very worried with this lot running our city.
Apart from them both being wonderful historice cities, there is a huge difference between York and Oxfords interpretation of the term "bus lane". In Oxford the only vehicles allowed to use the bus lanes are "registered local busses (not private coach parties), private hire vehicles, taxis and exempt emergency vehicles - this means any (i ) vehicle in the service of or employed by the fire, police or ambulance services when on an emergency call and (ii) police vehicle on patrol. This is exactly how it is worded on the Oxforshire County Council website and restrictions of vehicle use and times in other areas of the city are set out just as clearly. Also, someone posted here yesterday that Oxford does have a much better transport system - and did have prior to the introduction of the bus lanes. In York, the transport system is totally disjointed and CYC appear to have caved in to pressure from so many local groups to be able to use the "bus lanes" that they can no longer be sensibly seen to be bus lanes. And they have closed part of the inner ring road to certain types of vehicles. If York are following the Oxford strategy, it should be noted that according to the Oxford Mail their council secretly turned the enforcement cameras off for a period. I hear now that Merrett has been put forward as the sacrificial lamb as the one to resign if things dont turn out the way CYC want, and we already know that Darren Richardson is leaving - but what about the rest of them? It looks like little jimmy is already trying to distance himself from any responsibility judging from his recent comments by asking for an internal review. And others like Justin7 and Jake777 will just continue to make inane abusive comments on this site (yesterday one comment referred to "dirty tourists) and rig the votes. We should be very worried with this lot running our city. jay, york
  • Score: -894

1:13pm Sat 5 Apr 14

MorkofYork says...

They'd rather steal over a million £ from visitors to this city than admit they were incompetent. They are self serving and using huge amounts of public money to try and further themselves.

The money should be given back. We value our guests more than this bunch of despotic Councillors.
They'd rather steal over a million £ from visitors to this city than admit they were incompetent. They are self serving and using huge amounts of public money to try and further themselves. The money should be given back. We value our guests more than this bunch of despotic Councillors. MorkofYork
  • Score: -617

1:34pm Sat 5 Apr 14

bolero says...

When it comes to election time in May 2015; Labour councillors please come knocking on my door. I can't wait.
When it comes to election time in May 2015; Labour councillors please come knocking on my door. I can't wait. bolero
  • Score: -350

1:44pm Sat 5 Apr 14

aac2689 says...

andy fowler wrote:
Guido_Fawkes wrote:
It is quite clear that the Council have little or no respect for the people of York.

I hope that when the elections come next year people remember everything all of this and show their contempt to the current administration and vote them out!!
We should be able to have a vote of no confidence in the bunch of clowns.
But what would they do with they're time......
Oh wait a minute ..theres a new macdonalds opening up soon.
Ferret can change the signs as and when needed(he's good at that),simply wrong can eject anyone who has the slightest grievance,yoga bear can do the pricing (as long as EVERYTHING is 20)
And i bet they can all cook (books,facts,anythin
g)

Just one last thing DO NOT put any of them on the drive through
[quote][p][bold]andy fowler[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Guido_Fawkes[/bold] wrote: It is quite clear that the Council have little or no respect for the people of York. I hope that when the elections come next year people remember everything all of this and show their contempt to the current administration and vote them out!![/p][/quote]We should be able to have a vote of no confidence in the bunch of clowns.[/p][/quote]But what would they do with they're time...... Oh wait a minute ..theres a new macdonalds opening up soon. Ferret can change the signs as and when needed(he's good at that),simply wrong can eject anyone who has the slightest grievance,yoga bear can do the pricing (as long as EVERYTHING is 20) And i bet they can all cook (books,facts,anythin g) Just one last thing DO NOT put any of them on the drive through aac2689
  • Score: -293

2:01pm Sat 5 Apr 14

tobefair says...

I have been following the Lendal Bridge debate through The Press since it started. I have never seen an issue to raise so many comments on these pages. Of the hundreds of comments made a very significant majority have been against the closure of Lendal Bridge.
The Labour group on the council must now know that, like the Lib Dems Water End debacle, this issue is going to cost them the next election. They will therefore continue with their unpopular and perhaps illegal policy because they have nothing to lose. Unlike the council tax payers of York who could be paying for this for years.
I have been following the Lendal Bridge debate through The Press since it started. I have never seen an issue to raise so many comments on these pages. Of the hundreds of comments made a very significant majority have been against the closure of Lendal Bridge. The Labour group on the council must now know that, like the Lib Dems Water End debacle, this issue is going to cost them the next election. They will therefore continue with their unpopular and perhaps illegal policy because they have nothing to lose. Unlike the council tax payers of York who could be paying for this for years. tobefair
  • Score: -103

2:02pm Sat 5 Apr 14

redjan says...

Quite happy then to waste more of Yorks taxpayers cash !!!
Quite happy then to waste more of Yorks taxpayers cash !!! redjan
  • Score: -55

2:26pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Dr Brian says...

bolero wrote:
When it comes to election time in May 2015; Labour councillors please come knocking on my door. I can't wait.
Exactly but I reckon they will be running scared as evene the thick Labour councillors who run this city must know that electioneering will not be worth it no way will they be anywhere near power in York come May 2015
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: When it comes to election time in May 2015; Labour councillors please come knocking on my door. I can't wait.[/p][/quote]Exactly but I reckon they will be running scared as evene the thick Labour councillors who run this city must know that electioneering will not be worth it no way will they be anywhere near power in York come May 2015 Dr Brian
  • Score: -41

2:38pm Sat 5 Apr 14

buzzy_bee says...

As it is t he York taxpayer who has paid for this legal advice, it is only right that the details of the legal advice i.e. cost and the advice given is made public. What is Labour trying to hide?

Furthermore, if the council takes legal action at further cost to the York taxpayer and loses, it would only be right for Labour to stand down and local elections to be held.

Maybe York citizens can put a petition together stating no confidence in Labour and demanding elections.
As it is t he York taxpayer who has paid for this legal advice, it is only right that the details of the legal advice i.e. cost and the advice given is made public. What is Labour trying to hide? Furthermore, if the council takes legal action at further cost to the York taxpayer and loses, it would only be right for Labour to stand down and local elections to be held. Maybe York citizens can put a petition together stating no confidence in Labour and demanding elections. buzzy_bee
  • Score: -23

2:59pm Sat 5 Apr 14

chelk says...

aac2689 wrote:
andy fowler wrote:
When will these clowns ever admit they're wrong??? Yet more of our money thrown down the drain to appease their egos!!!
ALEXANDER OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Of course they're not going to admit they're wrong.
Just read the deputy leader's twitter ,no one tells her what to do.
We will at the elections next year
[quote][p][bold]aac2689[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]andy fowler[/bold] wrote: When will these clowns ever admit they're wrong??? Yet more of our money thrown down the drain to appease their egos!!! ALEXANDER OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]Of course they're not going to admit they're wrong. Just read the deputy leader's twitter ,no one tells her what to do.[/p][/quote]We will at the elections next year chelk
  • Score: -23

3:05pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Woody G Mellor says...

Why should Merrett be allowed to quit?

He should be sacked!!
Why should Merrett be allowed to quit? He should be sacked!! Woody G Mellor
  • Score: -17

3:57pm Sat 5 Apr 14

mel_drew says...

I wonder what Merret means by "...................
.I would have to resign OR WHOEVER."
I wonder what Merret means by "................... .I would have to resign OR WHOEVER." mel_drew
  • Score: -35

4:54pm Sat 5 Apr 14

NoNewsIsGoodNews says...

I know this is never a popular opinion on here, but this is exactly what you get from voting.
They do not care about anybody except themselves regardless of party in office.
People are already talking about the next local election and saying that they can't wait to vote this lot out, but that is not possible as all you can do is vote the next lot in, and if that is the Lib Dums just remember what these comment pages looked like when the Water End cycle path was put in.

If anybody votes in the next locals, you will only be voting for more of the same.
I know this is never a popular opinion on here, but this is exactly what you get from voting. They do not care about anybody except themselves regardless of party in office. People are already talking about the next local election and saying that they can't wait to vote this lot out, but that is not possible as all you can do is vote the next lot in, and if that is the Lib Dums just remember what these comment pages looked like when the Water End cycle path was put in. If anybody votes in the next locals, you will only be voting for more of the same. NoNewsIsGoodNews
  • Score: -31

5:04pm Sat 5 Apr 14

big boy york says...

cant somebody or a bunch of people, attend the next council meeting & place a vote of no confidence in alexander, simpson-laing, merritt & the rest of the labour council, or do we have to wait till next year to get em out
cant somebody or a bunch of people, attend the next council meeting & place a vote of no confidence in alexander, simpson-laing, merritt & the rest of the labour council, or do we have to wait till next year to get em out big boy york
  • Score: -15

5:06pm Sat 5 Apr 14

pedalling paul says...

The initial legal advice from the DVLC told CoYC that they could not follow their preferred option of issuing a warning for a first offence, then a fine for any subsequent one. According to Cllr. Merrett in his Look North interview, that was found to be wrong.
This underlines just how much Local Authority Officers, and the Councillors that they advise, depend on receiving accurate advice from national Agencies. It affects every Council in the UK, not just York.
If anyone should be resigning it is Officers at the DVLC etc.
There are some muddy waters surrounding the use of ANPR cameras to detect drivers who flout regulations. The law needs to be clarified and changed if neccessary, so that Local Authorities around the UK can take full advantage of ANPR technology. Keeping authorised road users moving is vital.
All of York's political parties, plus inner and outer York MP's should be jointly lobbying Whitehall to get clarification.
One thing may not be clear. No matter who (if anyone) resigns locally, and no matter who wins the next local election, the car users paradise that many crave will still never happen. Car share, bus, bike and city car club short term hire for many local journeys, together with priority measures for these travel modes, are the only way to avoid future gridlock.
The initial legal advice from the DVLC told CoYC that they could not follow their preferred option of issuing a warning for a first offence, then a fine for any subsequent one. According to Cllr. Merrett in his Look North interview, that was found to be wrong. This underlines just how much Local Authority Officers, and the Councillors that they advise, depend on receiving accurate advice from national Agencies. It affects every Council in the UK, not just York. If anyone should be resigning it is Officers at the DVLC etc. There are some muddy waters surrounding the use of ANPR cameras to detect drivers who flout regulations. The law needs to be clarified and changed if neccessary, so that Local Authorities around the UK can take full advantage of ANPR technology. Keeping authorised road users moving is vital. All of York's political parties, plus inner and outer York MP's should be jointly lobbying Whitehall to get clarification. One thing may not be clear. No matter who (if anyone) resigns locally, and no matter who wins the next local election, the car users paradise that many crave will still never happen. Car share, bus, bike and city car club short term hire for many local journeys, together with priority measures for these travel modes, are the only way to avoid future gridlock. pedalling paul
  • Score: -2692

5:07pm Sat 5 Apr 14

T'Marcus says...

Guido_Fawkes wrote:
It is quite clear that the Council have little or no respect for the people of York.

I hope that when the elections come next year people remember everything all of this and show their contempt to the current administration and vote them out!!
The Sherriff of York should run Alexander and his junta out of town now, and take England and her civil servants with them.
The city of York is OUR city, and it will always be OUR city.
Alexander and his junta were voted in by us (sadly) and must listen to the voters
Their contempt towards the people of York are beyond belief.
Why is England hiding behind this time?
This country is a democracy, even if the current administration behaviour like cold-war era communists.
[quote][p][bold]Guido_Fawkes[/bold] wrote: It is quite clear that the Council have little or no respect for the people of York. I hope that when the elections come next year people remember everything all of this and show their contempt to the current administration and vote them out!![/p][/quote]The Sherriff of York should run Alexander and his junta out of town now, and take England and her civil servants with them. The city of York is OUR city, and it will always be OUR city. Alexander and his junta were voted in by us (sadly) and must listen to the voters Their contempt towards the people of York are beyond belief. Why is England hiding behind this time? This country is a democracy, even if the current administration behaviour like cold-war era communists. T'Marcus
  • Score: 1847

5:12pm Sat 5 Apr 14

T'Marcus says...

marvell wrote:
As long as Labour remain in power helped ably by Cllr Alexander's puppet Kersten England (who should be independent but it anything but) then Democracy is dead in York.
England OUT now. Take her lackies with her. Savannah, Georgia, is a beautiful in Spring. And that city's bridges are free, as is democratic U.S.A. is.
[quote][p][bold]marvell[/bold] wrote: As long as Labour remain in power helped ably by Cllr Alexander's puppet Kersten England (who should be independent but it anything but) then Democracy is dead in York.[/p][/quote]England OUT now. Take her lackies with her. Savannah, Georgia, is a beautiful in Spring. And that city's bridges are free, as is democratic U.S.A. is. T'Marcus
  • Score: 180

5:16pm Sat 5 Apr 14

inthesticks says...

marvell wrote:
As long as Labour remain in power helped ably by Cllr Alexander's puppet Kersten England (who should be independent but it anything but) then Democracy is dead in York.
You sure you got that the right way round?
[quote][p][bold]marvell[/bold] wrote: As long as Labour remain in power helped ably by Cllr Alexander's puppet Kersten England (who should be independent but it anything but) then Democracy is dead in York.[/p][/quote]You sure you got that the right way round? inthesticks
  • Score: -75

5:17pm Sat 5 Apr 14

T'Marcus says...

Woody G Mellor wrote:
Why should Merrett be allowed to quit?

He should be sacked!!
Merrett is a failure as a councillor.
The junta will not sack him.
The voters will in May 2015.
Countdown continues.
The clock is ticking.
Tick/Tick/Tick.
Vote against the Labour junta.
[quote][p][bold]Woody G Mellor[/bold] wrote: Why should Merrett be allowed to quit? He should be sacked!![/p][/quote]Merrett is a failure as a councillor. The junta will not sack him. The voters will in May 2015. Countdown continues. The clock is ticking. Tick/Tick/Tick. Vote against the Labour junta. T'Marcus
  • Score: -49

5:19pm Sat 5 Apr 14

T'Marcus says...

mel_drew wrote:
I wonder what Merret means by "..............
.....
.I would have to resign OR WHOEVER."
Merrett is a failure as a councillor.
The junta will not sack him.
The voters will in May 2015.
Countdown continues.
The clock is ticking.
Tick/Tick/Tick.
Vote against the Labour junta.
[quote][p][bold]mel_drew[/bold] wrote: I wonder what Merret means by ".............. ..... .I would have to resign OR WHOEVER."[/p][/quote]Merrett is a failure as a councillor. The junta will not sack him. The voters will in May 2015. Countdown continues. The clock is ticking. Tick/Tick/Tick. Vote against the Labour junta. T'Marcus
  • Score: -67

5:27pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Jazzper says...

It is impossible to remove coun. Merrett from office, he is welded to his safe seat in Micklegate ward and has been since 1982, it will take a revolution to remove him.
It is impossible to remove coun. Merrett from office, he is welded to his safe seat in Micklegate ward and has been since 1982, it will take a revolution to remove him. Jazzper
  • Score: -58

5:33pm Sat 5 Apr 14

eeoodares says...

Jazzper wrote:
It is impossible to remove coun. Merrett from office, he is welded to his safe seat in Micklegate ward and has been since 1982, it will take a revolution to remove him.
I think they have done enough damage, they will ALL be out!
[quote][p][bold]Jazzper[/bold] wrote: It is impossible to remove coun. Merrett from office, he is welded to his safe seat in Micklegate ward and has been since 1982, it will take a revolution to remove him.[/p][/quote]I think they have done enough damage, they will ALL be out! eeoodares
  • Score: -73

5:50pm Sat 5 Apr 14

ThePhilth says...

Surely there must be some way to force a vote of no confidence in this bunch of clowns? I can't honestly believe that they will be allowed to continue to 'run' this City (other than into the ground) over the next 13 months.
The ONLY positive that I can take from this is that all of them will be completely finished in politics, and are also unlikely to ever be gainfully employed in the local area.
We will hopefully be completely clear of them.... well, we can dream at least.
On a side note, I see the crazy negative voter(s) have been out in force, but are thankfully fooling nobody!
Surely there must be some way to force a vote of no confidence in this bunch of clowns? I can't honestly believe that they will be allowed to continue to 'run' this City (other than into the ground) over the next 13 months. The ONLY positive that I can take from this is that all of them will be completely finished in politics, and are also unlikely to ever be gainfully employed in the local area. We will hopefully be completely clear of them.... well, we can dream at least. On a side note, I see the crazy negative voter(s) have been out in force, but are thankfully fooling nobody! ThePhilth
  • Score: -82

5:55pm Sat 5 Apr 14

b3nson says...

Can York Press sort this mindless Cretin with the voting button? It seems you're just as useless as this bunch of clowns that masquerade as COY council, and just as bothered about your readers as Alexander & Co are about York residents!
Can York Press sort this mindless Cretin with the voting button? It seems you're just as useless as this bunch of clowns that masquerade as COY council, and just as bothered about your readers as Alexander & Co are about York residents! b3nson
  • Score: -62

5:57pm Sat 5 Apr 14

b3nson says...

b3nson wrote:
Can York Press sort this mindless Cretin with the voting button? It seems you're just as useless as this bunch of clowns that masquerade as COY council, and just as bothered about your readers as Alexander & Co are about York residents!
Apologies to all you Cretins out there and those that work for COY council - don't mean to offend you
[quote][p][bold]b3nson[/bold] wrote: Can York Press sort this mindless Cretin with the voting button? It seems you're just as useless as this bunch of clowns that masquerade as COY council, and just as bothered about your readers as Alexander & Co are about York residents![/p][/quote]Apologies to all you Cretins out there and those that work for COY council - don't mean to offend you b3nson
  • Score: -79

6:01pm Sat 5 Apr 14

E Jacques says...

So the CEO, Kersten England says the legal opinion, paid for by York Citizens, cannot be divulged because it is privileged legal opinion. What an arrogant and self-serving statement by someone who signed off on this nonsensical scheme which has made City of York Council a laughing stock and has caused so much inconvenience and heartache to thousands of York residents and to so many visitors.

She should be sacked for gross incompetence and for wasting public money on this undemocratic, unwanted, unnecessary and useless project.
So the CEO, Kersten England says the legal opinion, paid for by York Citizens, cannot be divulged because it is privileged legal opinion. What an arrogant and self-serving statement by someone who signed off on this nonsensical scheme which has made City of York Council a laughing stock and has caused so much inconvenience and heartache to thousands of York residents and to so many visitors. She should be sacked for gross incompetence and for wasting public money on this undemocratic, unwanted, unnecessary and useless project. E Jacques
  • Score: -58

6:25pm Sat 5 Apr 14

bolero says...

`York voters will appeal against this despotic regime in May 2015` and they will win.
`York voters will appeal against this despotic regime in May 2015` and they will win. bolero
  • Score: -129

6:57pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Haywire says...

marvell wrote:
As long as Labour remain in power helped ably by Cllr Alexander's puppet Kersten England (who should be independent but it anything but) then Democracy is dead in York.
I trust that you were drinking or taking excessive medication when you made that comment! It certainly appears so from the mistakes in your note. Your comments on the Council's Officers are actionable and pathetic.
[quote][p][bold]marvell[/bold] wrote: As long as Labour remain in power helped ably by Cllr Alexander's puppet Kersten England (who should be independent but it anything but) then Democracy is dead in York.[/p][/quote]I trust that you were drinking or taking excessive medication when you made that comment! It certainly appears so from the mistakes in your note. Your comments on the Council's Officers are actionable and pathetic. Haywire
  • Score: 769

6:59pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Haywire says...

E Jacques wrote:
So the CEO, Kersten England says the legal opinion, paid for by York Citizens, cannot be divulged because it is privileged legal opinion. What an arrogant and self-serving statement by someone who signed off on this nonsensical scheme which has made City of York Council a laughing stock and has caused so much inconvenience and heartache to thousands of York residents and to so many visitors.

She should be sacked for gross incompetence and for wasting public money on this undemocratic, unwanted, unnecessary and useless project.
You obviously have no idea how this thing works. Read up on it a little bit before you put finger to keyboard.
[quote][p][bold]E Jacques[/bold] wrote: So the CEO, Kersten England says the legal opinion, paid for by York Citizens, cannot be divulged because it is privileged legal opinion. What an arrogant and self-serving statement by someone who signed off on this nonsensical scheme which has made City of York Council a laughing stock and has caused so much inconvenience and heartache to thousands of York residents and to so many visitors. She should be sacked for gross incompetence and for wasting public money on this undemocratic, unwanted, unnecessary and useless project.[/p][/quote]You obviously have no idea how this thing works. Read up on it a little bit before you put finger to keyboard. Haywire
  • Score: 604

7:00pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Haywire says...

b3nson wrote:
b3nson wrote:
Can York Press sort this mindless Cretin with the voting button? It seems you're just as useless as this bunch of clowns that masquerade as COY council, and just as bothered about your readers as Alexander & Co are about York residents!
Apologies to all you Cretins out there and those that work for COY council - don't mean to offend you
You are doing a grand job. Keep it them frothing at the mouth.
[quote][p][bold]b3nson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]b3nson[/bold] wrote: Can York Press sort this mindless Cretin with the voting button? It seems you're just as useless as this bunch of clowns that masquerade as COY council, and just as bothered about your readers as Alexander & Co are about York residents![/p][/quote]Apologies to all you Cretins out there and those that work for COY council - don't mean to offend you[/p][/quote]You are doing a grand job. Keep it them frothing at the mouth. Haywire
  • Score: 221

7:01pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Haywire says...

bolero wrote:
`York voters will appeal against this despotic regime in May 2015` and they will win.
Hmmhhh!
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: `York voters will appeal against this despotic regime in May 2015` and they will win.[/p][/quote]Hmmhhh! Haywire
  • Score: 95

7:02pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Haywire says...

ThePhilth wrote:
Surely there must be some way to force a vote of no confidence in this bunch of clowns? I can't honestly believe that they will be allowed to continue to 'run' this City (other than into the ground) over the next 13 months.
The ONLY positive that I can take from this is that all of them will be completely finished in politics, and are also unlikely to ever be gainfully employed in the local area.
We will hopefully be completely clear of them.... well, we can dream at least.
On a side note, I see the crazy negative voter(s) have been out in force, but are thankfully fooling nobody!
OK, what is your remarkable alternative?
[quote][p][bold]ThePhilth[/bold] wrote: Surely there must be some way to force a vote of no confidence in this bunch of clowns? I can't honestly believe that they will be allowed to continue to 'run' this City (other than into the ground) over the next 13 months. The ONLY positive that I can take from this is that all of them will be completely finished in politics, and are also unlikely to ever be gainfully employed in the local area. We will hopefully be completely clear of them.... well, we can dream at least. On a side note, I see the crazy negative voter(s) have been out in force, but are thankfully fooling nobody![/p][/quote]OK, what is your remarkable alternative? Haywire
  • Score: 21

7:08pm Sat 5 Apr 14

jumbojet says...

When is the MP for York going to comment on this disgusting display by this council? it is an absolute shambles and they are not fit to run a whelk stall, no wonder we have such schemes as Kings Square which has ruined the centre of our City for EVER, it will never be the same, York City Council are a disgrace, and it will not be forgotten, but please no Lib/Dems they are equally as inept.
We need an extraordinary meeting before our City is totally ruined.
When is the MP for York going to comment on this disgusting display by this council? it is an absolute shambles and they are not fit to run a whelk stall, no wonder we have such schemes as Kings Square which has ruined the centre of our City for EVER, it will never be the same, York City Council are a disgrace, and it will not be forgotten, but please no Lib/Dems they are equally as inept. We need an extraordinary meeting before our City is totally ruined. jumbojet
  • Score: 3

7:13pm Sat 5 Apr 14

bjb says...

If this 'bunch of clowns' is voted out next year, which bunch of clowns should replace them? The ones that have had the job previously and failed miserably. The ones whose party produce a manifesto and cheat everyone who voted for them by ignoring their wishes just to be able to write in history books they were once in power or those whose goal is to line the pockets of their old public school chums.

Your choice! One bunch of clowns will only be replaced with another.
If this 'bunch of clowns' is voted out next year, which bunch of clowns should replace them? The ones that have had the job previously and failed miserably. The ones whose party produce a manifesto and cheat everyone who voted for them by ignoring their wishes just to be able to write in history books they were once in power or those whose goal is to line the pockets of their old public school chums. Your choice! One bunch of clowns will only be replaced with another. bjb
  • Score: -55

7:14pm Sat 5 Apr 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Ms England said the legal advice meant the council was "confident we are operating both Lendal Bridge and Coppergate schemes within the law". It also hinted at an appeal, citing a similar case in Oxford in 2009.

Adjudicator Stephen Knapp of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal explicitly mentions the Oxford case in his open, honest, published conclusions.

If England is to challenge the Adjudicator Stephen Knapp's findings then it must be assumed there is doubt as to the legal status and to continue issuing fines is in view of this doubt is not the right thing to be doing.

The trial is over, the results are in, but there is a challenge based the legality of the use of the ANPR cameras to issue fines. Until such time as the legal position is contested and an established outcome published the whole fiasco needs to be suspended. Only after the legal issues have been resolved would it be reasonable to continue.

Lendal Bridge needs to be returned to the status quo that existed before the trial exposed it's potential illegal operational status as a bus lane.

My money is on Knapp.
Ms England said the legal advice meant the council was "confident we are operating both Lendal Bridge and Coppergate schemes within the law". It also hinted at an appeal, citing a similar case in Oxford in 2009. Adjudicator Stephen Knapp of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal explicitly mentions the Oxford case in his open, honest, published conclusions. If England is to challenge the Adjudicator Stephen Knapp's findings then it must be assumed there is doubt as to the legal status and to continue issuing fines is in view of this doubt is not the right thing to be doing. The trial is over, the results are in, but there is a challenge based the legality of the use of the ANPR cameras to issue fines. Until such time as the legal position is contested and an established outcome published the whole fiasco needs to be suspended. Only after the legal issues have been resolved would it be reasonable to continue. Lendal Bridge needs to be returned to the status quo that existed before the trial exposed it's potential illegal operational status as a bus lane. My money is on Knapp. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -68

7:34pm Sat 5 Apr 14

rodney'sdog says...

There are 53,000 ripped off motorists who will not shed a tear if the councillor loses his job. The Council were totally in the wrong to make a bridge unfit for purpose and cause so much inconvenience for thousands more. Somebody help him clear his desk.
There are 53,000 ripped off motorists who will not shed a tear if the councillor loses his job. The Council were totally in the wrong to make a bridge unfit for purpose and cause so much inconvenience for thousands more. Somebody help him clear his desk. rodney'sdog
  • Score: -40

7:38pm Sat 5 Apr 14

b3nson says...

Haywire wrote:
b3nson wrote:
b3nson wrote:
Can York Press sort this mindless Cretin with the voting button? It seems you're just as useless as this bunch of clowns that masquerade as COY council, and just as bothered about your readers as Alexander & Co are about York residents!
Apologies to all you Cretins out there and those that work for COY council - don't mean to offend you
You are doing a grand job. Keep it them frothing at the mouth.
Keep it them frothing at the mouth? - aww and you pulled someone up for not being able to read and write properly. Never mind keep trying.
[quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]b3nson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]b3nson[/bold] wrote: Can York Press sort this mindless Cretin with the voting button? It seems you're just as useless as this bunch of clowns that masquerade as COY council, and just as bothered about your readers as Alexander & Co are about York residents![/p][/quote]Apologies to all you Cretins out there and those that work for COY council - don't mean to offend you[/p][/quote]You are doing a grand job. Keep it them frothing at the mouth.[/p][/quote]Keep it them frothing at the mouth? - aww and you pulled someone up for not being able to read and write properly. Never mind keep trying. b3nson
  • Score: -59

7:50pm Sat 5 Apr 14

gmsgop says...

Ms England I do hope you did not say the Council is confident ..... The Council has not been consulted - you may be confident, your legal staffers may be confident, you may have told the labour or some of the labour councillors they should be confident. But you cannot say the Council is confident because the Council has not seen the legal advice as you personally have refused to share it.

You may not presume that the Council would be confident, as you don't know because you are not the Council, you are simply the very well paid Chief Executive paid to ensure successful implementation of the Council's policies ( in this case the implementation of the Lendal Bridge trial). I understand it is tempting to deflect responsibility from you, to 'the Council' but the buck stops almost entirely at your door from where I sit.
Ms England I do hope you did not say the Council is confident ..... The Council has not been consulted - you may be confident, your legal staffers may be confident, you may have told the labour or some of the labour councillors they should be confident. But you cannot say the Council is confident because the Council has not seen the legal advice as you personally have refused to share it. You may not presume that the Council would be confident, as you don't know because you are not the Council, you are simply the very well paid Chief Executive paid to ensure successful implementation of the Council's policies ( in this case the implementation of the Lendal Bridge trial). I understand it is tempting to deflect responsibility from you, to 'the Council' but the buck stops almost entirely at your door from where I sit. gmsgop
  • Score: -59

8:16pm Sat 5 Apr 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

gmsgop, I totally agree, there needs to be apportioned responsibility, but Ms England has elected to test her evidence against that of the Adjudicator.

Whilst it takes time to to get the results it is wrong to continue with a process that is in doubt, that would be like saying I know your a burglar but until convicted please continue to burgle.

The future of Lendal and any outcome from the trial is in doubt based upon a legal test that is being initiated by those who created the situation. To allow the situation to continue unabated until the legal outcome is wrong. The trial period has expired, so given the doubt over it's legality to continue issuing PCN's it has to be suspended immediately.

No decisions about the future of Lendal can be reasonably put in place until this matter is concluded.
gmsgop, I totally agree, there needs to be apportioned responsibility, but Ms England has elected to test her evidence against that of the Adjudicator. Whilst it takes time to to get the results it is wrong to continue with a process that is in doubt, that would be like saying I know your a burglar but until convicted please continue to burgle. The future of Lendal and any outcome from the trial is in doubt based upon a legal test that is being initiated by those who created the situation. To allow the situation to continue unabated until the legal outcome is wrong. The trial period has expired, so given the doubt over it's legality to continue issuing PCN's it has to be suspended immediately. No decisions about the future of Lendal can be reasonably put in place until this matter is concluded. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -70

8:21pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Cheeky face says...

I rang DVLA re Merritt's comments re yellow card option in Sept 2013. Following their reply -" the council can use info as they wish" - then I confirmed it by asking DfT. Then I asked James Alexander to find out who Dave Merritt spoke to; and still no reply to this or my earlier questions. It is such an important issue so Dave must have a note of that conversation!

Notwithstanding the above, taxpayers should question if Kersten MUST let York tax payers see the report, on the grounds they are an interested party, having funded same.

The signage re Coppergate is bad, confirmed in the recent report, and mentioned in Malarkeys appeal of late Autumn, which surely is not in question so those signs and their positioning need rectifying, and in the meantime the Coppergate cameras should be turned off.
I rang DVLA re Merritt's comments re yellow card option in Sept 2013. Following their reply -" the council can use info as they wish" - then I confirmed it by asking DfT. Then I asked James Alexander to find out who Dave Merritt spoke to; and still no reply to this or my earlier questions. It is such an important issue so Dave must have a note of that conversation! Notwithstanding the above, taxpayers should question if Kersten MUST let York tax payers see the report, on the grounds they are an interested party, having funded same. The signage re Coppergate is bad, confirmed in the recent report, and mentioned in Malarkeys appeal of late Autumn, which surely is not in question so those signs and their positioning need rectifying, and in the meantime the Coppergate cameras should be turned off. Cheeky face
  • Score: -55

8:24pm Sat 5 Apr 14

sixtyfourfive says...

pedalling paul wrote:
The initial legal advice from the DVLC told CoYC that they could not follow their preferred option of issuing a warning for a first offence, then a fine for any subsequent one. According to Cllr. Merrett in his Look North interview, that was found to be wrong.
This underlines just how much Local Authority Officers, and the Councillors that they advise, depend on receiving accurate advice from national Agencies. It affects every Council in the UK, not just York.
If anyone should be resigning it is Officers at the DVLC etc.
There are some muddy waters surrounding the use of ANPR cameras to detect drivers who flout regulations. The law needs to be clarified and changed if neccessary, so that Local Authorities around the UK can take full advantage of ANPR technology. Keeping authorised road users moving is vital.
All of York's political parties, plus inner and outer York MP's should be jointly lobbying Whitehall to get clarification.
One thing may not be clear. No matter who (if anyone) resigns locally, and no matter who wins the next local election, the car users paradise that many crave will still never happen. Car share, bus, bike and city car club short term hire for many local journeys, together with priority measures for these travel modes, are the only way to avoid future gridlock.
Wow Hepworth I didn't believe such unbelievably crushingly boring and repetitive anoraks as you existed but watching your 3 minutes on the COYC website spouting about Fossgate ostensibly on behalf of the cycling community confirmed you really are for real! Most sensible people don't crave a car users paradise - just a modicum of common sense.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: The initial legal advice from the DVLC told CoYC that they could not follow their preferred option of issuing a warning for a first offence, then a fine for any subsequent one. According to Cllr. Merrett in his Look North interview, that was found to be wrong. This underlines just how much Local Authority Officers, and the Councillors that they advise, depend on receiving accurate advice from national Agencies. It affects every Council in the UK, not just York. If anyone should be resigning it is Officers at the DVLC etc. There are some muddy waters surrounding the use of ANPR cameras to detect drivers who flout regulations. The law needs to be clarified and changed if neccessary, so that Local Authorities around the UK can take full advantage of ANPR technology. Keeping authorised road users moving is vital. All of York's political parties, plus inner and outer York MP's should be jointly lobbying Whitehall to get clarification. One thing may not be clear. No matter who (if anyone) resigns locally, and no matter who wins the next local election, the car users paradise that many crave will still never happen. Car share, bus, bike and city car club short term hire for many local journeys, together with priority measures for these travel modes, are the only way to avoid future gridlock.[/p][/quote]Wow Hepworth I didn't believe such unbelievably crushingly boring and repetitive anoraks as you existed but watching your 3 minutes on the COYC website spouting about Fossgate ostensibly on behalf of the cycling community confirmed you really are for real! Most sensible people don't crave a car users paradise - just a modicum of common sense. sixtyfourfive
  • Score: -31

8:41pm Sat 5 Apr 14

jay, york says...

b3nson wrote:
Haywire wrote:
b3nson wrote:
b3nson wrote: Can York Press sort this mindless Cretin with the voting button? It seems you're just as useless as this bunch of clowns that masquerade as COY council, and just as bothered about your readers as Alexander & Co are about York residents!
Apologies to all you Cretins out there and those that work for COY council - don't mean to offend you
You are doing a grand job. Keep it them frothing at the mouth.
Keep it them frothing at the mouth? - aww and you pulled someone up for not being able to read and write properly. Never mind keep trying.
Well spotted - but you'e not the only one to notice!
Typical CYC - they spout rubbish and think they can criticise everyone else when they cant even get it right themselves.
Seems Haywire must have given Justin7 and Jake777 some time off tonight - maybe they have gone on a "Learn how NOT to be a prat" course - time will tell
.
[quote][p][bold]b3nson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]b3nson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]b3nson[/bold] wrote: Can York Press sort this mindless Cretin with the voting button? It seems you're just as useless as this bunch of clowns that masquerade as COY council, and just as bothered about your readers as Alexander & Co are about York residents![/p][/quote]Apologies to all you Cretins out there and those that work for COY council - don't mean to offend you[/p][/quote]You are doing a grand job. Keep it them frothing at the mouth.[/p][/quote]Keep it them frothing at the mouth? - aww and you pulled someone up for not being able to read and write properly. Never mind keep trying.[/p][/quote]Well spotted - but you'e not the only one to notice! Typical CYC - they spout rubbish and think they can criticise everyone else when they cant even get it right themselves. Seems Haywire must have given Justin7 and Jake777 some time off tonight - maybe they have gone on a "Learn how NOT to be a prat" course - time will tell . jay, york
  • Score: -67

8:43pm Sat 5 Apr 14

inthesticks says...

Cheeky face wrote:
I rang DVLA re Merritt's comments re yellow card option in Sept 2013. Following their reply -" the council can use info as they wish" - then I confirmed it by asking DfT. Then I asked James Alexander to find out who Dave Merritt spoke to; and still no reply to this or my earlier questions. It is such an important issue so Dave must have a note of that conversation!

Notwithstanding the above, taxpayers should question if Kersten MUST let York tax payers see the report, on the grounds they are an interested party, having funded same.

The signage re Coppergate is bad, confirmed in the recent report, and mentioned in Malarkeys appeal of late Autumn, which surely is not in question so those signs and their positioning need rectifying, and in the meantime the Coppergate cameras should be turned off.
There`s no question she has to let tax payers see all documents, it`s the law. FOI request may be needed and COYC have a habit of deflecting and trying to ignore them.
Gwen is right, CE is ultimately responsible to make sure all policies are implemented properly and legally, that`s why the pay is a couple of grand a week.
Hot in the COYC kitchen right now!
[quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: I rang DVLA re Merritt's comments re yellow card option in Sept 2013. Following their reply -" the council can use info as they wish" - then I confirmed it by asking DfT. Then I asked James Alexander to find out who Dave Merritt spoke to; and still no reply to this or my earlier questions. It is such an important issue so Dave must have a note of that conversation! Notwithstanding the above, taxpayers should question if Kersten MUST let York tax payers see the report, on the grounds they are an interested party, having funded same. The signage re Coppergate is bad, confirmed in the recent report, and mentioned in Malarkeys appeal of late Autumn, which surely is not in question so those signs and their positioning need rectifying, and in the meantime the Coppergate cameras should be turned off.[/p][/quote]There`s no question she has to let tax payers see all documents, it`s the law. FOI request may be needed and COYC have a habit of deflecting and trying to ignore them. Gwen is right, CE is ultimately responsible to make sure all policies are implemented properly and legally, that`s why the pay is a couple of grand a week. Hot in the COYC kitchen right now! inthesticks
  • Score: -75

8:48pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Haywire says...

b3nson wrote:
Haywire wrote:
b3nson wrote:
b3nson wrote:
Can York Press sort this mindless Cretin with the voting button? It seems you're just as useless as this bunch of clowns that masquerade as COY council, and just as bothered about your readers as Alexander & Co are about York residents!
Apologies to all you Cretins out there and those that work for COY council - don't mean to offend you
You are doing a grand job. Keep it them frothing at the mouth.
Keep it them frothing at the mouth? - aww and you pulled someone up for not being able to read and write properly. Never mind keep trying.
aww?!! I am stunned at your erudite response. So what pearls of wisdom do you wish to add?
[quote][p][bold]b3nson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]b3nson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]b3nson[/bold] wrote: Can York Press sort this mindless Cretin with the voting button? It seems you're just as useless as this bunch of clowns that masquerade as COY council, and just as bothered about your readers as Alexander & Co are about York residents![/p][/quote]Apologies to all you Cretins out there and those that work for COY council - don't mean to offend you[/p][/quote]You are doing a grand job. Keep it them frothing at the mouth.[/p][/quote]Keep it them frothing at the mouth? - aww and you pulled someone up for not being able to read and write properly. Never mind keep trying.[/p][/quote]aww?!! I am stunned at your erudite response. So what pearls of wisdom do you wish to add? Haywire
  • Score: -84

8:53pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Haywire says...

jay, york wrote:
b3nson wrote:
Haywire wrote:
b3nson wrote:
b3nson wrote: Can York Press sort this mindless Cretin with the voting button? It seems you're just as useless as this bunch of clowns that masquerade as COY council, and just as bothered about your readers as Alexander & Co are about York residents!
Apologies to all you Cretins out there and those that work for COY council - don't mean to offend you
You are doing a grand job. Keep it them frothing at the mouth.
Keep it them frothing at the mouth? - aww and you pulled someone up for not being able to read and write properly. Never mind keep trying.
Well spotted - but you'e not the only one to notice!
Typical CYC - they spout rubbish and think they can criticise everyone else when they cant even get it right themselves.
Seems Haywire must have given Justin7 and Jake777 some time off tonight - maybe they have gone on a "Learn how NOT to be a prat" course - time will tell
.
So, what's your excuse for the nonsense you spout?
[quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]b3nson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]b3nson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]b3nson[/bold] wrote: Can York Press sort this mindless Cretin with the voting button? It seems you're just as useless as this bunch of clowns that masquerade as COY council, and just as bothered about your readers as Alexander & Co are about York residents![/p][/quote]Apologies to all you Cretins out there and those that work for COY council - don't mean to offend you[/p][/quote]You are doing a grand job. Keep it them frothing at the mouth.[/p][/quote]Keep it them frothing at the mouth? - aww and you pulled someone up for not being able to read and write properly. Never mind keep trying.[/p][/quote]Well spotted - but you'e not the only one to notice! Typical CYC - they spout rubbish and think they can criticise everyone else when they cant even get it right themselves. Seems Haywire must have given Justin7 and Jake777 some time off tonight - maybe they have gone on a "Learn how NOT to be a prat" course - time will tell .[/p][/quote]So, what's your excuse for the nonsense you spout? Haywire
  • Score: 21

8:53pm Sat 5 Apr 14

inthesticks says...

E Jacques wrote:
So the CEO, Kersten England says the legal opinion, paid for by York Citizens, cannot be divulged because it is privileged legal opinion. What an arrogant and self-serving statement by someone who signed off on this nonsensical scheme which has made City of York Council a laughing stock and has caused so much inconvenience and heartache to thousands of York residents and to so many visitors.

She should be sacked for gross incompetence and for wasting public money on this undemocratic, unwanted, unnecessary and useless project.
Not looking good for KE right now is it. Undemocratic, certainly. And they really don`t like people to question what they are doing and how they do it, which is why KE had Gwen blocked from reading tweets from the public CityofYork twitter acc. Not a good decision.
Doubt she will be sacked though but I bet she`s been polishing up the CV over recent weeks.
[quote][p][bold]E Jacques[/bold] wrote: So the CEO, Kersten England says the legal opinion, paid for by York Citizens, cannot be divulged because it is privileged legal opinion. What an arrogant and self-serving statement by someone who signed off on this nonsensical scheme which has made City of York Council a laughing stock and has caused so much inconvenience and heartache to thousands of York residents and to so many visitors. She should be sacked for gross incompetence and for wasting public money on this undemocratic, unwanted, unnecessary and useless project.[/p][/quote]Not looking good for KE right now is it. Undemocratic, certainly. And they really don`t like people to question what they are doing and how they do it, which is why KE had Gwen blocked from reading tweets from the public CityofYork twitter acc. Not a good decision. Doubt she will be sacked though but I bet she`s been polishing up the CV over recent weeks. inthesticks
  • Score: 58

9:16pm Sat 5 Apr 14

jay, york says...

Haywire wrote:
jay, york wrote:
b3nson wrote:
Haywire wrote:
b3nson wrote:
b3nson wrote: Can York Press sort this mindless Cretin with the voting button? It seems you're just as useless as this bunch of clowns that masquerade as COY council, and just as bothered about your readers as Alexander & Co are about York residents!
Apologies to all you Cretins out there and those that work for COY council - don't mean to offend you
You are doing a grand job. Keep it them frothing at the mouth.
Keep it them frothing at the mouth? - aww and you pulled someone up for not being able to read and write properly. Never mind keep trying.
Well spotted - but you'e not the only one to notice! Typical CYC - they spout rubbish and think they can criticise everyone else when they cant even get it right themselves. Seems Haywire must have given Justin7 and Jake777 some time off tonight - maybe they have gone on a "Learn how NOT to be a prat" course - time will tell .
So, what's your excuse for the nonsense you spout?
It's called truth and freedom of speech . Good to see that you are really rattled tonight
[quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]b3nson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]b3nson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]b3nson[/bold] wrote: Can York Press sort this mindless Cretin with the voting button? It seems you're just as useless as this bunch of clowns that masquerade as COY council, and just as bothered about your readers as Alexander & Co are about York residents![/p][/quote]Apologies to all you Cretins out there and those that work for COY council - don't mean to offend you[/p][/quote]You are doing a grand job. Keep it them frothing at the mouth.[/p][/quote]Keep it them frothing at the mouth? - aww and you pulled someone up for not being able to read and write properly. Never mind keep trying.[/p][/quote]Well spotted - but you'e not the only one to notice! Typical CYC - they spout rubbish and think they can criticise everyone else when they cant even get it right themselves. Seems Haywire must have given Justin7 and Jake777 some time off tonight - maybe they have gone on a "Learn how NOT to be a prat" course - time will tell .[/p][/quote]So, what's your excuse for the nonsense you spout?[/p][/quote]It's called truth and freedom of speech . Good to see that you are really rattled tonight jay, york
  • Score: 12

10:03pm Sat 5 Apr 14

jake777 says...

jay, york wrote:
Apart from them both being wonderful historice cities, there is a huge difference between York and Oxfords interpretation of the term "bus lane". In Oxford the only vehicles allowed to use the bus lanes are "registered local busses (not private coach parties), private hire vehicles, taxis and exempt emergency vehicles - this means any (i ) vehicle in the service of or employed by the fire, police or ambulance services when on an emergency call and (ii) police vehicle on patrol. This is exactly how it is worded on the Oxforshire County Council website and restrictions of vehicle use and times in other areas of the city are set out just as clearly. Also, someone posted here yesterday that Oxford does have a much better transport system - and did have prior to the introduction of the bus lanes.
In York, the transport system is totally disjointed and CYC appear to have caved in to pressure from so many local groups to be able to use the "bus lanes" that they can no longer be sensibly seen to be bus lanes. And they have closed part of the inner ring road to certain types of vehicles.

If York are following the Oxford strategy, it should be noted that according to the Oxford Mail their council secretly turned the enforcement cameras off for a period.

I hear now that Merrett has been put forward as the sacrificial lamb as the one to resign if things dont turn out the way CYC want, and we already know that Darren Richardson is leaving - but what about the rest of them? It looks like little jimmy is already trying to distance himself from any responsibility judging from his recent comments by asking for an internal review. And others like Justin7 and Jake777 will just continue to make inane abusive comments on this site (yesterday one comment referred to "dirty tourists) and rig the votes. We should be very worried with this lot running our city.
My comment are not insane or abusive just because you don't like what I put, is YOUR problem I have the right to speak how I feel, and again if you dont like it then do one.
[quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: Apart from them both being wonderful historice cities, there is a huge difference between York and Oxfords interpretation of the term "bus lane". In Oxford the only vehicles allowed to use the bus lanes are "registered local busses (not private coach parties), private hire vehicles, taxis and exempt emergency vehicles - this means any (i ) vehicle in the service of or employed by the fire, police or ambulance services when on an emergency call and (ii) police vehicle on patrol. This is exactly how it is worded on the Oxforshire County Council website and restrictions of vehicle use and times in other areas of the city are set out just as clearly. Also, someone posted here yesterday that Oxford does have a much better transport system - and did have prior to the introduction of the bus lanes. In York, the transport system is totally disjointed and CYC appear to have caved in to pressure from so many local groups to be able to use the "bus lanes" that they can no longer be sensibly seen to be bus lanes. And they have closed part of the inner ring road to certain types of vehicles. If York are following the Oxford strategy, it should be noted that according to the Oxford Mail their council secretly turned the enforcement cameras off for a period. I hear now that Merrett has been put forward as the sacrificial lamb as the one to resign if things dont turn out the way CYC want, and we already know that Darren Richardson is leaving - but what about the rest of them? It looks like little jimmy is already trying to distance himself from any responsibility judging from his recent comments by asking for an internal review. And others like Justin7 and Jake777 will just continue to make inane abusive comments on this site (yesterday one comment referred to "dirty tourists) and rig the votes. We should be very worried with this lot running our city.[/p][/quote]My comment are not insane or abusive just because you don't like what I put, is YOUR problem I have the right to speak how I feel, and again if you dont like it then do one. jake777
  • Score: 26

10:06pm Sat 5 Apr 14

b3nson says...

jay, york wrote:
Haywire wrote:
jay, york wrote:
b3nson wrote:
Haywire wrote:
b3nson wrote:
b3nson wrote: Can York Press sort this mindless Cretin with the voting button? It seems you're just as useless as this bunch of clowns that masquerade as COY council, and just as bothered about your readers as Alexander & Co are about York residents!
Apologies to all you Cretins out there and those that work for COY council - don't mean to offend you
You are doing a grand job. Keep it them frothing at the mouth.
Keep it them frothing at the mouth? - aww and you pulled someone up for not being able to read and write properly. Never mind keep trying.
Well spotted - but you'e not the only one to notice! Typical CYC - they spout rubbish and think they can criticise everyone else when they cant even get it right themselves. Seems Haywire must have given Justin7 and Jake777 some time off tonight - maybe they have gone on a "Learn how NOT to be a prat" course - time will tell .
So, what's your excuse for the nonsense you spout?
It's called truth and freedom of speech . Good to see that you are really rattled tonight
as well as being an idiot!
[quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]b3nson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]b3nson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]b3nson[/bold] wrote: Can York Press sort this mindless Cretin with the voting button? It seems you're just as useless as this bunch of clowns that masquerade as COY council, and just as bothered about your readers as Alexander & Co are about York residents![/p][/quote]Apologies to all you Cretins out there and those that work for COY council - don't mean to offend you[/p][/quote]You are doing a grand job. Keep it them frothing at the mouth.[/p][/quote]Keep it them frothing at the mouth? - aww and you pulled someone up for not being able to read and write properly. Never mind keep trying.[/p][/quote]Well spotted - but you'e not the only one to notice! Typical CYC - they spout rubbish and think they can criticise everyone else when they cant even get it right themselves. Seems Haywire must have given Justin7 and Jake777 some time off tonight - maybe they have gone on a "Learn how NOT to be a prat" course - time will tell .[/p][/quote]So, what's your excuse for the nonsense you spout?[/p][/quote]It's called truth and freedom of speech . Good to see that you are really rattled tonight[/p][/quote]as well as being an idiot! b3nson
  • Score: 15

10:08pm Sat 5 Apr 14

gmsgop says...

inthesticks wrote:
E Jacques wrote:
So the CEO, Kersten England says the legal opinion, paid for by York Citizens, cannot be divulged because it is privileged legal opinion. What an arrogant and self-serving statement by someone who signed off on this nonsensical scheme which has made City of York Council a laughing stock and has caused so much inconvenience and heartache to thousands of York residents and to so many visitors.

She should be sacked for gross incompetence and for wasting public money on this undemocratic, unwanted, unnecessary and useless project.
Not looking good for KE right now is it. Undemocratic, certainly. And they really don`t like people to question what they are doing and how they do it, which is why KE had Gwen blocked from reading tweets from the public CityofYork twitter acc. Not a good decision.
Doubt she will be sacked though but I bet she`s been polishing up the CV over recent weeks.
Just been talking to a friend, top level recruiter. She was telling me they can recruit with so much more confidence now. No need to have to rely on disingenuous 'references' from employers desperate to get rid of senior staff, same for MPs & MEP candidates! They use press reports, twitter and other social media- even contacting key users.

Now doesn't that make so much sense, to get a 360 view of applicants at the highest level. Transparency may not work inside city of York but citizens are shining spotlights - bravo for the media -in all it's forms:)
[quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E Jacques[/bold] wrote: So the CEO, Kersten England says the legal opinion, paid for by York Citizens, cannot be divulged because it is privileged legal opinion. What an arrogant and self-serving statement by someone who signed off on this nonsensical scheme which has made City of York Council a laughing stock and has caused so much inconvenience and heartache to thousands of York residents and to so many visitors. She should be sacked for gross incompetence and for wasting public money on this undemocratic, unwanted, unnecessary and useless project.[/p][/quote]Not looking good for KE right now is it. Undemocratic, certainly. And they really don`t like people to question what they are doing and how they do it, which is why KE had Gwen blocked from reading tweets from the public CityofYork twitter acc. Not a good decision. Doubt she will be sacked though but I bet she`s been polishing up the CV over recent weeks.[/p][/quote]Just been talking to a friend, top level recruiter. She was telling me they can recruit with so much more confidence now. No need to have to rely on disingenuous 'references' from employers desperate to get rid of senior staff, same for MPs & MEP candidates! They use press reports, twitter and other social media- even contacting key users. Now doesn't that make so much sense, to get a 360 view of applicants at the highest level. Transparency may not work inside city of York but citizens are shining spotlights - bravo for the media -in all it's forms:) gmsgop
  • Score: 273

10:25pm Sat 5 Apr 14

jake777 says...

rodney'sdog wrote:
There are 53,000 ripped off motorists who will not shed a tear if the councillor loses his job. The Council were totally in the wrong to make a bridge unfit for purpose and cause so much inconvenience for thousands more. Somebody help him clear his desk.
go on then get on with it, all mouth and no trousers.
[quote][p][bold]rodney'sdog[/bold] wrote: There are 53,000 ripped off motorists who will not shed a tear if the councillor loses his job. The Council were totally in the wrong to make a bridge unfit for purpose and cause so much inconvenience for thousands more. Somebody help him clear his desk.[/p][/quote]go on then get on with it, all mouth and no trousers. jake777
  • Score: 158

10:25pm Sat 5 Apr 14

jake777 says...

jay, york wrote:
Apart from them both being wonderful historice cities, there is a huge difference between York and Oxfords interpretation of the term "bus lane". In Oxford the only vehicles allowed to use the bus lanes are "registered local busses (not private coach parties), private hire vehicles, taxis and exempt emergency vehicles - this means any (i ) vehicle in the service of or employed by the fire, police or ambulance services when on an emergency call and (ii) police vehicle on patrol. This is exactly how it is worded on the Oxforshire County Council website and restrictions of vehicle use and times in other areas of the city are set out just as clearly. Also, someone posted here yesterday that Oxford does have a much better transport system - and did have prior to the introduction of the bus lanes.
In York, the transport system is totally disjointed and CYC appear to have caved in to pressure from so many local groups to be able to use the "bus lanes" that they can no longer be sensibly seen to be bus lanes. And they have closed part of the inner ring road to certain types of vehicles.

If York are following the Oxford strategy, it should be noted that according to the Oxford Mail their council secretly turned the enforcement cameras off for a period.

I hear now that Merrett has been put forward as the sacrificial lamb as the one to resign if things dont turn out the way CYC want, and we already know that Darren Richardson is leaving - but what about the rest of them? It looks like little jimmy is already trying to distance himself from any responsibility judging from his recent comments by asking for an internal review. And others like Justin7 and Jake777 will just continue to make inane abusive comments on this site (yesterday one comment referred to "dirty tourists) and rig the votes. We should be very worried with this lot running our city.
My comment are not insane or abusive just because you don't like what I put, is YOUR problem I have the right to speak how I feel, and again if you dont like it then do one.
[quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: Apart from them both being wonderful historice cities, there is a huge difference between York and Oxfords interpretation of the term "bus lane". In Oxford the only vehicles allowed to use the bus lanes are "registered local busses (not private coach parties), private hire vehicles, taxis and exempt emergency vehicles - this means any (i ) vehicle in the service of or employed by the fire, police or ambulance services when on an emergency call and (ii) police vehicle on patrol. This is exactly how it is worded on the Oxforshire County Council website and restrictions of vehicle use and times in other areas of the city are set out just as clearly. Also, someone posted here yesterday that Oxford does have a much better transport system - and did have prior to the introduction of the bus lanes. In York, the transport system is totally disjointed and CYC appear to have caved in to pressure from so many local groups to be able to use the "bus lanes" that they can no longer be sensibly seen to be bus lanes. And they have closed part of the inner ring road to certain types of vehicles. If York are following the Oxford strategy, it should be noted that according to the Oxford Mail their council secretly turned the enforcement cameras off for a period. I hear now that Merrett has been put forward as the sacrificial lamb as the one to resign if things dont turn out the way CYC want, and we already know that Darren Richardson is leaving - but what about the rest of them? It looks like little jimmy is already trying to distance himself from any responsibility judging from his recent comments by asking for an internal review. And others like Justin7 and Jake777 will just continue to make inane abusive comments on this site (yesterday one comment referred to "dirty tourists) and rig the votes. We should be very worried with this lot running our city.[/p][/quote]My comment are not insane or abusive just because you don't like what I put, is YOUR problem I have the right to speak how I feel, and again if you dont like it then do one. jake777
  • Score: 203

10:31pm Sat 5 Apr 14

jake777 says...

Cheeky face wrote:
I rang DVLA re Merritt's comments re yellow card option in Sept 2013. Following their reply -" the council can use info as they wish" - then I confirmed it by asking DfT. Then I asked James Alexander to find out who Dave Merritt spoke to; and still no reply to this or my earlier questions. It is such an important issue so Dave must have a note of that conversation!

Notwithstanding the above, taxpayers should question if Kersten MUST let York tax payers see the report, on the grounds they are an interested party, having funded same.

The signage re Coppergate is bad, confirmed in the recent report, and mentioned in Malarkeys appeal of late Autumn, which surely is not in question so those signs and their positioning need rectifying, and in the meantime the Coppergate cameras should be turned off.
lets turn them off and put a police officer their instead he will issue you with a fixed penalty which you will have to pay like they did before the camera. and before you all start we can pay his wage from the fines.
[quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: I rang DVLA re Merritt's comments re yellow card option in Sept 2013. Following their reply -" the council can use info as they wish" - then I confirmed it by asking DfT. Then I asked James Alexander to find out who Dave Merritt spoke to; and still no reply to this or my earlier questions. It is such an important issue so Dave must have a note of that conversation! Notwithstanding the above, taxpayers should question if Kersten MUST let York tax payers see the report, on the grounds they are an interested party, having funded same. The signage re Coppergate is bad, confirmed in the recent report, and mentioned in Malarkeys appeal of late Autumn, which surely is not in question so those signs and their positioning need rectifying, and in the meantime the Coppergate cameras should be turned off.[/p][/quote]lets turn them off and put a police officer their instead he will issue you with a fixed penalty which you will have to pay like they did before the camera. and before you all start we can pay his wage from the fines. jake777
  • Score: 170

10:35pm Sat 5 Apr 14

jake777 says...

jay, york wrote:
b3nson wrote:
Haywire wrote:
b3nson wrote:
b3nson wrote: Can York Press sort this mindless Cretin with the voting button? It seems you're just as useless as this bunch of clowns that masquerade as COY council, and just as bothered about your readers as Alexander & Co are about York residents!
Apologies to all you Cretins out there and those that work for COY council - don't mean to offend you
You are doing a grand job. Keep it them frothing at the mouth.
Keep it them frothing at the mouth? - aww and you pulled someone up for not being able to read and write properly. Never mind keep trying.
Well spotted - but you'e not the only one to notice!
Typical CYC - they spout rubbish and think they can criticise everyone else when they cant even get it right themselves.
Seems Haywire must have given Justin7 and Jake777 some time off tonight - maybe they have gone on a "Learn how NOT to be a prat" course - time will tell
.
spoken like a real prat, you really should not talk about yourself like this though.
[quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]b3nson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]b3nson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]b3nson[/bold] wrote: Can York Press sort this mindless Cretin with the voting button? It seems you're just as useless as this bunch of clowns that masquerade as COY council, and just as bothered about your readers as Alexander & Co are about York residents![/p][/quote]Apologies to all you Cretins out there and those that work for COY council - don't mean to offend you[/p][/quote]You are doing a grand job. Keep it them frothing at the mouth.[/p][/quote]Keep it them frothing at the mouth? - aww and you pulled someone up for not being able to read and write properly. Never mind keep trying.[/p][/quote]Well spotted - but you'e not the only one to notice! Typical CYC - they spout rubbish and think they can criticise everyone else when they cant even get it right themselves. Seems Haywire must have given Justin7 and Jake777 some time off tonight - maybe they have gone on a "Learn how NOT to be a prat" course - time will tell .[/p][/quote]spoken like a real prat, you really should not talk about yourself like this though. jake777
  • Score: 116

10:37pm Sat 5 Apr 14

jake777 says...

Haywire wrote:
jay, york wrote:
b3nson wrote:
Haywire wrote:
b3nson wrote:
b3nson wrote: Can York Press sort this mindless Cretin with the voting button? It seems you're just as useless as this bunch of clowns that masquerade as COY council, and just as bothered about your readers as Alexander & Co are about York residents!
Apologies to all you Cretins out there and those that work for COY council - don't mean to offend you
You are doing a grand job. Keep it them frothing at the mouth.
Keep it them frothing at the mouth? - aww and you pulled someone up for not being able to read and write properly. Never mind keep trying.
Well spotted - but you'e not the only one to notice!
Typical CYC - they spout rubbish and think they can criticise everyone else when they cant even get it right themselves.
Seems Haywire must have given Justin7 and Jake777 some time off tonight - maybe they have gone on a "Learn how NOT to be a prat" course - time will tell
.
So, what's your excuse for the nonsense you spout?
well said.
[quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]b3nson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]b3nson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]b3nson[/bold] wrote: Can York Press sort this mindless Cretin with the voting button? It seems you're just as useless as this bunch of clowns that masquerade as COY council, and just as bothered about your readers as Alexander & Co are about York residents![/p][/quote]Apologies to all you Cretins out there and those that work for COY council - don't mean to offend you[/p][/quote]You are doing a grand job. Keep it them frothing at the mouth.[/p][/quote]Keep it them frothing at the mouth? - aww and you pulled someone up for not being able to read and write properly. Never mind keep trying.[/p][/quote]Well spotted - but you'e not the only one to notice! Typical CYC - they spout rubbish and think they can criticise everyone else when they cant even get it right themselves. Seems Haywire must have given Justin7 and Jake777 some time off tonight - maybe they have gone on a "Learn how NOT to be a prat" course - time will tell .[/p][/quote]So, what's your excuse for the nonsense you spout?[/p][/quote]well said. jake777
  • Score: 105

10:39pm Sat 5 Apr 14

jake777 says...

jay, york wrote:
Haywire wrote:
jay, york wrote:
b3nson wrote:
Haywire wrote:
b3nson wrote:
b3nson wrote: Can York Press sort this mindless Cretin with the voting button? It seems you're just as useless as this bunch of clowns that masquerade as COY council, and just as bothered about your readers as Alexander & Co are about York residents!
Apologies to all you Cretins out there and those that work for COY council - don't mean to offend you
You are doing a grand job. Keep it them frothing at the mouth.
Keep it them frothing at the mouth? - aww and you pulled someone up for not being able to read and write properly. Never mind keep trying.
Well spotted - but you'e not the only one to notice! Typical CYC - they spout rubbish and think they can criticise everyone else when they cant even get it right themselves. Seems Haywire must have given Justin7 and Jake777 some time off tonight - maybe they have gone on a "Learn how NOT to be a prat" course - time will tell .
So, what's your excuse for the nonsense you spout?
It's called truth and freedom of speech . Good to see that you are really rattled tonight
you no nothing about the freedom of speech.
[quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]b3nson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]b3nson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]b3nson[/bold] wrote: Can York Press sort this mindless Cretin with the voting button? It seems you're just as useless as this bunch of clowns that masquerade as COY council, and just as bothered about your readers as Alexander & Co are about York residents![/p][/quote]Apologies to all you Cretins out there and those that work for COY council - don't mean to offend you[/p][/quote]You are doing a grand job. Keep it them frothing at the mouth.[/p][/quote]Keep it them frothing at the mouth? - aww and you pulled someone up for not being able to read and write properly. Never mind keep trying.[/p][/quote]Well spotted - but you'e not the only one to notice! Typical CYC - they spout rubbish and think they can criticise everyone else when they cant even get it right themselves. Seems Haywire must have given Justin7 and Jake777 some time off tonight - maybe they have gone on a "Learn how NOT to be a prat" course - time will tell .[/p][/quote]So, what's your excuse for the nonsense you spout?[/p][/quote]It's called truth and freedom of speech . Good to see that you are really rattled tonight[/p][/quote]you no nothing about the freedom of speech. jake777
  • Score: 12

10:47pm Sat 5 Apr 14

courier46 says...

Can we have it in writing and signed that he will go and the rest while we are at it.
Can we have it in writing and signed that he will go and the rest while we are at it. courier46
  • Score: 4

11:10pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Got a life says...

This is all pathetic and a waste of money for the residents of York. If this is supposed to be a bus lane why on earth did Merrett allow Royal Mail vehicles to use the bridge during hours of closure? for that reason he and the rest of the leaders should put themselves forward for an extra ordinary re election vote as it seems that York citizens have no faith in them!
This is all pathetic and a waste of money for the residents of York. If this is supposed to be a bus lane why on earth did Merrett allow Royal Mail vehicles to use the bridge during hours of closure? for that reason he and the rest of the leaders should put themselves forward for an extra ordinary re election vote as it seems that York citizens have no faith in them! Got a life
  • Score: -42

11:13pm Sat 5 Apr 14

strangebuttrue? says...

And what if the vast majority of York residents don't want their hard earned money on an appeal?
Much the same to the council as the vast majority of residents not wanting their hard earned money spent on closing a bridge to make their lives a little more miserable I suppose?
And what if the vast majority of York residents don't want their hard earned money on an appeal? Much the same to the council as the vast majority of residents not wanting their hard earned money spent on closing a bridge to make their lives a little more miserable I suppose? strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -23

12:39am Sun 6 Apr 14

AnotherPointofView says...

pedalling paul wrote:
The initial legal advice from the DVLC told CoYC that they could not follow their preferred option of issuing a warning for a first offence, then a fine for any subsequent one. According to Cllr. Merrett in his Look North interview, that was found to be wrong.
This underlines just how much Local Authority Officers, and the Councillors that they advise, depend on receiving accurate advice from national Agencies. It affects every Council in the UK, not just York.
If anyone should be resigning it is Officers at the DVLC etc.
There are some muddy waters surrounding the use of ANPR cameras to detect drivers who flout regulations. The law needs to be clarified and changed if neccessary, so that Local Authorities around the UK can take full advantage of ANPR technology. Keeping authorised road users moving is vital.
All of York's political parties, plus inner and outer York MP's should be jointly lobbying Whitehall to get clarification.
One thing may not be clear. No matter who (if anyone) resigns locally, and no matter who wins the next local election, the car users paradise that many crave will still never happen. Car share, bus, bike and city car club short term hire for many local journeys, together with priority measures for these travel modes, are the only way to avoid future gridlock.
Even before I'd seen the author of this article I knew it was by that peddlin' prat. No one else talks about a "car users paradise" or gridlock. As sixtyfourfive says - just a modicum of common sense- would suffice.

There is so much more this council could do to reduce congestion and pollution but they don't. The best thing Merret & co can do is resign over this fiasco. Opening Lendal Bridge is just the beginning.

If they won't go now, there's the election next year.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: The initial legal advice from the DVLC told CoYC that they could not follow their preferred option of issuing a warning for a first offence, then a fine for any subsequent one. According to Cllr. Merrett in his Look North interview, that was found to be wrong. This underlines just how much Local Authority Officers, and the Councillors that they advise, depend on receiving accurate advice from national Agencies. It affects every Council in the UK, not just York. If anyone should be resigning it is Officers at the DVLC etc. There are some muddy waters surrounding the use of ANPR cameras to detect drivers who flout regulations. The law needs to be clarified and changed if neccessary, so that Local Authorities around the UK can take full advantage of ANPR technology. Keeping authorised road users moving is vital. All of York's political parties, plus inner and outer York MP's should be jointly lobbying Whitehall to get clarification. One thing may not be clear. No matter who (if anyone) resigns locally, and no matter who wins the next local election, the car users paradise that many crave will still never happen. Car share, bus, bike and city car club short term hire for many local journeys, together with priority measures for these travel modes, are the only way to avoid future gridlock.[/p][/quote]Even before I'd seen the author of this article I knew it was by that peddlin' prat. No one else talks about a "car users paradise" or gridlock. As sixtyfourfive says - just a modicum of common sense- would suffice. There is so much more this council could do to reduce congestion and pollution but they don't. The best thing Merret & co can do is resign over this fiasco. Opening Lendal Bridge is just the beginning. If they won't go now, there's the election next year. AnotherPointofView
  • Score: -77

10:53am Sun 6 Apr 14

Ousetunes says...

pedalling paul wrote:
The initial legal advice from the DVLC told CoYC that they could not follow their preferred option of issuing a warning for a first offence, then a fine for any subsequent one. According to Cllr. Merrett in his Look North interview, that was found to be wrong.
This underlines just how much Local Authority Officers, and the Councillors that they advise, depend on receiving accurate advice from national Agencies. It affects every Council in the UK, not just York.
If anyone should be resigning it is Officers at the DVLC etc.
There are some muddy waters surrounding the use of ANPR cameras to detect drivers who flout regulations. The law needs to be clarified and changed if neccessary, so that Local Authorities around the UK can take full advantage of ANPR technology. Keeping authorised road users moving is vital.
All of York's political parties, plus inner and outer York MP's should be jointly lobbying Whitehall to get clarification.
One thing may not be clear. No matter who (if anyone) resigns locally, and no matter who wins the next local election, the car users paradise that many crave will still never happen. Car share, bus, bike and city car club short term hire for many local journeys, together with priority measures for these travel modes, are the only way to avoid future gridlock.
More predictable waffle from the Pedalling Prat.

I notice there's a lovely anorak in the window in Age Concern. I am sure it would suit you.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: The initial legal advice from the DVLC told CoYC that they could not follow their preferred option of issuing a warning for a first offence, then a fine for any subsequent one. According to Cllr. Merrett in his Look North interview, that was found to be wrong. This underlines just how much Local Authority Officers, and the Councillors that they advise, depend on receiving accurate advice from national Agencies. It affects every Council in the UK, not just York. If anyone should be resigning it is Officers at the DVLC etc. There are some muddy waters surrounding the use of ANPR cameras to detect drivers who flout regulations. The law needs to be clarified and changed if neccessary, so that Local Authorities around the UK can take full advantage of ANPR technology. Keeping authorised road users moving is vital. All of York's political parties, plus inner and outer York MP's should be jointly lobbying Whitehall to get clarification. One thing may not be clear. No matter who (if anyone) resigns locally, and no matter who wins the next local election, the car users paradise that many crave will still never happen. Car share, bus, bike and city car club short term hire for many local journeys, together with priority measures for these travel modes, are the only way to avoid future gridlock.[/p][/quote]More predictable waffle from the Pedalling Prat. I notice there's a lovely anorak in the window in Age Concern. I am sure it would suit you. Ousetunes
  • Score: -51

11:30am Sun 6 Apr 14

Cheeky face says...

Got a life,

I was told the council MUST LEGALLY allow some Royal Mail vans to use the bridge; merely where no competition was involved.

On the same phone call they said council vehicles can cross during the prohibition but only to street clean and attend to plants.

Myself and the Dr from Clifton have letters/e-mails not answered by the "caring" council. How many more instances are there of them fudging or not responding to questions?.

Perhaps the Press /Look North can press for the details of the independent report!
Got a life, I was told the council MUST LEGALLY allow some Royal Mail vans to use the bridge; merely where no competition was involved. On the same phone call they said council vehicles can cross during the prohibition but only to street clean and attend to plants. Myself and the Dr from Clifton have letters/e-mails not answered by the "caring" council. How many more instances are there of them fudging or not responding to questions?. Perhaps the Press /Look North can press for the details of the independent report! Cheeky face
  • Score: -31

12:16pm Sun 6 Apr 14

pedalling paul says...

Ousetunes wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
The initial legal advice from the DVLC told CoYC that they could not follow their preferred option of issuing a warning for a first offence, then a fine for any subsequent one. According to Cllr. Merrett in his Look North interview, that was found to be wrong.
This underlines just how much Local Authority Officers, and the Councillors that they advise, depend on receiving accurate advice from national Agencies. It affects every Council in the UK, not just York.
If anyone should be resigning it is Officers at the DVLC etc.
There are some muddy waters surrounding the use of ANPR cameras to detect drivers who flout regulations. The law needs to be clarified and changed if neccessary, so that Local Authorities around the UK can take full advantage of ANPR technology. Keeping authorised road users moving is vital.
All of York's political parties, plus inner and outer York MP's should be jointly lobbying Whitehall to get clarification.
One thing may not be clear. No matter who (if anyone) resigns locally, and no matter who wins the next local election, the car users paradise that many crave will still never happen. Car share, bus, bike and city car club short term hire for many local journeys, together with priority measures for these travel modes, are the only way to avoid future gridlock.
More predictable waffle from the Pedalling Prat.

I notice there's a lovely anorak in the window in Age Concern. I am sure it would suit you.
Ok Mr clever. So how would you solve the issue of an increasing population, bringing an increasing desire for personal mobility., set against the background of York's medieval street layout. This increasing conflict must be resolved in a way that maximises efficient use of the finite road capacity that we have. Cycling for many local journeys is a part of that solution. Have you got any better ideas?

Before putting finger to keyboard, remember the experimental free Christmas parking? Reports of drivers going round in circles looking for a parking space? That would be small beer compared to the consequences of a car users free for all.

If the legal advice that CoYC received from national agencies, proves to have been flawed, no need for local resignations by Councillors or Officers. They can only act on the basis of the external advice that they were given.
[quote][p][bold]Ousetunes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: The initial legal advice from the DVLC told CoYC that they could not follow their preferred option of issuing a warning for a first offence, then a fine for any subsequent one. According to Cllr. Merrett in his Look North interview, that was found to be wrong. This underlines just how much Local Authority Officers, and the Councillors that they advise, depend on receiving accurate advice from national Agencies. It affects every Council in the UK, not just York. If anyone should be resigning it is Officers at the DVLC etc. There are some muddy waters surrounding the use of ANPR cameras to detect drivers who flout regulations. The law needs to be clarified and changed if neccessary, so that Local Authorities around the UK can take full advantage of ANPR technology. Keeping authorised road users moving is vital. All of York's political parties, plus inner and outer York MP's should be jointly lobbying Whitehall to get clarification. One thing may not be clear. No matter who (if anyone) resigns locally, and no matter who wins the next local election, the car users paradise that many crave will still never happen. Car share, bus, bike and city car club short term hire for many local journeys, together with priority measures for these travel modes, are the only way to avoid future gridlock.[/p][/quote]More predictable waffle from the Pedalling Prat. I notice there's a lovely anorak in the window in Age Concern. I am sure it would suit you.[/p][/quote]Ok Mr clever. So how would you solve the issue of an increasing population, bringing an increasing desire for personal mobility., set against the background of York's medieval street layout. This increasing conflict must be resolved in a way that maximises efficient use of the finite road capacity that we have. Cycling for many local journeys is a part of that solution. Have you got any better ideas? Before putting finger to keyboard, remember the experimental free Christmas parking? Reports of drivers going round in circles looking for a parking space? That would be small beer compared to the consequences of a car users free for all. If the legal advice that CoYC received from national agencies, proves to have been flawed, no need for local resignations by Councillors or Officers. They can only act on the basis of the external advice that they were given. pedalling paul
  • Score: -69

12:50pm Sun 6 Apr 14

Garrowby Turnoff says...

If the legal advice that CoYC received from national agencies, proves to have been flawed, no need for local resignations by Councillors or Officers. They can only act on the basis of the external advice that they were given - Pedalling Paul


I disagree Paul. Listening and acting on flawed advice is a sackable offence in any private business that is worth it's salt. Check and double check is a well known motto.

Time to throw away the bike clips of lackeyism and accept that the council officers involved should resign.
[quote]If the legal advice that CoYC received from national agencies, proves to have been flawed, no need for local resignations by Councillors or Officers. They can only act on the basis of the external advice that they were given - Pedalling Paul[/quote] I disagree Paul. Listening and acting on flawed advice is a sackable offence in any private business that is worth it's salt. Check and double check is a well known motto. Time to throw away the bike clips of lackeyism and accept that the council officers involved should resign. Garrowby Turnoff
  • Score: -59

1:15pm Sun 6 Apr 14

m dee says...

pedalling paul wrote:
The initial legal advice from the DVLC told CoYC that they could not follow their preferred option of issuing a warning for a first offence, then a fine for any subsequent one. According to Cllr. Merrett in his Look North interview, that was found to be wrong.
This underlines just how much Local Authority Officers, and the Councillors that they advise, depend on receiving accurate advice from national Agencies. It affects every Council in the UK, not just York.
If anyone should be resigning it is Officers at the DVLC etc.
There are some muddy waters surrounding the use of ANPR cameras to detect drivers who flout regulations. The law needs to be clarified and changed if neccessary, so that Local Authorities around the UK can take full advantage of ANPR technology. Keeping authorised road users moving is vital.
All of York's political parties, plus inner and outer York MP's should be jointly lobbying Whitehall to get clarification.
One thing may not be clear. No matter who (if anyone) resigns locally, and no matter who wins the next local election, the car users paradise that many crave will still never happen. Car share, bus, bike and city car club short term hire for many local journeys, together with priority measures for these travel modes, are the only way to avoid future gridlock.
Paul,you make it sound like it was all down to the guidance from DVLC that's not the case,you should reread Mr Knapps damming report on the Piccadilly /Coppergate junction,the images of vehicles not fully within the restricted area, the bus lane issue,signs poorly located and much more.
Time should have been taken to get it right by York's traffic planners its their job to check and double check before issuing penalty charges it was set up by them not the DVLC,the law cannot be changed just to suit our traffic planners.
personally I think if they really want a better environment Coppergate should be pedestrians only and Piccadilly one way, buses would just take a couple of minutes longer using a safer route.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: The initial legal advice from the DVLC told CoYC that they could not follow their preferred option of issuing a warning for a first offence, then a fine for any subsequent one. According to Cllr. Merrett in his Look North interview, that was found to be wrong. This underlines just how much Local Authority Officers, and the Councillors that they advise, depend on receiving accurate advice from national Agencies. It affects every Council in the UK, not just York. If anyone should be resigning it is Officers at the DVLC etc. There are some muddy waters surrounding the use of ANPR cameras to detect drivers who flout regulations. The law needs to be clarified and changed if neccessary, so that Local Authorities around the UK can take full advantage of ANPR technology. Keeping authorised road users moving is vital. All of York's political parties, plus inner and outer York MP's should be jointly lobbying Whitehall to get clarification. One thing may not be clear. No matter who (if anyone) resigns locally, and no matter who wins the next local election, the car users paradise that many crave will still never happen. Car share, bus, bike and city car club short term hire for many local journeys, together with priority measures for these travel modes, are the only way to avoid future gridlock.[/p][/quote]Paul,you make it sound like it was all down to the guidance from DVLC that's not the case,you should reread Mr Knapps damming report on the Piccadilly /Coppergate junction,the images of vehicles not fully within the restricted area, the bus lane issue,signs poorly located and much more. Time should have been taken to get it right by York's traffic planners its their job to check and double check before issuing penalty charges it was set up by them not the DVLC,the law cannot be changed just to suit our traffic planners. personally I think if they really want a better environment Coppergate should be pedestrians only and Piccadilly one way, buses would just take a couple of minutes longer using a safer route. m dee
  • Score: -150

1:41pm Sun 6 Apr 14

strangebuttrue? says...

Following the statement made by Mr Merrett that he would resign if the council are wrong I wonder how many of York's residents are now thinking - I do hope they are wrong just so they can see the back of this congestion and pollution creating man?
Following the statement made by Mr Merrett that he would resign if the council are wrong I wonder how many of York's residents are now thinking - I do hope they are wrong just so they can see the back of this congestion and pollution creating man? strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -46

1:55pm Sun 6 Apr 14

roskoboskovic says...

none of yorks traffic lights are sycronised,lots of yorks traffic lights are necessary,bus stops were removed so parked buses block the roads,too many pedestrian crossings,too many cycle lanes,in all too much anti car sentiment.how many reasons does merrett need to resign.on top of this the bloke isn t intellectually able to carry out his duties.this city could be transformed by a council looking to welcome drivers into the city and charged reasonably to park.
none of yorks traffic lights are sycronised,lots of yorks traffic lights are necessary,bus stops were removed so parked buses block the roads,too many pedestrian crossings,too many cycle lanes,in all too much anti car sentiment.how many reasons does merrett need to resign.on top of this the bloke isn t intellectually able to carry out his duties.this city could be transformed by a council looking to welcome drivers into the city and charged reasonably to park. roskoboskovic
  • Score: -34

1:58pm Sun 6 Apr 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

pedalling paul says…
Before putting finger to keyboard, remember the experimental free Christmas parking? Reports of drivers going round in circles looking for a parking space? That would be small beer compared to the consequences of a car users free for all.

A pretty poor example of support for a cause, anyone can create a demand that exceeds supply, it does not represent the norm, (e.g. free ice cream on a hot day, demand would exceed supply).

Extreme examples and views are usually met with extreme solutions that create situations worse than the original situation. Reality and the norm should be the measure from which to start improvements and that is something that is sadly missing with little or no representation for a major impact group (car drivers) biggest group by far within traffic management for York.

The solution to Yorks air pollution/traffic issues has to start by identifying the cause of the increased pollution given that traffic volume has been stable since 2005/6. Start to answer this question and you may find a solution that results in the creation of a better environment for cycling, walking and improved efficiency for public transport that extends further than Lendal.

What has been inflicted on York and all it's residents is not a solution but could reasonably be described as a desperate measure driven by extremist views that have been implemented for ideological reasons without consideration for cause and effect. I'm no expert in traffic management but I do have sufficient experience to know that manufactured traffic queues are not conducive to well managed traffic and will subsequently create more pollution.

Optimise the city road network, make the traffic flow, reduce pollution, reduce/remove unnecessary obstacles to flow and open up the space taken by stationary traffic. Remove stationary traffic, more space for cycling (yes I do cycle), more space for pedestrians and more efficient public transport.

The Lendal solution is nonsense because it is does not have achievable objectives, it serves to move the problem, not resolve it. Neither does it create a cycling, walking or public transport paradise, it is a red herring and a costly one at that. The Lendal restriction is not a solution it is a disastrous failure steeped in dogma and ignorance of reality in pursuit of unachievable ideologies at any cost.
pedalling paul says… Before putting finger to keyboard, remember the experimental free Christmas parking? Reports of drivers going round in circles looking for a parking space? That would be small beer compared to the consequences of a car users free for all. A pretty poor example of support for a cause, anyone can create a demand that exceeds supply, it does not represent the norm, (e.g. free ice cream on a hot day, demand would exceed supply). Extreme examples and views are usually met with extreme solutions that create situations worse than the original situation. Reality and the norm should be the measure from which to start improvements and that is something that is sadly missing with little or no representation for a major impact group (car drivers) biggest group by far within traffic management for York. The solution to Yorks air pollution/traffic issues has to start by identifying the cause of the increased pollution given that traffic volume has been stable since 2005/6. Start to answer this question and you may find a solution that results in the creation of a better environment for cycling, walking and improved efficiency for public transport that extends further than Lendal. What has been inflicted on York and all it's residents is not a solution but could reasonably be described as a desperate measure driven by extremist views that have been implemented for ideological reasons without consideration for cause and effect. I'm no expert in traffic management but I do have sufficient experience to know that manufactured traffic queues are not conducive to well managed traffic and will subsequently create more pollution. Optimise the city road network, make the traffic flow, reduce pollution, reduce/remove unnecessary obstacles to flow and open up the space taken by stationary traffic. Remove stationary traffic, more space for cycling (yes I do cycle), more space for pedestrians and more efficient public transport. The Lendal solution is nonsense because it is does not have achievable objectives, it serves to move the problem, not resolve it. Neither does it create a cycling, walking or public transport paradise, it is a red herring and a costly one at that. The Lendal restriction is not a solution it is a disastrous failure steeped in dogma and ignorance of reality in pursuit of unachievable ideologies at any cost. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -59

2:58pm Sun 6 Apr 14

Badgers Drift says...

gmsgop wrote:
Ms England I do hope you did not say the Council is confident ..... The Council has not been consulted - you may be confident, your legal staffers may be confident, you may have told the labour or some of the labour councillors they should be confident. But you cannot say the Council is confident because the Council has not seen the legal advice as you personally have refused to share it. You may not presume that the Council would be confident, as you don't know because you are not the Council, you are simply the very well paid Chief Executive paid to ensure successful implementation of the Council's policies ( in this case the implementation of the Lendal Bridge trial). I understand it is tempting to deflect responsibility from you, to 'the Council' but the buck stops almost entirely at your door from where I sit.
Isn't this indicative of the attitude of Kersten England and James Alexander?

They jointly act as united leaders of the council and treat it as their personal fiefdom, with a dictatorial approach.

They rule the roost, they call the shots, and it is all about them and their personal aspirations and agendas, not for York and its people, for themselves. Its what they want; no consultation, little or no debate (what there is, is scripted, stage managed or results from whipping of their followers and the 'useful idiots' and 'expert idiots' ) - it is essentially a dual dictatorship.

Much of their time is spent out of York; jaunts all around the country and trips abroad, meeting their collaborators, spreading their doctrine, and all the while looking for their next stepping stone. It is no secret that KE has applied for jobs in Barnsley in 2012 and Newcastle in 2013, both without success.

So, if they do have all of the shout, then as gmsgop rightly says, the buck stops with them. All the failings are their's, and they are the ones who should be held to account.

Alexander is using York as a stepping stone to advance his
[quote][p][bold]gmsgop[/bold] wrote: Ms England I do hope you did not say the Council is confident ..... The Council has not been consulted - you may be confident, your legal staffers may be confident, you may have told the labour or some of the labour councillors they should be confident. But you cannot say the Council is confident because the Council has not seen the legal advice as you personally have refused to share it. You may not presume that the Council would be confident, as you don't know because you are not the Council, you are simply the very well paid Chief Executive paid to ensure successful implementation of the Council's policies ( in this case the implementation of the Lendal Bridge trial). I understand it is tempting to deflect responsibility from you, to 'the Council' but the buck stops almost entirely at your door from where I sit.[/p][/quote]Isn't this indicative of the attitude of Kersten England and James Alexander? They jointly act as united leaders of the council and treat it as their personal fiefdom, with a dictatorial approach. They rule the roost, they call the shots, and it is all about them and their personal aspirations and agendas, not for York and its people, for themselves. Its what they want; no consultation, little or no debate (what there is, is scripted, stage managed or results from whipping of their followers and the 'useful idiots' and 'expert idiots' [CP jargon]) - it is essentially a dual dictatorship. Much of their time is spent out of York; jaunts all around the country and trips abroad, meeting their collaborators, spreading their doctrine, and all the while looking for their next stepping stone. It is no secret that KE has applied for jobs in Barnsley in 2012 and Newcastle in 2013, both without success. So, if they do have all of the shout, then as gmsgop rightly says, the buck stops with them. All the failings are their's, and they are the ones who should be held to account. Alexander is using York as a stepping stone to advance his Badgers Drift
  • Score: -63

3:48pm Sun 6 Apr 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Kersten England confirmed she would not be accepting a performance-related incremental pay increase in a letter to council leader James Alexander.

She is entitled to an annual rise provided her performance is deemed satisfactory, but has not taken it in recent years.

http://www.yorkpress
.co.uk/news/11079980
.Council_chief_turns
_down_performance_pa
y_rise/

Maybe one of her strengths is insight…..!.
Kersten England confirmed she would not be accepting a performance-related incremental pay increase in a letter to council leader James Alexander. She is entitled to an annual rise provided her performance is deemed satisfactory, but has not taken it in recent years. http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/news/11079980 .Council_chief_turns _down_performance_pa y_rise/ Maybe one of her strengths is insight…..!. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -97

3:57pm Sun 6 Apr 14

gmsgop says...

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Kersten England confirmed she would not be accepting a performance-related incremental pay increase in a letter to council leader James Alexander.

She is entitled to an annual rise provided her performance is deemed satisfactory, but has not taken it in recent years.

http://www.yorkpress

.co.uk/news/11079980

.Council_chief_turns

_down_performance_pa

y_rise/

Maybe one of her strengths is insight…..!.
Te question is not that ' Kersten England would not be accepting her performance bonus' but rather who, in the current circumstances ( peerreview, Lendal bridge, ward governance, ICO. LGO etc interventions, bed blocking fiasco, and so on) would even propose it? We need much more oversight -

What are the performance contracts, who gets them? Why are they not public? Who sets the targets ? Surely we should, in line with council policy and citizen wishes? Who decides who gets the performance bonuses? It all could be very comfortable, or it may be we just haven't seen the performance contracts on the web site... Anyone know out there? Another external oversight issue I think.
Gwen Swinburn
[quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: Kersten England confirmed she would not be accepting a performance-related incremental pay increase in a letter to council leader James Alexander. She is entitled to an annual rise provided her performance is deemed satisfactory, but has not taken it in recent years. http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/news/11079980 .Council_chief_turns _down_performance_pa y_rise/ Maybe one of her strengths is insight…..!.[/p][/quote]Te question is not that ' Kersten England would not be accepting her performance bonus' but rather who, in the current circumstances ( peerreview, Lendal bridge, ward governance, ICO. LGO etc interventions, bed blocking fiasco, and so on) would even propose it? We need much more oversight - What are the performance contracts, who gets them? Why are they not public? Who sets the targets ? Surely we should, in line with council policy and citizen wishes? Who decides who gets the performance bonuses? It all could be very comfortable, or it may be we just haven't seen the performance contracts on the web site... Anyone know out there? Another external oversight issue I think. Gwen Swinburn gmsgop
  • Score: -9

4:04pm Sun 6 Apr 14

pedalling paul says...

m dee wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
The initial legal advice from the DVLC told CoYC that they could not follow their preferred option of issuing a warning for a first offence, then a fine for any subsequent one. According to Cllr. Merrett in his Look North interview, that was found to be wrong.
This underlines just how much Local Authority Officers, and the Councillors that they advise, depend on receiving accurate advice from national Agencies. It affects every Council in the UK, not just York.
If anyone should be resigning it is Officers at the DVLC etc.
There are some muddy waters surrounding the use of ANPR cameras to detect drivers who flout regulations. The law needs to be clarified and changed if neccessary, so that Local Authorities around the UK can take full advantage of ANPR technology. Keeping authorised road users moving is vital.
All of York's political parties, plus inner and outer York MP's should be jointly lobbying Whitehall to get clarification.
One thing may not be clear. No matter who (if anyone) resigns locally, and no matter who wins the next local election, the car users paradise that many crave will still never happen. Car share, bus, bike and city car club short term hire for many local journeys, together with priority measures for these travel modes, are the only way to avoid future gridlock.
Paul,you make it sound like it was all down to the guidance from DVLC that's not the case,you should reread Mr Knapps damming report on the Piccadilly /Coppergate junction,the images of vehicles not fully within the restricted area, the bus lane issue,signs poorly located and much more.
Time should have been taken to get it right by York's traffic planners its their job to check and double check before issuing penalty charges it was set up by them not the DVLC,the law cannot be changed just to suit our traffic planners.
personally I think if they really want a better environment Coppergate should be pedestrians only and Piccadilly one way, buses would just take a couple of minutes longer using a safer route.
I think you will recall a statement that the signage complies with Dept. for Transport requirements. Local Authorities have very little leeway to vary these. If they did, it would create a field day for Mr. Loophole.
[quote][p][bold]m dee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: The initial legal advice from the DVLC told CoYC that they could not follow their preferred option of issuing a warning for a first offence, then a fine for any subsequent one. According to Cllr. Merrett in his Look North interview, that was found to be wrong. This underlines just how much Local Authority Officers, and the Councillors that they advise, depend on receiving accurate advice from national Agencies. It affects every Council in the UK, not just York. If anyone should be resigning it is Officers at the DVLC etc. There are some muddy waters surrounding the use of ANPR cameras to detect drivers who flout regulations. The law needs to be clarified and changed if neccessary, so that Local Authorities around the UK can take full advantage of ANPR technology. Keeping authorised road users moving is vital. All of York's political parties, plus inner and outer York MP's should be jointly lobbying Whitehall to get clarification. One thing may not be clear. No matter who (if anyone) resigns locally, and no matter who wins the next local election, the car users paradise that many crave will still never happen. Car share, bus, bike and city car club short term hire for many local journeys, together with priority measures for these travel modes, are the only way to avoid future gridlock.[/p][/quote]Paul,you make it sound like it was all down to the guidance from DVLC that's not the case,you should reread Mr Knapps damming report on the Piccadilly /Coppergate junction,the images of vehicles not fully within the restricted area, the bus lane issue,signs poorly located and much more. Time should have been taken to get it right by York's traffic planners its their job to check and double check before issuing penalty charges it was set up by them not the DVLC,the law cannot be changed just to suit our traffic planners. personally I think if they really want a better environment Coppergate should be pedestrians only and Piccadilly one way, buses would just take a couple of minutes longer using a safer route.[/p][/quote]I think you will recall a statement that the signage complies with Dept. for Transport requirements. Local Authorities have very little leeway to vary these. If they did, it would create a field day for Mr. Loophole. pedalling paul
  • Score: 91

4:28pm Sun 6 Apr 14

holy_roller says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Ousetunes wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
The initial legal advice from the DVLC told CoYC that they could not follow their preferred option of issuing a warning for a first offence, then a fine for any subsequent one. According to Cllr. Merrett in his Look North interview, that was found to be wrong.
This underlines just how much Local Authority Officers, and the Councillors that they advise, depend on receiving accurate advice from national Agencies. It affects every Council in the UK, not just York.
If anyone should be resigning it is Officers at the DVLC etc.
There are some muddy waters surrounding the use of ANPR cameras to detect drivers who flout regulations. The law needs to be clarified and changed if neccessary, so that Local Authorities around the UK can take full advantage of ANPR technology. Keeping authorised road users moving is vital.
All of York's political parties, plus inner and outer York MP's should be jointly lobbying Whitehall to get clarification.
One thing may not be clear. No matter who (if anyone) resigns locally, and no matter who wins the next local election, the car users paradise that many crave will still never happen. Car share, bus, bike and city car club short term hire for many local journeys, together with priority measures for these travel modes, are the only way to avoid future gridlock.
More predictable waffle from the Pedalling Prat.

I notice there's a lovely anorak in the window in Age Concern. I am sure it would suit you.
Ok Mr clever. So how would you solve the issue of an increasing population, bringing an increasing desire for personal mobility., set against the background of York's medieval street layout. This increasing conflict must be resolved in a way that maximises efficient use of the finite road capacity that we have. Cycling for many local journeys is a part of that solution. Have you got any better ideas?

Before putting finger to keyboard, remember the experimental free Christmas parking? Reports of drivers going round in circles looking for a parking space? That would be small beer compared to the consequences of a car users free for all.

If the legal advice that CoYC received from national agencies, proves to have been flawed, no need for local resignations by Councillors or Officers. They can only act on the basis of the external advice that they were given.
We're not asking for a free-for-all, no matter how often you put up that straw-man.

The medieval bit is tiny, and already foot streets only. There is no increased traffic, again, no matter how often you claim it. Journeys have fallen but congestion has increased. One can only conclude that CoYC have implemented poor changes.

Create a viable alternative route that doesn't simply shift all the problems to residential areas, then close bridges.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ousetunes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: The initial legal advice from the DVLC told CoYC that they could not follow their preferred option of issuing a warning for a first offence, then a fine for any subsequent one. According to Cllr. Merrett in his Look North interview, that was found to be wrong. This underlines just how much Local Authority Officers, and the Councillors that they advise, depend on receiving accurate advice from national Agencies. It affects every Council in the UK, not just York. If anyone should be resigning it is Officers at the DVLC etc. There are some muddy waters surrounding the use of ANPR cameras to detect drivers who flout regulations. The law needs to be clarified and changed if neccessary, so that Local Authorities around the UK can take full advantage of ANPR technology. Keeping authorised road users moving is vital. All of York's political parties, plus inner and outer York MP's should be jointly lobbying Whitehall to get clarification. One thing may not be clear. No matter who (if anyone) resigns locally, and no matter who wins the next local election, the car users paradise that many crave will still never happen. Car share, bus, bike and city car club short term hire for many local journeys, together with priority measures for these travel modes, are the only way to avoid future gridlock.[/p][/quote]More predictable waffle from the Pedalling Prat. I notice there's a lovely anorak in the window in Age Concern. I am sure it would suit you.[/p][/quote]Ok Mr clever. So how would you solve the issue of an increasing population, bringing an increasing desire for personal mobility., set against the background of York's medieval street layout. This increasing conflict must be resolved in a way that maximises efficient use of the finite road capacity that we have. Cycling for many local journeys is a part of that solution. Have you got any better ideas? Before putting finger to keyboard, remember the experimental free Christmas parking? Reports of drivers going round in circles looking for a parking space? That would be small beer compared to the consequences of a car users free for all. If the legal advice that CoYC received from national agencies, proves to have been flawed, no need for local resignations by Councillors or Officers. They can only act on the basis of the external advice that they were given.[/p][/quote]We're not asking for a free-for-all, no matter how often you put up that straw-man. The medieval bit is tiny, and already foot streets only. There is no increased traffic, again, no matter how often you claim it. Journeys have fallen but congestion has increased. One can only conclude that CoYC have implemented poor changes. Create a viable alternative route that doesn't simply shift all the problems to residential areas, then close bridges. holy_roller
  • Score: 27

4:38pm Sun 6 Apr 14

T'Marcus says...

b3nson wrote:
Can York Press sort this mindless Cretin with the voting button? It seems you're just as useless as this bunch of clowns that masquerade as COY council, and just as bothered about your readers as Alexander & Co are about York residents!
The boggart has been at it again and again.
We should ignore it.
It is probable one of the councillors or one of their lackies.
[quote][p][bold]b3nson[/bold] wrote: Can York Press sort this mindless Cretin with the voting button? It seems you're just as useless as this bunch of clowns that masquerade as COY council, and just as bothered about your readers as Alexander & Co are about York residents![/p][/quote]The boggart has been at it again and again. We should ignore it. It is probable one of the councillors or one of their lackies. T'Marcus
  • Score: -58

4:42pm Sun 6 Apr 14

T'Marcus says...

holy_roller wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Ousetunes wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
The initial legal advice from the DVLC told CoYC that they could not follow their preferred option of issuing a warning for a first offence, then a fine for any subsequent one. According to Cllr. Merrett in his Look North interview, that was found to be wrong.
This underlines just how much Local Authority Officers, and the Councillors that they advise, depend on receiving accurate advice from national Agencies. It affects every Council in the UK, not just York.
If anyone should be resigning it is Officers at the DVLC etc.
There are some muddy waters surrounding the use of ANPR cameras to detect drivers who flout regulations. The law needs to be clarified and changed if neccessary, so that Local Authorities around the UK can take full advantage of ANPR technology. Keeping authorised road users moving is vital.
All of York's political parties, plus inner and outer York MP's should be jointly lobbying Whitehall to get clarification.
One thing may not be clear. No matter who (if anyone) resigns locally, and no matter who wins the next local election, the car users paradise that many crave will still never happen. Car share, bus, bike and city car club short term hire for many local journeys, together with priority measures for these travel modes, are the only way to avoid future gridlock.
More predictable waffle from the Pedalling Prat.

I notice there's a lovely anorak in the window in Age Concern. I am sure it would suit you.
Ok Mr clever. So how would you solve the issue of an increasing population, bringing an increasing desire for personal mobility., set against the background of York's medieval street layout. This increasing conflict must be resolved in a way that maximises efficient use of the finite road capacity that we have. Cycling for many local journeys is a part of that solution. Have you got any better ideas?

Before putting finger to keyboard, remember the experimental free Christmas parking? Reports of drivers going round in circles looking for a parking space? That would be small beer compared to the consequences of a car users free for all.

If the legal advice that CoYC received from national agencies, proves to have been flawed, no need for local resignations by Councillors or Officers. They can only act on the basis of the external advice that they were given.
We're not asking for a free-for-all, no matter how often you put up that straw-man.

The medieval bit is tiny, and already foot streets only. There is no increased traffic, again, no matter how often you claim it. Journeys have fallen but congestion has increased. One can only conclude that CoYC have implemented poor changes.

Create a viable alternative route that doesn't simply shift all the problems to residential areas, then close bridges.
Make York a dead city, with no business.
The C.B.D. will die, thanks to Merritts's officers.
To the officers:-play with your own Lego bricks.
[quote][p][bold]holy_roller[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ousetunes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: The initial legal advice from the DVLC told CoYC that they could not follow their preferred option of issuing a warning for a first offence, then a fine for any subsequent one. According to Cllr. Merrett in his Look North interview, that was found to be wrong. This underlines just how much Local Authority Officers, and the Councillors that they advise, depend on receiving accurate advice from national Agencies. It affects every Council in the UK, not just York. If anyone should be resigning it is Officers at the DVLC etc. There are some muddy waters surrounding the use of ANPR cameras to detect drivers who flout regulations. The law needs to be clarified and changed if neccessary, so that Local Authorities around the UK can take full advantage of ANPR technology. Keeping authorised road users moving is vital. All of York's political parties, plus inner and outer York MP's should be jointly lobbying Whitehall to get clarification. One thing may not be clear. No matter who (if anyone) resigns locally, and no matter who wins the next local election, the car users paradise that many crave will still never happen. Car share, bus, bike and city car club short term hire for many local journeys, together with priority measures for these travel modes, are the only way to avoid future gridlock.[/p][/quote]More predictable waffle from the Pedalling Prat. I notice there's a lovely anorak in the window in Age Concern. I am sure it would suit you.[/p][/quote]Ok Mr clever. So how would you solve the issue of an increasing population, bringing an increasing desire for personal mobility., set against the background of York's medieval street layout. This increasing conflict must be resolved in a way that maximises efficient use of the finite road capacity that we have. Cycling for many local journeys is a part of that solution. Have you got any better ideas? Before putting finger to keyboard, remember the experimental free Christmas parking? Reports of drivers going round in circles looking for a parking space? That would be small beer compared to the consequences of a car users free for all. If the legal advice that CoYC received from national agencies, proves to have been flawed, no need for local resignations by Councillors or Officers. They can only act on the basis of the external advice that they were given.[/p][/quote]We're not asking for a free-for-all, no matter how often you put up that straw-man. The medieval bit is tiny, and already foot streets only. There is no increased traffic, again, no matter how often you claim it. Journeys have fallen but congestion has increased. One can only conclude that CoYC have implemented poor changes. Create a viable alternative route that doesn't simply shift all the problems to residential areas, then close bridges.[/p][/quote]Make York a dead city, with no business. The C.B.D. will die, thanks to Merritts's officers. To the officers:-play with your own Lego bricks. T'Marcus
  • Score: -143

4:44pm Sun 6 Apr 14

T'Marcus says...

Haywire wrote:
ThePhilth wrote:
Surely there must be some way to force a vote of no confidence in this bunch of clowns? I can't honestly believe that they will be allowed to continue to 'run' this City (other than into the ground) over the next 13 months.
The ONLY positive that I can take from this is that all of them will be completely finished in politics, and are also unlikely to ever be gainfully employed in the local area.
We will hopefully be completely clear of them.... well, we can dream at least.
On a side note, I see the crazy negative voter(s) have been out in force, but are thankfully fooling nobody!
OK, what is your remarkable alternative?
Make York a dead city, with no business.
The C.B.D. will die, thanks to Merritts's officers.
To the officers:-play with your own Lego bricks.
[quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThePhilth[/bold] wrote: Surely there must be some way to force a vote of no confidence in this bunch of clowns? I can't honestly believe that they will be allowed to continue to 'run' this City (other than into the ground) over the next 13 months. The ONLY positive that I can take from this is that all of them will be completely finished in politics, and are also unlikely to ever be gainfully employed in the local area. We will hopefully be completely clear of them.... well, we can dream at least. On a side note, I see the crazy negative voter(s) have been out in force, but are thankfully fooling nobody![/p][/quote]OK, what is your remarkable alternative?[/p][/quote]Make York a dead city, with no business. The C.B.D. will die, thanks to Merritts's officers. To the officers:-play with your own Lego bricks. T'Marcus
  • Score: -148

5:11pm Sun 6 Apr 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

gmsgop wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Kersten England confirmed she would not be accepting a performance-related incremental pay increase in a letter to council leader James Alexander.

She is entitled to an annual rise provided her performance is deemed satisfactory, but has not taken it in recent years.

http://www.yorkpress


.co.uk/news/11079980


.Council_chief_turns


_down_performance_pa


y_rise/

Maybe one of her strengths is insight…..!.
Te question is not that ' Kersten England would not be accepting her performance bonus' but rather who, in the current circumstances ( peerreview, Lendal bridge, ward governance, ICO. LGO etc interventions, bed blocking fiasco, and so on) would even propose it? We need much more oversight -

What are the performance contracts, who gets them? Why are they not public? Who sets the targets ? Surely we should, in line with council policy and citizen wishes? Who decides who gets the performance bonuses? It all could be very comfortable, or it may be we just haven't seen the performance contracts on the web site... Anyone know out there? Another external oversight issue I think.
Gwen Swinburn
Gwen, agreed.

Strange though that Kersten England is the only senior with PRP as part of her contract. None of the other senior positions have a contractual PRP element and are therefore can have pay increases regardless of performance.

Performance Related Pay:
The authority does not operate a performance related pay system as it believes that it has sufficiently strong performance management arrangements in place to ensure high performance from its senior officers. Any areas of under-performance are addressed rigorously.

Pay Increases:
The authority will apply any pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies and/or any pay increases that are agreed through local negotiations. The authority will also apply any pay increases that are as a result of authority decisions to significantly increase the duties and responsibilities of the post in question beyond the normal flexing of duties and responsibilities that are expected in senior posts.

http://www.york.gov.
uk/downloads/downloa
d/2135/pay_policy

So regardless of performance in the role senior officers will receive pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies and/or any pay increases that are agreed through local negotiations.

So, nice story KE not taking her PRP increase, but that does not mean her salary has not been increased via the authority applying pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies. Again we have another example of being misled, senior officers including KE may very well be getting pay increases. PRP linked directly to objectives/targets within the role would focus efforts on improvements, but we just don't have that level of performance control.
[quote][p][bold]gmsgop[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: Kersten England confirmed she would not be accepting a performance-related incremental pay increase in a letter to council leader James Alexander. She is entitled to an annual rise provided her performance is deemed satisfactory, but has not taken it in recent years. http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/news/11079980 .Council_chief_turns _down_performance_pa y_rise/ Maybe one of her strengths is insight…..!.[/p][/quote]Te question is not that ' Kersten England would not be accepting her performance bonus' but rather who, in the current circumstances ( peerreview, Lendal bridge, ward governance, ICO. LGO etc interventions, bed blocking fiasco, and so on) would even propose it? We need much more oversight - What are the performance contracts, who gets them? Why are they not public? Who sets the targets ? Surely we should, in line with council policy and citizen wishes? Who decides who gets the performance bonuses? It all could be very comfortable, or it may be we just haven't seen the performance contracts on the web site... Anyone know out there? Another external oversight issue I think. Gwen Swinburn[/p][/quote]Gwen, agreed. Strange though that Kersten England is the only senior with PRP as part of her contract. None of the other senior positions have a contractual PRP element and are therefore can have pay increases regardless of performance. Performance Related Pay: The authority does not operate a performance related pay system as it believes that it has sufficiently strong performance management arrangements in place to ensure high performance from its senior officers. Any areas of under-performance are addressed rigorously. Pay Increases: The authority will apply any pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies and/or any pay increases that are agreed through local negotiations. The authority will also apply any pay increases that are as a result of authority decisions to significantly increase the duties and responsibilities of the post in question beyond the normal flexing of duties and responsibilities that are expected in senior posts. http://www.york.gov. uk/downloads/downloa d/2135/pay_policy So regardless of performance in the role senior officers will receive pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies and/or any pay increases that are agreed through local negotiations. So, nice story KE not taking her PRP increase, but that does not mean her salary has not been increased via the authority applying pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies. Again we have another example of being misled, senior officers including KE may very well be getting pay increases. PRP linked directly to objectives/targets within the role would focus efforts on improvements, but we just don't have that level of performance control. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -123

6:38pm Sun 6 Apr 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

The Mark-Down Mongrels are active doing the only thing they can.

Go getem, Woof, Woof.

Were you chosen to do the marking down because of it's simplicity…?.
The Mark-Down Mongrels are active doing the only thing they can. Go getem, Woof, Woof. Were you chosen to do the marking down because of it's simplicity…?. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -111

7:00pm Sun 6 Apr 14

gmsgop says...

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
gmsgop wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Kersten England confirmed she would not be accepting a performance-related incremental pay increase in a letter to council leader James Alexander.

She is entitled to an annual rise provided her performance is deemed satisfactory, but has not taken it in recent years.

http://www.yorkpress



.co.uk/news/11079980



.Council_chief_turns



_down_performance_pa



y_rise/

Maybe one of her strengths is insight…..!.
Te question is not that ' Kersten England would not be accepting her performance bonus' but rather who, in the current circumstances ( peerreview, Lendal bridge, ward governance, ICO. LGO etc interventions, bed blocking fiasco, and so on) would even propose it? We need much more oversight -

What are the performance contracts, who gets them? Why are they not public? Who sets the targets ? Surely we should, in line with council policy and citizen wishes? Who decides who gets the performance bonuses? It all could be very comfortable, or it may be we just haven't seen the performance contracts on the web site... Anyone know out there? Another external oversight issue I think.
Gwen Swinburn
Gwen, agreed.

Strange though that Kersten England is the only senior with PRP as part of her contract. None of the other senior positions have a contractual PRP element and are therefore can have pay increases regardless of performance.

Performance Related Pay:
The authority does not operate a performance related pay system as it believes that it has sufficiently strong performance management arrangements in place to ensure high performance from its senior officers. Any areas of under-performance are addressed rigorously.

Pay Increases:
The authority will apply any pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies and/or any pay increases that are agreed through local negotiations. The authority will also apply any pay increases that are as a result of authority decisions to significantly increase the duties and responsibilities of the post in question beyond the normal flexing of duties and responsibilities that are expected in senior posts.

http://www.york.gov.

uk/downloads/downloa

d/2135/pay_policy

So regardless of performance in the role senior officers will receive pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies and/or any pay increases that are agreed through local negotiations.

So, nice story KE not taking her PRP increase, but that does not mean her salary has not been increased via the authority applying pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies. Again we have another example of being misled, senior officers including KE may very well be getting pay increases. PRP linked directly to objectives/targets within the role would focus efforts on improvements, but we just don't have that level of performance control.
Thanks - interesting I thought with all these 'market supplements' performance related pay was to be brought in.

It may be we don't have influence (now) on Kersten England's performance targets but there certainly no rationale for them bring kept in secret. I wonder who writes them and approves them?

It does make me wonder what these robust performance Managment tools are - I have been told they write their own, and no one checks, even if they did it round make no difference . I hope this isn't true - but if it is, then this is clearly yet another dimension to address as part of the governance and performance fails by city of York council.

Gwen swinburn
[quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gmsgop[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: Kersten England confirmed she would not be accepting a performance-related incremental pay increase in a letter to council leader James Alexander. She is entitled to an annual rise provided her performance is deemed satisfactory, but has not taken it in recent years. http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/news/11079980 .Council_chief_turns _down_performance_pa y_rise/ Maybe one of her strengths is insight…..!.[/p][/quote]Te question is not that ' Kersten England would not be accepting her performance bonus' but rather who, in the current circumstances ( peerreview, Lendal bridge, ward governance, ICO. LGO etc interventions, bed blocking fiasco, and so on) would even propose it? We need much more oversight - What are the performance contracts, who gets them? Why are they not public? Who sets the targets ? Surely we should, in line with council policy and citizen wishes? Who decides who gets the performance bonuses? It all could be very comfortable, or it may be we just haven't seen the performance contracts on the web site... Anyone know out there? Another external oversight issue I think. Gwen Swinburn[/p][/quote]Gwen, agreed. Strange though that Kersten England is the only senior with PRP as part of her contract. None of the other senior positions have a contractual PRP element and are therefore can have pay increases regardless of performance. Performance Related Pay: The authority does not operate a performance related pay system as it believes that it has sufficiently strong performance management arrangements in place to ensure high performance from its senior officers. Any areas of under-performance are addressed rigorously. Pay Increases: The authority will apply any pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies and/or any pay increases that are agreed through local negotiations. The authority will also apply any pay increases that are as a result of authority decisions to significantly increase the duties and responsibilities of the post in question beyond the normal flexing of duties and responsibilities that are expected in senior posts. http://www.york.gov. uk/downloads/downloa d/2135/pay_policy So regardless of performance in the role senior officers will receive pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies and/or any pay increases that are agreed through local negotiations. So, nice story KE not taking her PRP increase, but that does not mean her salary has not been increased via the authority applying pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies. Again we have another example of being misled, senior officers including KE may very well be getting pay increases. PRP linked directly to objectives/targets within the role would focus efforts on improvements, but we just don't have that level of performance control.[/p][/quote]Thanks - interesting I thought with all these 'market supplements' performance related pay was to be brought in. It may be we don't have influence (now) on Kersten England's performance targets but there certainly no rationale for them bring kept in secret. I wonder who writes them and approves them? It does make me wonder what these robust performance Managment tools are - I have been told they write their own, and no one checks, even if they did it round make no difference . I hope this isn't true - but if it is, then this is clearly yet another dimension to address as part of the governance and performance fails by city of York council. Gwen swinburn gmsgop
  • Score: -82

7:37pm Sun 6 Apr 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

gmsgop wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
gmsgop wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Kersten England confirmed she would not be accepting a performance-related incremental pay increase in a letter to council leader James Alexander.

She is entitled to an annual rise provided her performance is deemed satisfactory, but has not taken it in recent years.

http://www.yorkpress




.co.uk/news/11079980




.Council_chief_turns




_down_performance_pa




y_rise/

Maybe one of her strengths is insight…..!.
Te question is not that ' Kersten England would not be accepting her performance bonus' but rather who, in the current circumstances ( peerreview, Lendal bridge, ward governance, ICO. LGO etc interventions, bed blocking fiasco, and so on) would even propose it? We need much more oversight -

What are the performance contracts, who gets them? Why are they not public? Who sets the targets ? Surely we should, in line with council policy and citizen wishes? Who decides who gets the performance bonuses? It all could be very comfortable, or it may be we just haven't seen the performance contracts on the web site... Anyone know out there? Another external oversight issue I think.
Gwen Swinburn
Gwen, agreed.

Strange though that Kersten England is the only senior with PRP as part of her contract. None of the other senior positions have a contractual PRP element and are therefore can have pay increases regardless of performance.

Performance Related Pay:
The authority does not operate a performance related pay system as it believes that it has sufficiently strong performance management arrangements in place to ensure high performance from its senior officers. Any areas of under-performance are addressed rigorously.

Pay Increases:
The authority will apply any pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies and/or any pay increases that are agreed through local negotiations. The authority will also apply any pay increases that are as a result of authority decisions to significantly increase the duties and responsibilities of the post in question beyond the normal flexing of duties and responsibilities that are expected in senior posts.

http://www.york.gov.


uk/downloads/downloa


d/2135/pay_policy

So regardless of performance in the role senior officers will receive pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies and/or any pay increases that are agreed through local negotiations.

So, nice story KE not taking her PRP increase, but that does not mean her salary has not been increased via the authority applying pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies. Again we have another example of being misled, senior officers including KE may very well be getting pay increases. PRP linked directly to objectives/targets within the role would focus efforts on improvements, but we just don't have that level of performance control.
Thanks - interesting I thought with all these 'market supplements' performance related pay was to be brought in.

It may be we don't have influence (now) on Kersten England's performance targets but there certainly no rationale for them bring kept in secret. I wonder who writes them and approves them?

It does make me wonder what these robust performance Managment tools are - I have been told they write their own, and no one checks, even if they did it round make no difference . I hope this isn't true - but if it is, then this is clearly yet another dimension to address as part of the governance and performance fails by city of York council.

Gwen swinburn
Gwen.
Makes one wonder. Transformation, track your own progress against targets, no penalties for under performance, all seems plausible in a cosy environment.

Should really be:

1. Objective/target.
2. Agreed with senior officer and embeded in senior officers objective (You fail, I fail) .
3. Tracked through performance review.
4. A proportion of the pay increase attached to performance.
5. Fail to achieve, penalty in pay.

Accountability for performance through measurable objectives available to public scrutiny through publication.

Seems transformation need to start at the top through accountability and measurable objective being openly and honestly publicised. Nothing will change (no transformation) unless areas of responsibility are performance tracked and area performance measures are publicised.

Competent leadership would not tolerate self tracking against progress from employees at any level. I would go further to suggest we don't have leaders we have managers just doing a day job.
[quote][p][bold]gmsgop[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gmsgop[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: Kersten England confirmed she would not be accepting a performance-related incremental pay increase in a letter to council leader James Alexander. She is entitled to an annual rise provided her performance is deemed satisfactory, but has not taken it in recent years. http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/news/11079980 .Council_chief_turns _down_performance_pa y_rise/ Maybe one of her strengths is insight…..!.[/p][/quote]Te question is not that ' Kersten England would not be accepting her performance bonus' but rather who, in the current circumstances ( peerreview, Lendal bridge, ward governance, ICO. LGO etc interventions, bed blocking fiasco, and so on) would even propose it? We need much more oversight - What are the performance contracts, who gets them? Why are they not public? Who sets the targets ? Surely we should, in line with council policy and citizen wishes? Who decides who gets the performance bonuses? It all could be very comfortable, or it may be we just haven't seen the performance contracts on the web site... Anyone know out there? Another external oversight issue I think. Gwen Swinburn[/p][/quote]Gwen, agreed. Strange though that Kersten England is the only senior with PRP as part of her contract. None of the other senior positions have a contractual PRP element and are therefore can have pay increases regardless of performance. Performance Related Pay: The authority does not operate a performance related pay system as it believes that it has sufficiently strong performance management arrangements in place to ensure high performance from its senior officers. Any areas of under-performance are addressed rigorously. Pay Increases: The authority will apply any pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies and/or any pay increases that are agreed through local negotiations. The authority will also apply any pay increases that are as a result of authority decisions to significantly increase the duties and responsibilities of the post in question beyond the normal flexing of duties and responsibilities that are expected in senior posts. http://www.york.gov. uk/downloads/downloa d/2135/pay_policy So regardless of performance in the role senior officers will receive pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies and/or any pay increases that are agreed through local negotiations. So, nice story KE not taking her PRP increase, but that does not mean her salary has not been increased via the authority applying pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies. Again we have another example of being misled, senior officers including KE may very well be getting pay increases. PRP linked directly to objectives/targets within the role would focus efforts on improvements, but we just don't have that level of performance control.[/p][/quote]Thanks - interesting I thought with all these 'market supplements' performance related pay was to be brought in. It may be we don't have influence (now) on Kersten England's performance targets but there certainly no rationale for them bring kept in secret. I wonder who writes them and approves them? It does make me wonder what these robust performance Managment tools are - I have been told they write their own, and no one checks, even if they did it round make no difference . I hope this isn't true - but if it is, then this is clearly yet another dimension to address as part of the governance and performance fails by city of York council. Gwen swinburn[/p][/quote]Gwen. Makes one wonder. Transformation, track your own progress against targets, no penalties for under performance, all seems plausible in a cosy environment. Should really be: 1. Objective/target. 2. Agreed with senior officer and embeded in senior officers objective (You fail, I fail) . 3. Tracked through performance review. 4. A proportion of the pay increase attached to performance. 5. Fail to achieve, penalty in pay. Accountability for performance through measurable objectives available to public scrutiny through publication. Seems transformation need to start at the top through accountability and measurable objective being openly and honestly publicised. Nothing will change (no transformation) unless areas of responsibility are performance tracked and area performance measures are publicised. Competent leadership would not tolerate self tracking against progress from employees at any level. I would go further to suggest we don't have leaders we have managers just doing a day job. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -76

7:40pm Sun 6 Apr 14

velvetdixie says...

With all the difficulties connected with York's rivers in recent months it seems odd to me that this council has not put in place a ban on use of them with penalties for venturing into of them. If not entirely, certainly during what seem to have become high traffic hours.
With all the difficulties connected with York's rivers in recent months it seems odd to me that this council has not put in place a ban on use of them with penalties for venturing into of them. If not entirely, certainly during what seem to have become high traffic hours. velvetdixie
  • Score: -75

8:07pm Sun 6 Apr 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Guess someone might find this useful.

If you call failures experiments, you can put them in your CV and claim them as achievements.

Just trying to help.
Guess someone might find this useful. If you call failures experiments, you can put them in your CV and claim them as achievements. Just trying to help. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -54

8:28pm Sun 6 Apr 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Politics is the art of looking for problems, finding them everywhere, analysing them incorrectly and applying the wrong solutions.

Seems to be the story in York without doubt.
Politics is the art of looking for problems, finding them everywhere, analysing them incorrectly and applying the wrong solutions. Seems to be the story in York without doubt. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -49

8:43pm Sun 6 Apr 14

gmsgop says...

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
gmsgop wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
gmsgop wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Kersten England confirmed she would not be accepting a performance-related incremental pay increase in a letter to council leader James Alexander.

She is entitled to an annual rise provided her performance is deemed satisfactory, but has not taken it in recent years.

http://www.yorkpress





.co.uk/news/11079980





.Council_chief_turns





_down_performance_pa





y_rise/

Maybe one of her strengths is insight…..!.
Te question is not that ' Kersten England would not be accepting her performance bonus' but rather who, in the current circumstances ( peerreview, Lendal bridge, ward governance, ICO. LGO etc interventions, bed blocking fiasco, and so on) would even propose it? We need much more oversight -

What are the performance contracts, who gets them? Why are they not public? Who sets the targets ? Surely we should, in line with council policy and citizen wishes? Who decides who gets the performance bonuses? It all could be very comfortable, or it may be we just haven't seen the performance contracts on the web site... Anyone know out there? Another external oversight issue I think.
Gwen Swinburn
Gwen, agreed.

Strange though that Kersten England is the only senior with PRP as part of her contract. None of the other senior positions have a contractual PRP element and are therefore can have pay increases regardless of performance.

Performance Related Pay:
The authority does not operate a performance related pay system as it believes that it has sufficiently strong performance management arrangements in place to ensure high performance from its senior officers. Any areas of under-performance are addressed rigorously.

Pay Increases:
The authority will apply any pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies and/or any pay increases that are agreed through local negotiations. The authority will also apply any pay increases that are as a result of authority decisions to significantly increase the duties and responsibilities of the post in question beyond the normal flexing of duties and responsibilities that are expected in senior posts.

http://www.york.gov.



uk/downloads/downloa



d/2135/pay_policy

So regardless of performance in the role senior officers will receive pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies and/or any pay increases that are agreed through local negotiations.

So, nice story KE not taking her PRP increase, but that does not mean her salary has not been increased via the authority applying pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies. Again we have another example of being misled, senior officers including KE may very well be getting pay increases. PRP linked directly to objectives/targets within the role would focus efforts on improvements, but we just don't have that level of performance control.
Thanks - interesting I thought with all these 'market supplements' performance related pay was to be brought in.

It may be we don't have influence (now) on Kersten England's performance targets but there certainly no rationale for them bring kept in secret. I wonder who writes them and approves them?

It does make me wonder what these robust performance Managment tools are - I have been told they write their own, and no one checks, even if they did it round make no difference . I hope this isn't true - but if it is, then this is clearly yet another dimension to address as part of the governance and performance fails by city of York council.

Gwen swinburn
Gwen.
Makes one wonder. Transformation, track your own progress against targets, no penalties for under performance, all seems plausible in a cosy environment.

Should really be:

1. Objective/target.
2. Agreed with senior officer and embeded in senior officers objective (You fail, I fail) .
3. Tracked through performance review.
4. A proportion of the pay increase attached to performance.
5. Fail to achieve, penalty in pay.

Accountability for performance through measurable objectives available to public scrutiny through publication.

Seems transformation need to start at the top through accountability and measurable objective being openly and honestly publicised. Nothing will change (no transformation) unless areas of responsibility are performance tracked and area performance measures are publicised.

Competent leadership would not tolerate self tracking against progress from employees at any level. I would go further to suggest we don't have leaders we have managers just doing a day job.
Yes absolutely agree youwilldoasisay - what troubles me is that without that system at the top - how is it done below? It can be a mutually reinforcing success story- each layer working towards their own, their managers and sll our goals.

This needs taking in hand - the Assistant a Director responsible for HR would be a great start- assuming they are HR qualified that is- how can we get a review of what happens and what should happen in HR performance management? And how can we get Kersten's performance targets?

Gwen a Swinburn
[quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gmsgop[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gmsgop[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: Kersten England confirmed she would not be accepting a performance-related incremental pay increase in a letter to council leader James Alexander. She is entitled to an annual rise provided her performance is deemed satisfactory, but has not taken it in recent years. http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/news/11079980 .Council_chief_turns _down_performance_pa y_rise/ Maybe one of her strengths is insight…..!.[/p][/quote]Te question is not that ' Kersten England would not be accepting her performance bonus' but rather who, in the current circumstances ( peerreview, Lendal bridge, ward governance, ICO. LGO etc interventions, bed blocking fiasco, and so on) would even propose it? We need much more oversight - What are the performance contracts, who gets them? Why are they not public? Who sets the targets ? Surely we should, in line with council policy and citizen wishes? Who decides who gets the performance bonuses? It all could be very comfortable, or it may be we just haven't seen the performance contracts on the web site... Anyone know out there? Another external oversight issue I think. Gwen Swinburn[/p][/quote]Gwen, agreed. Strange though that Kersten England is the only senior with PRP as part of her contract. None of the other senior positions have a contractual PRP element and are therefore can have pay increases regardless of performance. Performance Related Pay: The authority does not operate a performance related pay system as it believes that it has sufficiently strong performance management arrangements in place to ensure high performance from its senior officers. Any areas of under-performance are addressed rigorously. Pay Increases: The authority will apply any pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies and/or any pay increases that are agreed through local negotiations. The authority will also apply any pay increases that are as a result of authority decisions to significantly increase the duties and responsibilities of the post in question beyond the normal flexing of duties and responsibilities that are expected in senior posts. http://www.york.gov. uk/downloads/downloa d/2135/pay_policy So regardless of performance in the role senior officers will receive pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies and/or any pay increases that are agreed through local negotiations. So, nice story KE not taking her PRP increase, but that does not mean her salary has not been increased via the authority applying pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies. Again we have another example of being misled, senior officers including KE may very well be getting pay increases. PRP linked directly to objectives/targets within the role would focus efforts on improvements, but we just don't have that level of performance control.[/p][/quote]Thanks - interesting I thought with all these 'market supplements' performance related pay was to be brought in. It may be we don't have influence (now) on Kersten England's performance targets but there certainly no rationale for them bring kept in secret. I wonder who writes them and approves them? It does make me wonder what these robust performance Managment tools are - I have been told they write their own, and no one checks, even if they did it round make no difference . I hope this isn't true - but if it is, then this is clearly yet another dimension to address as part of the governance and performance fails by city of York council. Gwen swinburn[/p][/quote]Gwen. Makes one wonder. Transformation, track your own progress against targets, no penalties for under performance, all seems plausible in a cosy environment. Should really be: 1. Objective/target. 2. Agreed with senior officer and embeded in senior officers objective (You fail, I fail) . 3. Tracked through performance review. 4. A proportion of the pay increase attached to performance. 5. Fail to achieve, penalty in pay. Accountability for performance through measurable objectives available to public scrutiny through publication. Seems transformation need to start at the top through accountability and measurable objective being openly and honestly publicised. Nothing will change (no transformation) unless areas of responsibility are performance tracked and area performance measures are publicised. Competent leadership would not tolerate self tracking against progress from employees at any level. I would go further to suggest we don't have leaders we have managers just doing a day job.[/p][/quote]Yes absolutely agree youwilldoasisay - what troubles me is that without that system at the top - how is it done below? It can be a mutually reinforcing success story- each layer working towards their own, their managers and sll our goals. This needs taking in hand - the Assistant a Director responsible for HR would be a great start- assuming they are HR qualified that is- how can we get a review of what happens and what should happen in HR performance management? And how can we get Kersten's performance targets? Gwen a Swinburn gmsgop
  • Score: -43

9:33pm Sun 6 Apr 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Find out just what most people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which you can imposed on them.


Mark this one down Mark-Down Mongrel.

Woof, Woof.
Find out just what most people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which you can imposed on them. Mark this one down Mark-Down Mongrel. Woof, Woof. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -85

9:47pm Sun 6 Apr 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

gmsgop wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
gmsgop wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
gmsgop wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Kersten England confirmed she would not be accepting a performance-related incremental pay increase in a letter to council leader James Alexander.

She is entitled to an annual rise provided her performance is deemed satisfactory, but has not taken it in recent years.

http://www.yorkpress






.co.uk/news/11079980






.Council_chief_turns






_down_performance_pa






y_rise/

Maybe one of her strengths is insight…..!.
Te question is not that ' Kersten England would not be accepting her performance bonus' but rather who, in the current circumstances ( peerreview, Lendal bridge, ward governance, ICO. LGO etc interventions, bed blocking fiasco, and so on) would even propose it? We need much more oversight -

What are the performance contracts, who gets them? Why are they not public? Who sets the targets ? Surely we should, in line with council policy and citizen wishes? Who decides who gets the performance bonuses? It all could be very comfortable, or it may be we just haven't seen the performance contracts on the web site... Anyone know out there? Another external oversight issue I think.
Gwen Swinburn
Gwen, agreed.

Strange though that Kersten England is the only senior with PRP as part of her contract. None of the other senior positions have a contractual PRP element and are therefore can have pay increases regardless of performance.

Performance Related Pay:
The authority does not operate a performance related pay system as it believes that it has sufficiently strong performance management arrangements in place to ensure high performance from its senior officers. Any areas of under-performance are addressed rigorously.

Pay Increases:
The authority will apply any pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies and/or any pay increases that are agreed through local negotiations. The authority will also apply any pay increases that are as a result of authority decisions to significantly increase the duties and responsibilities of the post in question beyond the normal flexing of duties and responsibilities that are expected in senior posts.

http://www.york.gov.




uk/downloads/downloa




d/2135/pay_policy

So regardless of performance in the role senior officers will receive pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies and/or any pay increases that are agreed through local negotiations.

So, nice story KE not taking her PRP increase, but that does not mean her salary has not been increased via the authority applying pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies. Again we have another example of being misled, senior officers including KE may very well be getting pay increases. PRP linked directly to objectives/targets within the role would focus efforts on improvements, but we just don't have that level of performance control.
Thanks - interesting I thought with all these 'market supplements' performance related pay was to be brought in.

It may be we don't have influence (now) on Kersten England's performance targets but there certainly no rationale for them bring kept in secret. I wonder who writes them and approves them?

It does make me wonder what these robust performance Managment tools are - I have been told they write their own, and no one checks, even if they did it round make no difference . I hope this isn't true - but if it is, then this is clearly yet another dimension to address as part of the governance and performance fails by city of York council.

Gwen swinburn
Gwen.
Makes one wonder. Transformation, track your own progress against targets, no penalties for under performance, all seems plausible in a cosy environment.

Should really be:

1. Objective/target.
2. Agreed with senior officer and embeded in senior officers objective (You fail, I fail) .
3. Tracked through performance review.
4. A proportion of the pay increase attached to performance.
5. Fail to achieve, penalty in pay.

Accountability for performance through measurable objectives available to public scrutiny through publication.

Seems transformation need to start at the top through accountability and measurable objective being openly and honestly publicised. Nothing will change (no transformation) unless areas of responsibility are performance tracked and area performance measures are publicised.

Competent leadership would not tolerate self tracking against progress from employees at any level. I would go further to suggest we don't have leaders we have managers just doing a day job.
Yes absolutely agree youwilldoasisay - what troubles me is that without that system at the top - how is it done below? It can be a mutually reinforcing success story- each layer working towards their own, their managers and sll our goals.

This needs taking in hand - the Assistant a Director responsible for HR would be a great start- assuming they are HR qualified that is- how can we get a review of what happens and what should happen in HR performance management? And how can we get Kersten's performance targets?

Gwen a Swinburn
Gwen, it will never work without structured responsibilities with the individuals working toward agreed objectives based on day to day responsibility and manifesto driven objectives.

Ego and personal agenda has no place, neither does secrecy. Objectives should be commonly known and published along with performance against them.
[quote][p][bold]gmsgop[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gmsgop[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gmsgop[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: Kersten England confirmed she would not be accepting a performance-related incremental pay increase in a letter to council leader James Alexander. She is entitled to an annual rise provided her performance is deemed satisfactory, but has not taken it in recent years. http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/news/11079980 .Council_chief_turns _down_performance_pa y_rise/ Maybe one of her strengths is insight…..!.[/p][/quote]Te question is not that ' Kersten England would not be accepting her performance bonus' but rather who, in the current circumstances ( peerreview, Lendal bridge, ward governance, ICO. LGO etc interventions, bed blocking fiasco, and so on) would even propose it? We need much more oversight - What are the performance contracts, who gets them? Why are they not public? Who sets the targets ? Surely we should, in line with council policy and citizen wishes? Who decides who gets the performance bonuses? It all could be very comfortable, or it may be we just haven't seen the performance contracts on the web site... Anyone know out there? Another external oversight issue I think. Gwen Swinburn[/p][/quote]Gwen, agreed. Strange though that Kersten England is the only senior with PRP as part of her contract. None of the other senior positions have a contractual PRP element and are therefore can have pay increases regardless of performance. Performance Related Pay: The authority does not operate a performance related pay system as it believes that it has sufficiently strong performance management arrangements in place to ensure high performance from its senior officers. Any areas of under-performance are addressed rigorously. Pay Increases: The authority will apply any pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies and/or any pay increases that are agreed through local negotiations. The authority will also apply any pay increases that are as a result of authority decisions to significantly increase the duties and responsibilities of the post in question beyond the normal flexing of duties and responsibilities that are expected in senior posts. http://www.york.gov. uk/downloads/downloa d/2135/pay_policy So regardless of performance in the role senior officers will receive pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies and/or any pay increases that are agreed through local negotiations. So, nice story KE not taking her PRP increase, but that does not mean her salary has not been increased via the authority applying pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies. Again we have another example of being misled, senior officers including KE may very well be getting pay increases. PRP linked directly to objectives/targets within the role would focus efforts on improvements, but we just don't have that level of performance control.[/p][/quote]Thanks - interesting I thought with all these 'market supplements' performance related pay was to be brought in. It may be we don't have influence (now) on Kersten England's performance targets but there certainly no rationale for them bring kept in secret. I wonder who writes them and approves them? It does make me wonder what these robust performance Managment tools are - I have been told they write their own, and no one checks, even if they did it round make no difference . I hope this isn't true - but if it is, then this is clearly yet another dimension to address as part of the governance and performance fails by city of York council. Gwen swinburn[/p][/quote]Gwen. Makes one wonder. Transformation, track your own progress against targets, no penalties for under performance, all seems plausible in a cosy environment. Should really be: 1. Objective/target. 2. Agreed with senior officer and embeded in senior officers objective (You fail, I fail) . 3. Tracked through performance review. 4. A proportion of the pay increase attached to performance. 5. Fail to achieve, penalty in pay. Accountability for performance through measurable objectives available to public scrutiny through publication. Seems transformation need to start at the top through accountability and measurable objective being openly and honestly publicised. Nothing will change (no transformation) unless areas of responsibility are performance tracked and area performance measures are publicised. Competent leadership would not tolerate self tracking against progress from employees at any level. I would go further to suggest we don't have leaders we have managers just doing a day job.[/p][/quote]Yes absolutely agree youwilldoasisay - what troubles me is that without that system at the top - how is it done below? It can be a mutually reinforcing success story- each layer working towards their own, their managers and sll our goals. This needs taking in hand - the Assistant a Director responsible for HR would be a great start- assuming they are HR qualified that is- how can we get a review of what happens and what should happen in HR performance management? And how can we get Kersten's performance targets? Gwen a Swinburn[/p][/quote]Gwen, it will never work without structured responsibilities with the individuals working toward agreed objectives based on day to day responsibility and manifesto driven objectives. Ego and personal agenda has no place, neither does secrecy. Objectives should be commonly known and published along with performance against them. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -76

11:45pm Sun 6 Apr 14

gmsgop says...

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
gmsgop wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
gmsgop wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
gmsgop wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Kersten England confirmed she would not be accepting a performance-related incremental pay increase in a letter to council leader James Alexander.

She is entitled to an annual rise provided her performance is deemed satisfactory, but has not taken it in recent years.

http://www.yorkpress







.co.uk/news/11079980







.Council_chief_turns







_down_performance_pa







y_rise/

Maybe one of her strengths is insight…..!.
Te question is not that ' Kersten England would not be accepting her performance bonus' but rather who, in the current circumstances ( peerreview, Lendal bridge, ward governance, ICO. LGO etc interventions, bed blocking fiasco, and so on) would even propose it? We need much more oversight -

What are the performance contracts, who gets them? Why are they not public? Who sets the targets ? Surely we should, in line with council policy and citizen wishes? Who decides who gets the performance bonuses? It all could be very comfortable, or it may be we just haven't seen the performance contracts on the web site... Anyone know out there? Another external oversight issue I think.
Gwen Swinburn
Gwen, agreed.

Strange though that Kersten England is the only senior with PRP as part of her contract. None of the other senior positions have a contractual PRP element and are therefore can have pay increases regardless of performance.

Performance Related Pay:
The authority does not operate a performance related pay system as it believes that it has sufficiently strong performance management arrangements in place to ensure high performance from its senior officers. Any areas of under-performance are addressed rigorously.

Pay Increases:
The authority will apply any pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies and/or any pay increases that are agreed through local negotiations. The authority will also apply any pay increases that are as a result of authority decisions to significantly increase the duties and responsibilities of the post in question beyond the normal flexing of duties and responsibilities that are expected in senior posts.

http://www.york.gov.





uk/downloads/downloa





d/2135/pay_policy

So regardless of performance in the role senior officers will receive pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies and/or any pay increases that are agreed through local negotiations.

So, nice story KE not taking her PRP increase, but that does not mean her salary has not been increased via the authority applying pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies. Again we have another example of being misled, senior officers including KE may very well be getting pay increases. PRP linked directly to objectives/targets within the role would focus efforts on improvements, but we just don't have that level of performance control.
Thanks - interesting I thought with all these 'market supplements' performance related pay was to be brought in.

It may be we don't have influence (now) on Kersten England's performance targets but there certainly no rationale for them bring kept in secret. I wonder who writes them and approves them?

It does make me wonder what these robust performance Managment tools are - I have been told they write their own, and no one checks, even if they did it round make no difference . I hope this isn't true - but if it is, then this is clearly yet another dimension to address as part of the governance and performance fails by city of York council.

Gwen swinburn
Gwen.
Makes one wonder. Transformation, track your own progress against targets, no penalties for under performance, all seems plausible in a cosy environment.

Should really be:

1. Objective/target.
2. Agreed with senior officer and embeded in senior officers objective (You fail, I fail) .
3. Tracked through performance review.
4. A proportion of the pay increase attached to performance.
5. Fail to achieve, penalty in pay.

Accountability for performance through measurable objectives available to public scrutiny through publication.

Seems transformation need to start at the top through accountability and measurable objective being openly and honestly publicised. Nothing will change (no transformation) unless areas of responsibility are performance tracked and area performance measures are publicised.

Competent leadership would not tolerate self tracking against progress from employees at any level. I would go further to suggest we don't have leaders we have managers just doing a day job.
Yes absolutely agree youwilldoasisay - what troubles me is that without that system at the top - how is it done below? It can be a mutually reinforcing success story- each layer working towards their own, their managers and sll our goals.

This needs taking in hand - the Assistant a Director responsible for HR would be a great start- assuming they are HR qualified that is- how can we get a review of what happens and what should happen in HR performance management? And how can we get Kersten's performance targets?

Gwen a Swinburn
Gwen, it will never work without structured responsibilities with the individuals working toward agreed objectives based on day to day responsibility and manifesto driven objectives.

Ego and personal agenda has no place, neither does secrecy. Objectives should be commonly known and published along with performance against them.
Yes we are agreed- it is simple common sense and will add this to my terms of reference for the community and (now) democratic govereance review! Sadly as you can see on whatdotheyknow we have significant numbers of steps to take in York to get on a secure footing- but working collaboratively, we can rewire together to be a citizen focused well run city! :)
[quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gmsgop[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gmsgop[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gmsgop[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: Kersten England confirmed she would not be accepting a performance-related incremental pay increase in a letter to council leader James Alexander. She is entitled to an annual rise provided her performance is deemed satisfactory, but has not taken it in recent years. http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/news/11079980 .Council_chief_turns _down_performance_pa y_rise/ Maybe one of her strengths is insight…..!.[/p][/quote]Te question is not that ' Kersten England would not be accepting her performance bonus' but rather who, in the current circumstances ( peerreview, Lendal bridge, ward governance, ICO. LGO etc interventions, bed blocking fiasco, and so on) would even propose it? We need much more oversight - What are the performance contracts, who gets them? Why are they not public? Who sets the targets ? Surely we should, in line with council policy and citizen wishes? Who decides who gets the performance bonuses? It all could be very comfortable, or it may be we just haven't seen the performance contracts on the web site... Anyone know out there? Another external oversight issue I think. Gwen Swinburn[/p][/quote]Gwen, agreed. Strange though that Kersten England is the only senior with PRP as part of her contract. None of the other senior positions have a contractual PRP element and are therefore can have pay increases regardless of performance. Performance Related Pay: The authority does not operate a performance related pay system as it believes that it has sufficiently strong performance management arrangements in place to ensure high performance from its senior officers. Any areas of under-performance are addressed rigorously. Pay Increases: The authority will apply any pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies and/or any pay increases that are agreed through local negotiations. The authority will also apply any pay increases that are as a result of authority decisions to significantly increase the duties and responsibilities of the post in question beyond the normal flexing of duties and responsibilities that are expected in senior posts. http://www.york.gov. uk/downloads/downloa d/2135/pay_policy So regardless of performance in the role senior officers will receive pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies and/or any pay increases that are agreed through local negotiations. So, nice story KE not taking her PRP increase, but that does not mean her salary has not been increased via the authority applying pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies. Again we have another example of being misled, senior officers including KE may very well be getting pay increases. PRP linked directly to objectives/targets within the role would focus efforts on improvements, but we just don't have that level of performance control.[/p][/quote]Thanks - interesting I thought with all these 'market supplements' performance related pay was to be brought in. It may be we don't have influence (now) on Kersten England's performance targets but there certainly no rationale for them bring kept in secret. I wonder who writes them and approves them? It does make me wonder what these robust performance Managment tools are - I have been told they write their own, and no one checks, even if they did it round make no difference . I hope this isn't true - but if it is, then this is clearly yet another dimension to address as part of the governance and performance fails by city of York council. Gwen swinburn[/p][/quote]Gwen. Makes one wonder. Transformation, track your own progress against targets, no penalties for under performance, all seems plausible in a cosy environment. Should really be: 1. Objective/target. 2. Agreed with senior officer and embeded in senior officers objective (You fail, I fail) . 3. Tracked through performance review. 4. A proportion of the pay increase attached to performance. 5. Fail to achieve, penalty in pay. Accountability for performance through measurable objectives available to public scrutiny through publication. Seems transformation need to start at the top through accountability and measurable objective being openly and honestly publicised. Nothing will change (no transformation) unless areas of responsibility are performance tracked and area performance measures are publicised. Competent leadership would not tolerate self tracking against progress from employees at any level. I would go further to suggest we don't have leaders we have managers just doing a day job.[/p][/quote]Yes absolutely agree youwilldoasisay - what troubles me is that without that system at the top - how is it done below? It can be a mutually reinforcing success story- each layer working towards their own, their managers and sll our goals. This needs taking in hand - the Assistant a Director responsible for HR would be a great start- assuming they are HR qualified that is- how can we get a review of what happens and what should happen in HR performance management? And how can we get Kersten's performance targets? Gwen a Swinburn[/p][/quote]Gwen, it will never work without structured responsibilities with the individuals working toward agreed objectives based on day to day responsibility and manifesto driven objectives. Ego and personal agenda has no place, neither does secrecy. Objectives should be commonly known and published along with performance against them.[/p][/quote]Yes we are agreed- it is simple common sense and will add this to my terms of reference for the community and (now) democratic govereance review! Sadly as you can see on whatdotheyknow we have significant numbers of steps to take in York to get on a secure footing- but working collaboratively, we can rewire together to be a citizen focused well run city! :) gmsgop
  • Score: -87

8:06am Mon 7 Apr 14

Kevin Turvey says...

‘Coun Dave Merrett, the council's cabinet member for transport, has said he would have to quit if it is ultimately found that the council should not have fined tens of thousands of motorists through the two schemes’


It would seem that these people entrenched in this council have no idea of subtlety or can take hints!

GO now and take those other useless waste of positions with you as well, just so it’s very clear and even you can understand:

Ferret, Jimmy ‘lend me a tenner’ Alexander & Tracy island simply very wrong.

Pack your bags and go now and save the council a few quid and your party’s and much more importantly this city’s reputation!

Bye!

Perhaps the council will next time appoint someone with less declared conflicting interests to the position or with a more basic understanding of democratic process!

Perhaps regime change not by democracy may well be forthcoming in this city earlier than I thought!
‘Coun Dave Merrett, the council's cabinet member for transport, has said he would have to quit if it is ultimately found that the council should not have fined tens of thousands of motorists through the two schemes’ It would seem that these people entrenched in this council have no idea of subtlety or can take hints! GO now and take those other useless waste of positions with you as well, just so it’s very clear and even you can understand: Ferret, Jimmy ‘lend me a tenner’ Alexander & Tracy island simply very wrong. Pack your bags and go now and save the council a few quid and your party’s and much more importantly this city’s reputation! Bye! Perhaps the council will next time appoint someone with less declared conflicting interests to the position or with a more basic understanding of democratic process! Perhaps regime change not by democracy may well be forthcoming in this city earlier than I thought! Kevin Turvey
  • Score: -76

8:39am Mon 7 Apr 14

York2000 says...

How is it possible for someone to mess with the scores on comments over a thousand times?
I can click on it once, and if I really wanted restart the laptop and click on it again, but it takes ages and would be sad to say the least.
How is it possible for someone to mess with the scores on comments over a thousand times? I can click on it once, and if I really wanted restart the laptop and click on it again, but it takes ages and would be sad to say the least. York2000
  • Score: -76

8:48am Mon 7 Apr 14

b3nson says...

Beef stock
Chicken stock
and now we've got a laughing stock.
Crack on COY Council you are a joke!!
Beef stock Chicken stock and now we've got a laughing stock. Crack on COY Council you are a joke!! b3nson
  • Score: -18

8:50am Mon 7 Apr 14

Fat Harry says...

I'd just about decided to never vote Labour again, but frothing-at-the-mout
h stuff on here is scaring me into thinking again; if candidates that appeal to to some of the people on here get into office, I dread to think what sort of a place our city will become.
I'd just about decided to never vote Labour again, but frothing-at-the-mout h stuff on here is scaring me into thinking again; if candidates that appeal to to some of the people on here get into office, I dread to think what sort of a place our city will become. Fat Harry
  • Score: 18

8:52am Mon 7 Apr 14

Oaklands Resident says...

So the Council has finally admitted that it is no longer issuing PCN based on ANPR camera evidence on both Lendal bridge and Coppergate.

But the cameras are still working.

Why?

If the Council hopes to successfully appeal against the Traffic Commissioners ruling do they hope to issue retrospective fines?

Do they realise that the Oxford appeal took nearly 2 years to complete?

....and that any PCN must be issued within 28 days of the alleged offence having taken place?

We need a clear policy decision and an end to the campaign against York residents that this Council seems to have slipped into
So the Council has finally admitted that it is no longer issuing PCN based on ANPR camera evidence on both Lendal bridge and Coppergate. But the cameras are still working. Why? If the Council hopes to successfully appeal against the Traffic Commissioners ruling do they hope to issue retrospective fines? Do they realise that the Oxford appeal took nearly 2 years to complete? ....and that any PCN must be issued within 28 days of the alleged offence having taken place? We need a clear policy decision and an end to the campaign against York residents that this Council seems to have slipped into Oaklands Resident
  • Score: -9

8:53am Mon 7 Apr 14

bolero says...

I hope they've checked the legality of this idea as well.
I hope they've checked the legality of this idea as well. bolero
  • Score: -12

8:56am Mon 7 Apr 14

York2000 says...

Amazingly within minutes my comment about was disliked over 50 times! The Press has become a trash website. Don't be surprised to see a red top on the newspaper soon.
Amazingly within minutes my comment about was disliked over 50 times! The Press has become a trash website. Don't be surprised to see a red top on the newspaper soon. York2000
  • Score: -6

8:57am Mon 7 Apr 14

Bailed Out says...

The lunatics are running the asylum.
The lunatics are running the asylum. Bailed Out
  • Score: -1

8:58am Mon 7 Apr 14

eeoodares says...

'transport Coun Dave Merrett said he would have to quit if it is found thousands of drivers should not have been fined.'... Shall I get your coat for you Dave?
'transport Coun Dave Merrett said he would have to quit if it is found thousands of drivers should not have been fined.'... Shall I get your coat for you Dave? eeoodares
  • Score: -17

9:09am Mon 7 Apr 14

Bailed Out says...

eeoodares wrote:
'transport Coun Dave Merrett said he would have to quit if it is found thousands of drivers should not have been fined.'... Shall I get your coat for you Dave?
It's time they all cleared their desks.
[quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: 'transport Coun Dave Merrett said he would have to quit if it is found thousands of drivers should not have been fined.'... Shall I get your coat for you Dave?[/p][/quote]It's time they all cleared their desks. Bailed Out
  • Score: -2

9:23am Mon 7 Apr 14

anistasia says...

Will motorists have to pay the full £60 fine because they did not get the fine through with in 14 days because the council may be couple months sorting out legally if they got it right or wrong so not sending out fines until the cas. is finished is this legal.surly if the fines have been abandoned its abandoned you can't abandon something then get charged later you can't have it both ways.
Will motorists have to pay the full £60 fine because they did not get the fine through with in 14 days because the council may be couple months sorting out legally if they got it right or wrong so not sending out fines until the cas. is finished is this legal.surly if the fines have been abandoned its abandoned you can't abandon something then get charged later you can't have it both ways. anistasia
  • Score: -13

9:24am Mon 7 Apr 14

roskoboskovic says...

GET YOUR COAT MERRETT!!!
GET YOUR COAT MERRETT!!! roskoboskovic
  • Score: -4

9:25am Mon 7 Apr 14

gmc_1963 says...

"Coun Dave Merrett said he would have to quit if it is found thousands of drivers should not have been fined. "

fingers crossed
"Coun Dave Merrett said he would have to quit if it is found thousands of drivers should not have been fined. " fingers crossed gmc_1963
  • Score: -4

9:35am Mon 7 Apr 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

At this stage in the trial you would only commit to a legal challenge if the intention was to maintain or extend the restriction.

I think the council has just flagged it's decision, which is to maintain the restriction, this is premature of the analysis and the announcement 6th May.

You better sort yourselves out and come clean (god forbid we have honesty), why are you embarking on a legal challenge when the analysis has not been completed. Surely if the outcome is to scrap the restriction you would just forget about all the legality and move on.

Both oppositions are committed to reversing the Lendal restrictions anyway so why waste tax payers money.

A sensible approach is required whereby the council may have to work with the opposition, should be interesting.
At this stage in the trial you would only commit to a legal challenge if the intention was to maintain or extend the restriction. I think the council has just flagged it's decision, which is to maintain the restriction, this is premature of the analysis and the announcement 6th May. You better sort yourselves out and come clean (god forbid we have honesty), why are you embarking on a legal challenge when the analysis has not been completed. Surely if the outcome is to scrap the restriction you would just forget about all the legality and move on. Both oppositions are committed to reversing the Lendal restrictions anyway so why waste tax payers money. A sensible approach is required whereby the council may have to work with the opposition, should be interesting. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -4

9:42am Mon 7 Apr 14

AnotherPointofView says...

gmc_1963 wrote:
"Coun Dave Merrett said he would have to quit if it is found thousands of drivers should not have been fined. "

fingers crossed
Fingers crossed indeed. It's the best bit of news from this council since they took office.

If it goes against him, will he have the courage to be a man of his word??

No, I don't expect so either...
[quote][p][bold]gmc_1963[/bold] wrote: "Coun Dave Merrett said he would have to quit if it is found thousands of drivers should not have been fined. " fingers crossed[/p][/quote]Fingers crossed indeed. It's the best bit of news from this council since they took office. If it goes against him, will he have the courage to be a man of his word?? No, I don't expect so either... AnotherPointofView
  • Score: -6

9:46am Mon 7 Apr 14

York2000 says...

Looking at the Maria Miller news this weekend, it's clear politicians across all parties will not quit out of courage, or duty, or being found out....
Looking at the Maria Miller news this weekend, it's clear politicians across all parties will not quit out of courage, or duty, or being found out.... York2000
  • Score: 0

9:50am Mon 7 Apr 14

the original Homer says...

Well, they've stopped issuing the fines, pending the legal appeal. That is a step in the right direction. They've also kept the cameras capturing images, which again is the right thing to do at the moment.
In those respects, the Council seems to be listening to public opinion (maybe even reading our discussions on here?).
No doubt they will eventually reach the right conclusion on the legality of the fines, after they've eventually exhausted all the legal avenues.
It is worrying how far they will go down dead ends though, when almost everyone is telling them they are wrong. This is arrogance and is not what we expect in a democracy.
Our underlying distrust remains, because we never have to look far to see examples of this arrogance:

1 We are told that the Councillors have a new report and "The Council are confident that they are right". We then get told most of the Council haven't even seen the report, and a select few (with a very poor track record) have evaluated it and come to the conclusion that their earlier opinions were right.

2 We are told we can't see the report, as that would weaken the Council's legal case. The suggestion is that the "other side" would have a stronger counter argument simply by seeing the basis of the Council's legal appeal. In truth, the final decision will be taken based on all the information available, regardless of how long some of it is kept hidden.

3 There is a theory that keeping the latest legal advice secret is actually a tactic to invalidate the raft of claims for compensation from all those who paid the fines. Usually this might work, as there are very few ways to appeal a fine you've already paid (paying is seen as acceptance) and the longer you take to appeal weakens your case further. However, there are exceptions if the fines are proven to be illegal, and that seems to be where we will end up.

4 There is a sub-theory that delaying things might just drag this out beyond the next elections. This may be the case, but I doubt it will make any difference to the election results. What it might do though, is make the repayment bill fall under the next leadership, a bit like what happens Nationally when a party is losing power. There are some Councillors who are trying to do a good job, and we now rely on those to fight for the money to be taken out of this year's numbers, and ring-fenced for future claims.

Personally, I can't see the Council or their legal advisers finding a loophole. I think Mr Knapp produced a really thorough and unbiased report, and his conclusions will stand up to any scrutiny.

In short, Mr Knapp is a perfect example of someone who is very good at his job. That's something York Council aren't used to seeing, so perhaps they can be forgiven for not being able to appreciate the quality of his report.
Well, they've stopped issuing the fines, pending the legal appeal. That is a step in the right direction. They've also kept the cameras capturing images, which again is the right thing to do at the moment. In those respects, the Council seems to be listening to public opinion (maybe even reading our discussions on here?). No doubt they will eventually reach the right conclusion on the legality of the fines, after they've eventually exhausted all the legal avenues. It is worrying how far they will go down dead ends though, when almost everyone is telling them they are wrong. This is arrogance and is not what we expect in a democracy. Our underlying distrust remains, because we never have to look far to see examples of this arrogance: 1 We are told that the Councillors have a new report and "The Council are confident that they are right". We then get told most of the Council haven't even seen the report, and a select few (with a very poor track record) have evaluated it and come to the conclusion that their earlier opinions were right. 2 We are told we can't see the report, as that would weaken the Council's legal case. The suggestion is that the "other side" would have a stronger counter argument simply by seeing the basis of the Council's legal appeal. In truth, the final decision will be taken based on all the information available, regardless of how long some of it is kept hidden. 3 There is a theory that keeping the latest legal advice secret is actually a tactic to invalidate the raft of claims for compensation from all those who paid the fines. Usually this might work, as there are very few ways to appeal a fine you've already paid (paying is seen as acceptance) and the longer you take to appeal weakens your case further. However, there are exceptions if the fines are proven to be illegal, and that seems to be where we will end up. 4 There is a sub-theory that delaying things might just drag this out beyond the next elections. This may be the case, but I doubt it will make any difference to the election results. What it might do though, is make the repayment bill fall under the next leadership, a bit like what happens Nationally when a party is losing power. There are some Councillors who are trying to do a good job, and we now rely on those to fight for the money to be taken out of this year's numbers, and ring-fenced for future claims. Personally, I can't see the Council or their legal advisers finding a loophole. I think Mr Knapp produced a really thorough and unbiased report, and his conclusions will stand up to any scrutiny. In short, Mr Knapp is a perfect example of someone who is very good at his job. That's something York Council aren't used to seeing, so perhaps they can be forgiven for not being able to appreciate the quality of his report. the original Homer
  • Score: 5

9:58am Mon 7 Apr 14

Ignatius Lumpopo says...

What evil, nasty people...
What evil, nasty people... Ignatius Lumpopo
  • Score: -4

10:08am Mon 7 Apr 14

bolero says...

`The Original Homer` says the longer it takes to appeal weakens your case. Does this apply in reverse where the longer it takes to impose the fine makes it less legitimate?
`The Original Homer` says the longer it takes to appeal weakens your case. Does this apply in reverse where the longer it takes to impose the fine makes it less legitimate? bolero
  • Score: -13

10:08am Mon 7 Apr 14

Exlabourmember says...

pedalling paul wrote:
m dee wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
The initial legal advice from the DVLC told CoYC that they could not follow their preferred option of issuing a warning for a first offence, then a fine for any subsequent one. According to Cllr. Merrett in his Look North interview, that was found to be wrong.
This underlines just how much Local Authority Officers, and the Councillors that they advise, depend on receiving accurate advice from national Agencies. It affects every Council in the UK, not just York.
If anyone should be resigning it is Officers at the DVLC etc.
There are some muddy waters surrounding the use of ANPR cameras to detect drivers who flout regulations. The law needs to be clarified and changed if neccessary, so that Local Authorities around the UK can take full advantage of ANPR technology. Keeping authorised road users moving is vital.
All of York's political parties, plus inner and outer York MP's should be jointly lobbying Whitehall to get clarification.
One thing may not be clear. No matter who (if anyone) resigns locally, and no matter who wins the next local election, the car users paradise that many crave will still never happen. Car share, bus, bike and city car club short term hire for many local journeys, together with priority measures for these travel modes, are the only way to avoid future gridlock.
Paul,you make it sound like it was all down to the guidance from DVLC that's not the case,you should reread Mr Knapps damming report on the Piccadilly /Coppergate junction,the images of vehicles not fully within the restricted area, the bus lane issue,signs poorly located and much more.
Time should have been taken to get it right by York's traffic planners its their job to check and double check before issuing penalty charges it was set up by them not the DVLC,the law cannot be changed just to suit our traffic planners.
personally I think if they really want a better environment Coppergate should be pedestrians only and Piccadilly one way, buses would just take a couple of minutes longer using a safer route.
I think you will recall a statement that the signage complies with Dept. for Transport requirements. Local Authorities have very little leeway to vary these. If they did, it would create a field day for Mr. Loophole.
Paul I think you'll find if they installed a white round circular sign edged in red with a black 30 in the middle this "signage complies with Dept. for Transport requirements" It would not however allow the council to enforce a bus lane!

the more you keep cycling around the point the more daft you look. Whether the signs were right or not is irrelevant. the council clearly asked the wrong question. Its not a matter of is this the right sign to enforce a bus lane - the issue was is this actually a bus lane at all
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]m dee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: The initial legal advice from the DVLC told CoYC that they could not follow their preferred option of issuing a warning for a first offence, then a fine for any subsequent one. According to Cllr. Merrett in his Look North interview, that was found to be wrong. This underlines just how much Local Authority Officers, and the Councillors that they advise, depend on receiving accurate advice from national Agencies. It affects every Council in the UK, not just York. If anyone should be resigning it is Officers at the DVLC etc. There are some muddy waters surrounding the use of ANPR cameras to detect drivers who flout regulations. The law needs to be clarified and changed if neccessary, so that Local Authorities around the UK can take full advantage of ANPR technology. Keeping authorised road users moving is vital. All of York's political parties, plus inner and outer York MP's should be jointly lobbying Whitehall to get clarification. One thing may not be clear. No matter who (if anyone) resigns locally, and no matter who wins the next local election, the car users paradise that many crave will still never happen. Car share, bus, bike and city car club short term hire for many local journeys, together with priority measures for these travel modes, are the only way to avoid future gridlock.[/p][/quote]Paul,you make it sound like it was all down to the guidance from DVLC that's not the case,you should reread Mr Knapps damming report on the Piccadilly /Coppergate junction,the images of vehicles not fully within the restricted area, the bus lane issue,signs poorly located and much more. Time should have been taken to get it right by York's traffic planners its their job to check and double check before issuing penalty charges it was set up by them not the DVLC,the law cannot be changed just to suit our traffic planners. personally I think if they really want a better environment Coppergate should be pedestrians only and Piccadilly one way, buses would just take a couple of minutes longer using a safer route.[/p][/quote]I think you will recall a statement that the signage complies with Dept. for Transport requirements. Local Authorities have very little leeway to vary these. If they did, it would create a field day for Mr. Loophole.[/p][/quote]Paul I think you'll find if they installed a white round circular sign edged in red with a black 30 in the middle this "signage complies with Dept. for Transport requirements" It would not however allow the council to enforce a bus lane! the more you keep cycling around the point the more daft you look. Whether the signs were right or not is irrelevant. the council clearly asked the wrong question. Its not a matter of is this the right sign to enforce a bus lane - the issue was is this actually a bus lane at all Exlabourmember
  • Score: 0

10:11am Mon 7 Apr 14

bolero says...

York2000 wrote:
Amazingly within minutes my comment about was disliked over 50 times! The Press has become a trash website. Don't be surprised to see a red top on the newspaper soon.
Peddling Paul must be home today.
[quote][p][bold]York2000[/bold] wrote: Amazingly within minutes my comment about was disliked over 50 times! The Press has become a trash website. Don't be surprised to see a red top on the newspaper soon.[/p][/quote]Peddling Paul must be home today. bolero
  • Score: 8

10:15am Mon 7 Apr 14

Exlabourmember says...

gmsgop wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
gmsgop wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
gmsgop wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
gmsgop wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Kersten England confirmed she would not be accepting a performance-related incremental pay increase in a letter to council leader James Alexander.

She is entitled to an annual rise provided her performance is deemed satisfactory, but has not taken it in recent years.

http://www.yorkpress








.co.uk/news/11079980








.Council_chief_turns








_down_performance_pa








y_rise/

Maybe one of her strengths is insight…..!.
Te question is not that ' Kersten England would not be accepting her performance bonus' but rather who, in the current circumstances ( peerreview, Lendal bridge, ward governance, ICO. LGO etc interventions, bed blocking fiasco, and so on) would even propose it? We need much more oversight -

What are the performance contracts, who gets them? Why are they not public? Who sets the targets ? Surely we should, in line with council policy and citizen wishes? Who decides who gets the performance bonuses? It all could be very comfortable, or it may be we just haven't seen the performance contracts on the web site... Anyone know out there? Another external oversight issue I think.
Gwen Swinburn
Gwen, agreed.

Strange though that Kersten England is the only senior with PRP as part of her contract. None of the other senior positions have a contractual PRP element and are therefore can have pay increases regardless of performance.

Performance Related Pay:
The authority does not operate a performance related pay system as it believes that it has sufficiently strong performance management arrangements in place to ensure high performance from its senior officers. Any areas of under-performance are addressed rigorously.

Pay Increases:
The authority will apply any pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies and/or any pay increases that are agreed through local negotiations. The authority will also apply any pay increases that are as a result of authority decisions to significantly increase the duties and responsibilities of the post in question beyond the normal flexing of duties and responsibilities that are expected in senior posts.

http://www.york.gov.






uk/downloads/downloa






d/2135/pay_policy

So regardless of performance in the role senior officers will receive pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies and/or any pay increases that are agreed through local negotiations.

So, nice story KE not taking her PRP increase, but that does not mean her salary has not been increased via the authority applying pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies. Again we have another example of being misled, senior officers including KE may very well be getting pay increases. PRP linked directly to objectives/targets within the role would focus efforts on improvements, but we just don't have that level of performance control.
Thanks - interesting I thought with all these 'market supplements' performance related pay was to be brought in.

It may be we don't have influence (now) on Kersten England's performance targets but there certainly no rationale for them bring kept in secret. I wonder who writes them and approves them?

It does make me wonder what these robust performance Managment tools are - I have been told they write their own, and no one checks, even if they did it round make no difference . I hope this isn't true - but if it is, then this is clearly yet another dimension to address as part of the governance and performance fails by city of York council.

Gwen swinburn
Gwen.
Makes one wonder. Transformation, track your own progress against targets, no penalties for under performance, all seems plausible in a cosy environment.

Should really be:

1. Objective/target.
2. Agreed with senior officer and embeded in senior officers objective (You fail, I fail) .
3. Tracked through performance review.
4. A proportion of the pay increase attached to performance.
5. Fail to achieve, penalty in pay.

Accountability for performance through measurable objectives available to public scrutiny through publication.

Seems transformation need to start at the top through accountability and measurable objective being openly and honestly publicised. Nothing will change (no transformation) unless areas of responsibility are performance tracked and area performance measures are publicised.

Competent leadership would not tolerate self tracking against progress from employees at any level. I would go further to suggest we don't have leaders we have managers just doing a day job.
Yes absolutely agree youwilldoasisay - what troubles me is that without that system at the top - how is it done below? It can be a mutually reinforcing success story- each layer working towards their own, their managers and sll our goals.

This needs taking in hand - the Assistant a Director responsible for HR would be a great start- assuming they are HR qualified that is- how can we get a review of what happens and what should happen in HR performance management? And how can we get Kersten's performance targets?

Gwen a Swinburn
Gwen, it will never work without structured responsibilities with the individuals working toward agreed objectives based on day to day responsibility and manifesto driven objectives.

Ego and personal agenda has no place, neither does secrecy. Objectives should be commonly known and published along with performance against them.
Yes we are agreed- it is simple common sense and will add this to my terms of reference for the community and (now) democratic govereance review! Sadly as you can see on whatdotheyknow we have significant numbers of steps to take in York to get on a secure footing- but working collaboratively, we can rewire together to be a citizen focused well run city! :)
Surely the whole thing is the wrong way round. Senior staff get huge salaries and then topped even more with a little performance related cherry.

Why not invert so senior staff get a much smaller base salary £40k for example and then the other £60k is up for grabs based on clear performance targets. Ooh and as its a public sector position why not have these based around the public's opinion and clearly reported at a public meeting.

Surely that way the director getting £100k a year in charge of community engagement would actually have to engage the community in order to get paid!
[quote][p][bold]gmsgop[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gmsgop[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gmsgop[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gmsgop[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: Kersten England confirmed she would not be accepting a performance-related incremental pay increase in a letter to council leader James Alexander. She is entitled to an annual rise provided her performance is deemed satisfactory, but has not taken it in recent years. http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/news/11079980 .Council_chief_turns _down_performance_pa y_rise/ Maybe one of her strengths is insight…..!.[/p][/quote]Te question is not that ' Kersten England would not be accepting her performance bonus' but rather who, in the current circumstances ( peerreview, Lendal bridge, ward governance, ICO. LGO etc interventions, bed blocking fiasco, and so on) would even propose it? We need much more oversight - What are the performance contracts, who gets them? Why are they not public? Who sets the targets ? Surely we should, in line with council policy and citizen wishes? Who decides who gets the performance bonuses? It all could be very comfortable, or it may be we just haven't seen the performance contracts on the web site... Anyone know out there? Another external oversight issue I think. Gwen Swinburn[/p][/quote]Gwen, agreed. Strange though that Kersten England is the only senior with PRP as part of her contract. None of the other senior positions have a contractual PRP element and are therefore can have pay increases regardless of performance. Performance Related Pay: The authority does not operate a performance related pay system as it believes that it has sufficiently strong performance management arrangements in place to ensure high performance from its senior officers. Any areas of under-performance are addressed rigorously. Pay Increases: The authority will apply any pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies and/or any pay increases that are agreed through local negotiations. The authority will also apply any pay increases that are as a result of authority decisions to significantly increase the duties and responsibilities of the post in question beyond the normal flexing of duties and responsibilities that are expected in senior posts. http://www.york.gov. uk/downloads/downloa d/2135/pay_policy So regardless of performance in the role senior officers will receive pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies and/or any pay increases that are agreed through local negotiations. So, nice story KE not taking her PRP increase, but that does not mean her salary has not been increased via the authority applying pay increases that are agreed by relevant national negotiating bodies. Again we have another example of being misled, senior officers including KE may very well be getting pay increases. PRP linked directly to objectives/targets within the role would focus efforts on improvements, but we just don't have that level of performance control.[/p][/quote]Thanks - interesting I thought with all these 'market supplements' performance related pay was to be brought in. It may be we don't have influence (now) on Kersten England's performance targets but there certainly no rationale for them bring kept in secret. I wonder who writes them and approves them? It does make me wonder what these robust performance Managment tools are - I have been told they write their own, and no one checks, even if they did it round make no difference . I hope this isn't true - but if it is, then this is clearly yet another dimension to address as part of the governance and performance fails by city of York council. Gwen swinburn[/p][/quote]Gwen. Makes one wonder. Transformation, track your own progress against targets, no penalties for under performance, all seems plausible in a cosy environment. Should really be: 1. Objective/target. 2. Agreed with senior officer and embeded in senior officers objective (You fail, I fail) . 3. Tracked through performance review. 4. A proportion of the pay increase attached to performance. 5. Fail to achieve, penalty in pay. Accountability for performance through measurable objectives available to public scrutiny through publication. Seems transformation need to start at the top through accountability and measurable objective being openly and honestly publicised. Nothing will change (no transformation) unless areas of responsibility are performance tracked and area performance measures are publicised. Competent leadership would not tolerate self tracking against progress from employees at any level. I would go further to suggest we don't have leaders we have managers just doing a day job.[/p][/quote]Yes absolutely agree youwilldoasisay - what troubles me is that without that system at the top - how is it done below? It can be a mutually reinforcing success story- each layer working towards their own, their managers and sll our goals. This needs taking in hand - the Assistant a Director responsible for HR would be a great start- assuming they are HR qualified that is- how can we get a review of what happens and what should happen in HR performance management? And how can we get Kersten's performance targets? Gwen a Swinburn[/p][/quote]Gwen, it will never work without structured responsibilities with the individuals working toward agreed objectives based on day to day responsibility and manifesto driven objectives. Ego and personal agenda has no place, neither does secrecy. Objectives should be commonly known and published along with performance against them.[/p][/quote]Yes we are agreed- it is simple common sense and will add this to my terms of reference for the community and (now) democratic govereance review! Sadly as you can see on whatdotheyknow we have significant numbers of steps to take in York to get on a secure footing- but working collaboratively, we can rewire together to be a citizen focused well run city! :)[/p][/quote]Surely the whole thing is the wrong way round. Senior staff get huge salaries and then topped even more with a little performance related cherry. Why not invert so senior staff get a much smaller base salary £40k for example and then the other £60k is up for grabs based on clear performance targets. Ooh and as its a public sector position why not have these based around the public's opinion and clearly reported at a public meeting. Surely that way the director getting £100k a year in charge of community engagement would actually have to engage the community in order to get paid! Exlabourmember
  • Score: -6

10:17am Mon 7 Apr 14

pedalling paul says...

Exlabourmember wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
m dee wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
The initial legal advice from the DVLC told CoYC that they could not follow their preferred option of issuing a warning for a first offence, then a fine for any subsequent one. According to Cllr. Merrett in his Look North interview, that was found to be wrong.
This underlines just how much Local Authority Officers, and the Councillors that they advise, depend on receiving accurate advice from national Agencies. It affects every Council in the UK, not just York.
If anyone should be resigning it is Officers at the DVLC etc.
There are some muddy waters surrounding the use of ANPR cameras to detect drivers who flout regulations. The law needs to be clarified and changed if neccessary, so that Local Authorities around the UK can take full advantage of ANPR technology. Keeping authorised road users moving is vital.
All of York's political parties, plus inner and outer York MP's should be jointly lobbying Whitehall to get clarification.
One thing may not be clear. No matter who (if anyone) resigns locally, and no matter who wins the next local election, the car users paradise that many crave will still never happen. Car share, bus, bike and city car club short term hire for many local journeys, together with priority measures for these travel modes, are the only way to avoid future gridlock.
Paul,you make it sound like it was all down to the guidance from DVLC that's not the case,you should reread Mr Knapps damming report on the Piccadilly /Coppergate junction,the images of vehicles not fully within the restricted area, the bus lane issue,signs poorly located and much more.
Time should have been taken to get it right by York's traffic planners its their job to check and double check before issuing penalty charges it was set up by them not the DVLC,the law cannot be changed just to suit our traffic planners.
personally I think if they really want a better environment Coppergate should be pedestrians only and Piccadilly one way, buses would just take a couple of minutes longer using a safer route.
I think you will recall a statement that the signage complies with Dept. for Transport requirements. Local Authorities have very little leeway to vary these. If they did, it would create a field day for Mr. Loophole.
Paul I think you'll find if they installed a white round circular sign edged in red with a black 30 in the middle this "signage complies with Dept. for Transport requirements" It would not however allow the council to enforce a bus lane!

the more you keep cycling around the point the more daft you look. Whether the signs were right or not is irrelevant. the council clearly asked the wrong question. Its not a matter of is this the right sign to enforce a bus lane - the issue was is this actually a bus lane at all
I'm no more of a legal expert than you are. Neither are most if not all our elected Councillors. Nor are most Council Officers. We all depend heavily on external guidance from the DfT and its DVLC offshoot. If that advice is found to be flawed or ambiguous, then heads should roll in Whitehall, not in York.

ANPR can be very effective at keeping essential road traffic moving. Local Authorities need to be enabled to use it ,without fear of Mr Loophole looking over their shoulder.

This is not just about car v cycle. It's about utilising our finite road capacity to best advantage. A singe occupancy car free for all, at peak times is not going to help one iota.
[quote][p][bold]Exlabourmember[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]m dee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: The initial legal advice from the DVLC told CoYC that they could not follow their preferred option of issuing a warning for a first offence, then a fine for any subsequent one. According to Cllr. Merrett in his Look North interview, that was found to be wrong. This underlines just how much Local Authority Officers, and the Councillors that they advise, depend on receiving accurate advice from national Agencies. It affects every Council in the UK, not just York. If anyone should be resigning it is Officers at the DVLC etc. There are some muddy waters surrounding the use of ANPR cameras to detect drivers who flout regulations. The law needs to be clarified and changed if neccessary, so that Local Authorities around the UK can take full advantage of ANPR technology. Keeping authorised road users moving is vital. All of York's political parties, plus inner and outer York MP's should be jointly lobbying Whitehall to get clarification. One thing may not be clear. No matter who (if anyone) resigns locally, and no matter who wins the next local election, the car users paradise that many crave will still never happen. Car share, bus, bike and city car club short term hire for many local journeys, together with priority measures for these travel modes, are the only way to avoid future gridlock.[/p][/quote]Paul,you make it sound like it was all down to the guidance from DVLC that's not the case,you should reread Mr Knapps damming report on the Piccadilly /Coppergate junction,the images of vehicles not fully within the restricted area, the bus lane issue,signs poorly located and much more. Time should have been taken to get it right by York's traffic planners its their job to check and double check before issuing penalty charges it was set up by them not the DVLC,the law cannot be changed just to suit our traffic planners. personally I think if they really want a better environment Coppergate should be pedestrians only and Piccadilly one way, buses would just take a couple of minutes longer using a safer route.[/p][/quote]I think you will recall a statement that the signage complies with Dept. for Transport requirements. Local Authorities have very little leeway to vary these. If they did, it would create a field day for Mr. Loophole.[/p][/quote]Paul I think you'll find if they installed a white round circular sign edged in red with a black 30 in the middle this "signage complies with Dept. for Transport requirements" It would not however allow the council to enforce a bus lane! the more you keep cycling around the point the more daft you look. Whether the signs were right or not is irrelevant. the council clearly asked the wrong question. Its not a matter of is this the right sign to enforce a bus lane - the issue was is this actually a bus lane at all[/p][/quote]I'm no more of a legal expert than you are. Neither are most if not all our elected Councillors. Nor are most Council Officers. We all depend heavily on external guidance from the DfT and its DVLC offshoot. If that advice is found to be flawed or ambiguous, then heads should roll in Whitehall, not in York. ANPR can be very effective at keeping essential road traffic moving. Local Authorities need to be enabled to use it ,without fear of Mr Loophole looking over their shoulder. This is not just about car v cycle. It's about utilising our finite road capacity to best advantage. A singe occupancy car free for all, at peak times is not going to help one iota. pedalling paul
  • Score: 9

10:33am Mon 7 Apr 14

asd says...

Is it legal to record registration with camera hold it in data base until outcome then send fine 6 months later, I thought fines had to be immediately sent on date of offense.Also the bus lane is not legal as it has to be a dedicated lane with other lane for other users to use, this means it is not a bus lane if postal, council vehicle use it, that is the difference between oxford and York. They will lose the legal challenge as legal team see a nice earner as they will get paid no matter what.
Is it legal to record registration with camera hold it in data base until outcome then send fine 6 months later, I thought fines had to be immediately sent on date of offense.Also the bus lane is not legal as it has to be a dedicated lane with other lane for other users to use, this means it is not a bus lane if postal, council vehicle use it, that is the difference between oxford and York. They will lose the legal challenge as legal team see a nice earner as they will get paid no matter what. asd
  • Score: -41

10:36am Mon 7 Apr 14

YorkPatrol says...

bjb wrote:
If this 'bunch of clowns' is voted out next year, which bunch of clowns should replace them? The ones that have had the job previously and failed miserably. The ones whose party produce a manifesto and cheat everyone who voted for them by ignoring their wishes just to be able to write in history books they were once in power or those whose goal is to line the pockets of their old public school chums. Your choice! One bunch of clowns will only be replaced with another.
Corpus Christi College, Oxford
Primrose Hill Primary School
London School of Economics and Political Science
Harvard University
University of Oxford

Edward Miliband, Education hostory
[quote][p][bold]bjb[/bold] wrote: If this 'bunch of clowns' is voted out next year, which bunch of clowns should replace them? The ones that have had the job previously and failed miserably. The ones whose party produce a manifesto and cheat everyone who voted for them by ignoring their wishes just to be able to write in history books they were once in power or those whose goal is to line the pockets of their old public school chums. Your choice! One bunch of clowns will only be replaced with another.[/p][/quote]Corpus Christi College, Oxford Primrose Hill Primary School London School of Economics and Political Science Harvard University University of Oxford Edward Miliband, Education hostory YorkPatrol
  • Score: -60

10:36am Mon 7 Apr 14

Rosieposie says...

Just open the flipping bridge and let York get on with its life
Just open the flipping bridge and let York get on with its life Rosieposie
  • Score: -51

10:42am Mon 7 Apr 14

Rosieposie says...

As a Parent of a child who attended a school in Bootham I think its time the council and the two schools based there looked at how they can stop the morning school runs for kids who don't need door to door chauffeuring. Use of the spare capacity park and ride areas in Rawcliffe with school shuttles would be a far safer option for everyone. And the same goes for York District staff, other hospitals have shuttles to secure parking, again this would reduce the congestion..or is that just too simple.
As a Parent of a child who attended a school in Bootham I think its time the council and the two schools based there looked at how they can stop the morning school runs for kids who don't need door to door chauffeuring. Use of the spare capacity park and ride areas in Rawcliffe with school shuttles would be a far safer option for everyone. And the same goes for York District staff, other hospitals have shuttles to secure parking, again this would reduce the congestion..or is that just too simple. Rosieposie
  • Score: -70

11:01am Mon 7 Apr 14

strangebuttrue? says...

What is the purpose of this latest statement that the PCNs will not be issued but the recording will continue? They must have realised they are on a sticky wicket or they would just have continued to do what they arrogantly said they would last week and that was to keep sending out fines.

I find it incredible that a body whose purpose is to serve the people who elected and pay for it can put those same people in a position where, in the first place a scheme introduced which does not have the support of the majority of residents is then left hanging over them with a smoke and mirrors approach.

I have often said that this is bullying and I find myself more and more convinced that it is. Definition - “Use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force them to do something” In this case forcing the majority of law abiding road users not to cross Lendal Bridge by leaving a nagging doubt as to the consequences. The people involved in this should be ashamed of themselves but their arrogance appears to outweigh any sense of responsibility they have toward those who elected them.
What is the purpose of this latest statement that the PCNs will not be issued but the recording will continue? They must have realised they are on a sticky wicket or they would just have continued to do what they arrogantly said they would last week and that was to keep sending out fines. I find it incredible that a body whose purpose is to serve the people who elected and pay for it can put those same people in a position where, in the first place a scheme introduced which does not have the support of the majority of residents is then left hanging over them with a smoke and mirrors approach. I have often said that this is bullying and I find myself more and more convinced that it is. Definition - “Use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force them to do something” In this case forcing the majority of law abiding road users not to cross Lendal Bridge by leaving a nagging doubt as to the consequences. The people involved in this should be ashamed of themselves but their arrogance appears to outweigh any sense of responsibility they have toward those who elected them. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -52

11:14am Mon 7 Apr 14

Happytoliveinyork says...

I've never been to a council meeting - but Alexander & co are now beyond a joke. Anyone else been to one, do you have to apply?
I've never been to a council meeting - but Alexander & co are now beyond a joke. Anyone else been to one, do you have to apply? Happytoliveinyork
  • Score: -41

11:17am Mon 7 Apr 14

AGuyFromStrensall says...

PP telling us that it is not cars vs. cycling.

That's possibly the funniest thing I've heard in ages.
Ladies and gents, I think we have a new contender for an official definition of the pot calling the kettle black!
PP telling us that it is not cars vs. cycling. That's possibly the funniest thing I've heard in ages. Ladies and gents, I think we have a new contender for an official definition of the pot calling the kettle black! AGuyFromStrensall
  • Score: -59

11:18am Mon 7 Apr 14

Cheeky face says...

Penalty Charge Notices. com have useful stats. E.G. Half a million PCNs

in London in 2011/2.

Camden collected £5m in 2012 and adjudicator said signs were not compliant.

The signs are wrongly positioned leading to Coppergate and despite several reminders by me to the council my questions are not answered. The questions are common to the critical findings of the adjudicator. In other words they had warnings in their possession ages ago.

Looks like a revenue earner to many councils. London fines are usually £130 a time.

My asking for who Dave Merritt spoke to at DVLC is still not replied to!
Penalty Charge Notices. com have useful stats. E.G. Half a million PCNs in London in 2011/2. Camden collected £5m in 2012 and adjudicator said signs were not compliant. The signs are wrongly positioned leading to Coppergate and despite several reminders by me to the council my questions are not answered. The questions are common to the critical findings of the adjudicator. In other words they had warnings in their possession ages ago. Looks like a revenue earner to many councils. London fines are usually £130 a time. My asking for who Dave Merritt spoke to at DVLC is still not replied to! Cheeky face
  • Score: -52

11:20am Mon 7 Apr 14

Badgers Drift says...

marvell wrote:
As long as Labour remain in power helped ably by Cllr Alexander's puppet Kersten England (who should be independent but it anything but) then Democracy is dead in York.
I do not think JA pulls KE's strings. More like the other way around. It's at least a partnership where they both help, or agree, with each other's agendas.

One thing is for certain, and that is that KE is not politically neutral, not by a million miles. By comparison to KE's hard left-leaning, JA looks more like a conservative than Labour, such is the Chief Executive's radical beliefs.
[quote][p][bold]marvell[/bold] wrote: As long as Labour remain in power helped ably by Cllr Alexander's puppet Kersten England (who should be independent but it anything but) then Democracy is dead in York.[/p][/quote]I do not think JA pulls KE's strings. More like the other way around. It's at least a partnership where they both help, or agree, with each other's agendas. One thing is for certain, and that is that KE is not politically neutral, not by a million miles. By comparison to KE's hard left-leaning, JA looks more like a conservative than Labour, such is the Chief Executive's radical beliefs. Badgers Drift
  • Score: -87

11:31am Mon 7 Apr 14

sihendry says...

and while this farce continues JA continues to tweet bar graphs of how much weight he's lost and declarations of his 'personality type' as identified by some online test.

"Fiddling while Rome burns" springs to mind.
and while this farce continues JA continues to tweet bar graphs of how much weight he's lost and declarations of his 'personality type' as identified by some online test. "Fiddling while Rome burns" springs to mind. sihendry
  • Score: -63

11:46am Mon 7 Apr 14

mutley12321 says...

Hello Darren,

Couple of questions.

You state "Fines will not be issued upon these recordings until further legal process." How long is this process likely to take and how what advice have you received to suggest the legal process will be complete within this time?

Also, the article states "PCNs had not been issued to every private vehicle breaching the restrictions". This seems rather an odd statement to make so late into the process? Who has not been fined, why were they not fined and what documented process did CoYC adopt to decide who was exempt?? Who agreed this process?

Regards,

Mutt.
Hello Darren, Couple of questions. You state "Fines will not be issued upon these recordings until further legal process." How long is this process likely to take and how what advice have you received to suggest the legal process will be complete within this time? Also, the article states "PCNs had not been issued to every private vehicle breaching the restrictions". This seems rather an odd statement to make so late into the process? Who has not been fined, why were they not fined and what documented process did CoYC adopt to decide who was exempt?? Who agreed this process? Regards, Mutt. mutley12321
  • Score: -66

12:07pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Pinza-C55 says...

"COUNCIL chiefs have stopped issuing fines to drivers breaching controversial traffic rules on York’s Lendal Bridge and Coppergate – but are recording the routes in case penalties can be handed out later. "
These people are increasingly sounding crazy.
They have made a conscious decision not to issue fines, but are recording numberplates in case they can issue fines later?
I am no legal expert but I am sure a qualified lawyer could tear this to pieces in court?
"COUNCIL chiefs have stopped issuing fines to drivers breaching controversial traffic rules on York’s Lendal Bridge and Coppergate – but are recording the routes in case penalties can be handed out later. " These people are increasingly sounding crazy. They have made a conscious decision not to issue fines, but are recording numberplates in case they can issue fines later? I am no legal expert but I am sure a qualified lawyer could tear this to pieces in court? Pinza-C55
  • Score: -65

12:12pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Pinza-C55 says...

mutley12321 wrote:
Hello Darren,

Couple of questions.

You state "Fines will not be issued upon these recordings until further legal process." How long is this process likely to take and how what advice have you received to suggest the legal process will be complete within this time?

Also, the article states "PCNs had not been issued to every private vehicle breaching the restrictions". This seems rather an odd statement to make so late into the process? Who has not been fined, why were they not fined and what documented process did CoYC adopt to decide who was exempt?? Who agreed this process?

Regards,

Mutt.
If you read the adjudicator's report the council admitted right at the start of the scheme that they had neither the staff nor the resources to issue PCNs or challenge appeals in court - this was one of the central planks in the adjudicator's findings against them. The PCNs were dealt with in batches and some batches were ignored because of the backlog or workload.
[quote][p][bold]mutley12321[/bold] wrote: Hello Darren, Couple of questions. You state "Fines will not be issued upon these recordings until further legal process." How long is this process likely to take and how what advice have you received to suggest the legal process will be complete within this time? Also, the article states "PCNs had not been issued to every private vehicle breaching the restrictions". This seems rather an odd statement to make so late into the process? Who has not been fined, why were they not fined and what documented process did CoYC adopt to decide who was exempt?? Who agreed this process? Regards, Mutt.[/p][/quote]If you read the adjudicator's report the council admitted right at the start of the scheme that they had neither the staff nor the resources to issue PCNs or challenge appeals in court - this was one of the central planks in the adjudicator's findings against them. The PCNs were dealt with in batches and some batches were ignored because of the backlog or workload. Pinza-C55
  • Score: -79

12:16pm Mon 7 Apr 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Pinza-C55 wrote:
"COUNCIL chiefs have stopped issuing fines to drivers breaching controversial traffic rules on York’s Lendal Bridge and Coppergate – but are recording the routes in case penalties can be handed out later. "
These people are increasingly sounding crazy.
They have made a conscious decision not to issue fines, but are recording numberplates in case they can issue fines later?
I am no legal expert but I am sure a qualified lawyer could tear this to pieces in court?
I think you have a valid point, the law is either being applied or it is not.

When an offence is committed it has to be absolute and not a lottery.

Would be good to get an expert view.
[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: "COUNCIL chiefs have stopped issuing fines to drivers breaching controversial traffic rules on York’s Lendal Bridge and Coppergate – but are recording the routes in case penalties can be handed out later. " These people are increasingly sounding crazy. They have made a conscious decision not to issue fines, but are recording numberplates in case they can issue fines later? I am no legal expert but I am sure a qualified lawyer could tear this to pieces in court?[/p][/quote]I think you have a valid point, the law is either being applied or it is not. When an offence is committed it has to be absolute and not a lottery. Would be good to get an expert view. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -54

12:17pm Mon 7 Apr 14

strangebuttrue? says...

I see our score changer is active at the moment. Keep it busy with negative comments.
I see our score changer is active at the moment. Keep it busy with negative comments. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -103

12:20pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Exlabourmember says...

bolero wrote:
`The Original Homer` says the longer it takes to appeal weakens your case. Does this apply in reverse where the longer it takes to impose the fine makes it less legitimate?
they have to be issued within 28 days of the offence. yet more hair brained ideas from CYC that wont stand up to scrutiny
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: `The Original Homer` says the longer it takes to appeal weakens your case. Does this apply in reverse where the longer it takes to impose the fine makes it less legitimate?[/p][/quote]they have to be issued within 28 days of the offence. yet more hair brained ideas from CYC that wont stand up to scrutiny Exlabourmember
  • Score: -105

12:30pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Hare
Hare Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: -101

12:34pm Mon 7 Apr 14

mutley12321 says...

Pinza-C55 wrote:
mutley12321 wrote:
Hello Darren,

Couple of questions.

You state "Fines will not be issued upon these recordings until further legal process." How long is this process likely to take and how what advice have you received to suggest the legal process will be complete within this time?

Also, the article states "PCNs had not been issued to every private vehicle breaching the restrictions". This seems rather an odd statement to make so late into the process? Who has not been fined, why were they not fined and what documented process did CoYC adopt to decide who was exempt?? Who agreed this process?

Regards,

Mutt.
If you read the adjudicator's report the council admitted right at the start of the scheme that they had neither the staff nor the resources to issue PCNs or challenge appeals in court - this was one of the central planks in the adjudicator's findings against them. The PCNs were dealt with in batches and some batches were ignored because of the backlog or workload.
Afternoon Pinza,

Some batches ignored? Which batches were ignored and who decided to ignore these? Which dates? Why weren't extra staff brought in to?

I'm probably wrong and ask as you're knowledge is better than mine on the Knapp report, but I understood the council had 6 months from the offence being committed for a PCN to be issued? Surely this is more than adequate time to run through the backlog, if as Darren's comment suggests - breaches had “peaked and started to decline”?

Any thoughts?

Regards,

Mutt
[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mutley12321[/bold] wrote: Hello Darren, Couple of questions. You state "Fines will not be issued upon these recordings until further legal process." How long is this process likely to take and how what advice have you received to suggest the legal process will be complete within this time? Also, the article states "PCNs had not been issued to every private vehicle breaching the restrictions". This seems rather an odd statement to make so late into the process? Who has not been fined, why were they not fined and what documented process did CoYC adopt to decide who was exempt?? Who agreed this process? Regards, Mutt.[/p][/quote]If you read the adjudicator's report the council admitted right at the start of the scheme that they had neither the staff nor the resources to issue PCNs or challenge appeals in court - this was one of the central planks in the adjudicator's findings against them. The PCNs were dealt with in batches and some batches were ignored because of the backlog or workload.[/p][/quote]Afternoon Pinza, Some batches ignored? Which batches were ignored and who decided to ignore these? Which dates? Why weren't extra staff brought in to? I'm probably wrong and ask as you're knowledge is better than mine on the Knapp report, but I understood the council had 6 months from the offence being committed for a PCN to be issued? Surely this is more than adequate time to run through the backlog, if as Darren's comment suggests - breaches had “peaked and started to decline”? Any thoughts? Regards, Mutt mutley12321
  • Score: -97

12:37pm Mon 7 Apr 14

strangebuttrue? says...

Hi score changer. You need to revisit my post from earlier as your changes have been wiped out by normal votes.
Makes you wonder who could be that desperate to mislead people. Maybe someone whose job is on the line?
I am so glad to see though that whoever it is still thinks my comments are worth their attention it certainly spurs me on. Thank you so much.
Hi score changer. You need to revisit my post from earlier as your changes have been wiped out by normal votes. Makes you wonder who could be that desperate to mislead people. Maybe someone whose job is on the line? I am so glad to see though that whoever it is still thinks my comments are worth their attention it certainly spurs me on. Thank you so much. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -105

12:41pm Mon 7 Apr 14

jay, york says...

mutley12321 wrote:
Hello Darren, Couple of questions. You state "Fines will not be issued upon these recordings until further legal process." How long is this process likely to take and how what advice have you received to suggest the legal process will be complete within this time? Also, the article states "PCNs had not been issued to every private vehicle breaching the restrictions". This seems rather an odd statement to make so late into the process? Who has not been fined, why were they not fined and what documented process did CoYC adopt to decide who was exempt?? Who agreed this process? Regards, Mutt.
Hello Mutt,
It would suggest that CYC were following what Oxford did, and had already turned the cameras off secretly - something must have happened to make them actually admit to it.
Regards,
Jay
[quote][p][bold]mutley12321[/bold] wrote: Hello Darren, Couple of questions. You state "Fines will not be issued upon these recordings until further legal process." How long is this process likely to take and how what advice have you received to suggest the legal process will be complete within this time? Also, the article states "PCNs had not been issued to every private vehicle breaching the restrictions". This seems rather an odd statement to make so late into the process? Who has not been fined, why were they not fined and what documented process did CoYC adopt to decide who was exempt?? Who agreed this process? Regards, Mutt.[/p][/quote]Hello Mutt, It would suggest that CYC were following what Oxford did, and had already turned the cameras off secretly - something must have happened to make them actually admit to it. Regards, Jay jay, york
  • Score: -92

1:10pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Pinza-C55 says...

mutley12321 wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
mutley12321 wrote:
Hello Darren,

Couple of questions.

You state "Fines will not be issued upon these recordings until further legal process." How long is this process likely to take and how what advice have you received to suggest the legal process will be complete within this time?

Also, the article states "PCNs had not been issued to every private vehicle breaching the restrictions". This seems rather an odd statement to make so late into the process? Who has not been fined, why were they not fined and what documented process did CoYC adopt to decide who was exempt?? Who agreed this process?

Regards,

Mutt.
If you read the adjudicator's report the council admitted right at the start of the scheme that they had neither the staff nor the resources to issue PCNs or challenge appeals in court - this was one of the central planks in the adjudicator's findings against them. The PCNs were dealt with in batches and some batches were ignored because of the backlog or workload.
Afternoon Pinza,

Some batches ignored? Which batches were ignored and who decided to ignore these? Which dates? Why weren't extra staff brought in to?

I'm probably wrong and ask as you're knowledge is better than mine on the Knapp report, but I understood the council had 6 months from the offence being committed for a PCN to be issued? Surely this is more than adequate time to run through the backlog, if as Darren's comment suggests - breaches had “peaked and started to decline”?

Any thoughts?

Regards,

Mutt
Here's the report http://www.yorkpress
.co.uk/resources/fil
es/31754
Key passages
"28. It is stated that:
“The Council operates an ad hoc system whereby appeals to the TPT are
not contested when sufficient resource to deal with them is not available.
This is determined simply on a workload basis and when more TPT cases
require attention than the available staff can deal with a batch of them will
be returned as not contested.
As it was always likely to be the case that more appeals would be received
than could be resourced consideration was given to formal mechanisms to
determine which to contest and which to not contest. It was concluded
that any such mechanism would be arbitrary to some extent and unless
extremely complex, open to accusations of bias or unfairness. Therefore
the system we operate whereby batches of appeals are not contested
randomly based on workload commitments was considered to be the
fairest, most understandable and least corruptible system possible”."
And
"29. However, whatever the practicalities, it is unacceptable that the Council
commenced the bus street scheme in the knowledge that sufficient
resources to deal with challenges and appeals would not be available despitethe statutory obligation to consider each of the representations fairly and
based on the general principles of public law.
30. The process in effect introduces a “lottery” where an important criteria for
deciding whether a penalty charge should be enforced is the level of
available staffing. This inevitably means that a recipient of a PCN who
advances mitigating circumstances or indeed a statutory ground of challenge
may well not have those representations considered properly at the first
stage of the process. A Notice of Rejection would then be issued and the
individual would have to decide whether to pay the penalty charge but
without the knowledge that if an appeal was pursued to the Tribunal there
would be a significant chance that the case would not be contested
depending on the staffing levels available to the Council at the time. This in
my judgement does not represent a fair way of dealing with challenges and
cannot be properly considered as a process which is sufficiently compliant
either with the principles of public law, the duty in the Regulations or the
recommendations set out in Chapter 7 of the Guidance on Bus Lane
Enforcement issued by the Department for Transport in 2008."
This is bad enough. Let's say though that the council do take this to court and it finds in their favour, and they are allowed to issue retrospective PCNs based on the numbers being recorded by the cameras now.
If the court process took 6 months not only would they have a backlog of 6 months PCNs to deal with, it would mean that a motorist who wished to appeal would have to remember exactly what happened 6 months ago! However since the council don't bother to contest appeals it would probably be accepted.
I suppose the best way to ensure the termination of this scheme would be if every single motorist appealed, throwing the appeal system into chaos?
[quote][p][bold]mutley12321[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mutley12321[/bold] wrote: Hello Darren, Couple of questions. You state "Fines will not be issued upon these recordings until further legal process." How long is this process likely to take and how what advice have you received to suggest the legal process will be complete within this time? Also, the article states "PCNs had not been issued to every private vehicle breaching the restrictions". This seems rather an odd statement to make so late into the process? Who has not been fined, why were they not fined and what documented process did CoYC adopt to decide who was exempt?? Who agreed this process? Regards, Mutt.[/p][/quote]If you read the adjudicator's report the council admitted right at the start of the scheme that they had neither the staff nor the resources to issue PCNs or challenge appeals in court - this was one of the central planks in the adjudicator's findings against them. The PCNs were dealt with in batches and some batches were ignored because of the backlog or workload.[/p][/quote]Afternoon Pinza, Some batches ignored? Which batches were ignored and who decided to ignore these? Which dates? Why weren't extra staff brought in to? I'm probably wrong and ask as you're knowledge is better than mine on the Knapp report, but I understood the council had 6 months from the offence being committed for a PCN to be issued? Surely this is more than adequate time to run through the backlog, if as Darren's comment suggests - breaches had “peaked and started to decline”? Any thoughts? Regards, Mutt[/p][/quote]Here's the report http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/resources/fil es/31754 Key passages "28. It is stated that: “The Council operates an ad hoc system whereby appeals to the TPT are not contested when sufficient resource to deal with them is not available. This is determined simply on a workload basis and when more TPT cases require attention than the available staff can deal with a batch of them will be returned as not contested. As it was always likely to be the case that more appeals would be received than could be resourced consideration was given to formal mechanisms to determine which to contest and which to not contest. It was concluded that any such mechanism would be arbitrary to some extent and unless extremely complex, open to accusations of bias or unfairness. Therefore the system we operate whereby batches of appeals are not contested randomly based on workload commitments was considered to be the fairest, most understandable and least corruptible system possible”." And "29. However, whatever the practicalities, it is unacceptable that the Council commenced the bus street scheme in the knowledge that sufficient resources to deal with challenges and appeals would not be available despitethe statutory obligation to consider each of the representations fairly and based on the general principles of public law. 30. The process in effect introduces a “lottery” where an important criteria for deciding whether a penalty charge should be enforced is the level of available staffing. This inevitably means that a recipient of a PCN who advances mitigating circumstances or indeed a statutory ground of challenge may well not have those representations considered properly at the first stage of the process. A Notice of Rejection would then be issued and the individual would have to decide whether to pay the penalty charge but without the knowledge that if an appeal was pursued to the Tribunal there would be a significant chance that the case would not be contested depending on the staffing levels available to the Council at the time. This in my judgement does not represent a fair way of dealing with challenges and cannot be properly considered as a process which is sufficiently compliant either with the principles of public law, the duty in the Regulations or the recommendations set out in Chapter 7 of the Guidance on Bus Lane Enforcement issued by the Department for Transport in 2008." This is bad enough. Let's say though that the council do take this to court and it finds in their favour, and they are allowed to issue retrospective PCNs based on the numbers being recorded by the cameras now. If the court process took 6 months not only would they have a backlog of 6 months PCNs to deal with, it would mean that a motorist who wished to appeal would have to remember exactly what happened 6 months ago! However since the council don't bother to contest appeals it would probably be accepted. I suppose the best way to ensure the termination of this scheme would be if every single motorist appealed, throwing the appeal system into chaos? Pinza-C55
  • Score: -82

1:30pm Mon 7 Apr 14

cynic3 says...

Happytoliveinyork wrote:
I've never been to a council meeting - but Alexander & co are now beyond a joke. Anyone else been to one, do you have to apply?
As far as I know you can just turn up on the day. The meetings are public. However, you have to register in advance to speak, in which case you get three minutes, unless Tracey decides she does not agree with what you are saying, in which case you get cut short and then personally attacked later in the meeting.
[quote][p][bold]Happytoliveinyork[/bold] wrote: I've never been to a council meeting - but Alexander & co are now beyond a joke. Anyone else been to one, do you have to apply?[/p][/quote]As far as I know you can just turn up on the day. The meetings are public. However, you have to register in advance to speak, in which case you get three minutes, unless Tracey decides she does not agree with what you are saying, in which case you get cut short and then personally attacked later in the meeting. cynic3
  • Score: -81

1:32pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Pinza-C55 says...

These are the regulations for issuing PCNs but I have to admit it is very confusing! It is either 28 days or 6 months? More likely 6 months.

http://www.legislati
on.gov.uk/uksi/2005/
2757/regulation/8/ma
de
"Penalty charge notices

8. (1) Where an approved local authority have reason to believe that a penalty charge is payable under Part 2 with respect to a vehicle, they may, in accordance with paragraphs (2) and (5) below, serve a notice (“penalty charge notice”) on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle or on the person appearing to them to be the person liable to pay the charge.

(2) Subject to paragraph (3), a penalty charge notice shall be served before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the detection date.

(3) Where—

(a)within 14 days of the detection date an approved local authority have made a request to the Secretary of State for the supply of relevant particulars; and.

(b)those particulars have not been supplied before the date after which the authority would not be entitled to serve a penalty charge notice by virtue of paragraph (2),.

the authority shall continue to be entitled to serve a penalty charge notice for a further period of six months beginning with the date mentioned in sub-paragraph (b).
These are the regulations for issuing PCNs but I have to admit it is very confusing! It is either 28 days or 6 months? More likely 6 months. http://www.legislati on.gov.uk/uksi/2005/ 2757/regulation/8/ma de "Penalty charge notices 8. (1) Where an approved local authority have reason to believe that a penalty charge is payable under Part 2 with respect to a vehicle, they may, in accordance with paragraphs (2) and (5) below, serve a notice (“penalty charge notice”) on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle or on the person appearing to them to be the person liable to pay the charge. (2) Subject to paragraph (3), a penalty charge notice shall be served before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the detection date. (3) Where— (a)within 14 days of the detection date an approved local authority have made a request to the Secretary of State for the supply of relevant particulars; and. (b)those particulars have not been supplied before the date after which the authority would not be entitled to serve a penalty charge notice by virtue of paragraph (2),. the authority shall continue to be entitled to serve a penalty charge notice for a further period of six months beginning with the date mentioned in sub-paragraph (b). Pinza-C55
  • Score: -84

1:37pm Mon 7 Apr 14

the equalizer squad says...

strangebuttrue? wrote:
Hi score changer. You need to revisit my post from earlier as your changes have been wiped out by normal votes. Makes you wonder who could be that desperate to mislead people. Maybe someone whose job is on the line? I am so glad to see though that whoever it is still thinks my comments are worth their attention it certainly spurs me on. Thank you so much.
No problem.
[quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: Hi score changer. You need to revisit my post from earlier as your changes have been wiped out by normal votes. Makes you wonder who could be that desperate to mislead people. Maybe someone whose job is on the line? I am so glad to see though that whoever it is still thinks my comments are worth their attention it certainly spurs me on. Thank you so much.[/p][/quote]No problem. the equalizer squad
  • Score: -84

1:37pm Mon 7 Apr 14

AnotherPointofView says...

Pinza-C55 wrote:
These are the regulations for issuing PCNs but I have to admit it is very confusing! It is either 28 days or 6 months? More likely 6 months.

http://www.legislati

on.gov.uk/uksi/2005/

2757/regulation/8/ma

de
"Penalty charge notices

8. (1) Where an approved local authority have reason to believe that a penalty charge is payable under Part 2 with respect to a vehicle, they may, in accordance with paragraphs (2) and (5) below, serve a notice (“penalty charge notice”) on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle or on the person appearing to them to be the person liable to pay the charge.

(2) Subject to paragraph (3), a penalty charge notice shall be served before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the detection date.

(3) Where—

(a)within 14 days of the detection date an approved local authority have made a request to the Secretary of State for the supply of relevant particulars; and.

(b)those particulars have not been supplied before the date after which the authority would not be entitled to serve a penalty charge notice by virtue of paragraph (2),.

the authority shall continue to be entitled to serve a penalty charge notice for a further period of six months beginning with the date mentioned in sub-paragraph (b).
I thought it was six months, which is a ridiculous length of time. Can you remember what you where doing six months ago?

Compare that to the police who have fourteen days to issue a speeding ticket.

It has just become a farce now. The council should just get rid of the closure NOW.
[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: These are the regulations for issuing PCNs but I have to admit it is very confusing! It is either 28 days or 6 months? More likely 6 months. http://www.legislati on.gov.uk/uksi/2005/ 2757/regulation/8/ma de "Penalty charge notices 8. (1) Where an approved local authority have reason to believe that a penalty charge is payable under Part 2 with respect to a vehicle, they may, in accordance with paragraphs (2) and (5) below, serve a notice (“penalty charge notice”) on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle or on the person appearing to them to be the person liable to pay the charge. (2) Subject to paragraph (3), a penalty charge notice shall be served before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the detection date. (3) Where— (a)within 14 days of the detection date an approved local authority have made a request to the Secretary of State for the supply of relevant particulars; and. (b)those particulars have not been supplied before the date after which the authority would not be entitled to serve a penalty charge notice by virtue of paragraph (2),. the authority shall continue to be entitled to serve a penalty charge notice for a further period of six months beginning with the date mentioned in sub-paragraph (b).[/p][/quote]I thought it was six months, which is a ridiculous length of time. Can you remember what you where doing six months ago? Compare that to the police who have fourteen days to issue a speeding ticket. It has just become a farce now. The council should just get rid of the closure NOW. AnotherPointofView
  • Score: -75

1:41pm Mon 7 Apr 14

the original Homer says...

Pinza-C55 wrote:
mutley12321 wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
mutley12321 wrote:
Hello Darren,

Couple of questions.

You state "Fines will not be issued upon these recordings until further legal process." How long is this process likely to take and how what advice have you received to suggest the legal process will be complete within this time?

Also, the article states "PCNs had not been issued to every private vehicle breaching the restrictions". This seems rather an odd statement to make so late into the process? Who has not been fined, why were they not fined and what documented process did CoYC adopt to decide who was exempt?? Who agreed this process?

Regards,

Mutt.
If you read the adjudicator's report the council admitted right at the start of the scheme that they had neither the staff nor the resources to issue PCNs or challenge appeals in court - this was one of the central planks in the adjudicator's findings against them. The PCNs were dealt with in batches and some batches were ignored because of the backlog or workload.
Afternoon Pinza,

Some batches ignored? Which batches were ignored and who decided to ignore these? Which dates? Why weren't extra staff brought in to?

I'm probably wrong and ask as you're knowledge is better than mine on the Knapp report, but I understood the council had 6 months from the offence being committed for a PCN to be issued? Surely this is more than adequate time to run through the backlog, if as Darren's comment suggests - breaches had “peaked and started to decline”?

Any thoughts?

Regards,

Mutt
Here's the report http://www.yorkpress

.co.uk/resources/fil

es/31754
Key passages
"28. It is stated that:
“The Council operates an ad hoc system whereby appeals to the TPT are
not contested when sufficient resource to deal with them is not available.
This is determined simply on a workload basis and when more TPT cases
require attention than the available staff can deal with a batch of them will
be returned as not contested.
As it was always likely to be the case that more appeals would be received
than could be resourced consideration was given to formal mechanisms to
determine which to contest and which to not contest. It was concluded
that any such mechanism would be arbitrary to some extent and unless
extremely complex, open to accusations of bias or unfairness. Therefore
the system we operate whereby batches of appeals are not contested
randomly based on workload commitments was considered to be the
fairest, most understandable and least corruptible system possible”."
And
"29. However, whatever the practicalities, it is unacceptable that the Council
commenced the bus street scheme in the knowledge that sufficient
resources to deal with challenges and appeals would not be available despitethe statutory obligation to consider each of the representations fairly and
based on the general principles of public law.
30. The process in effect introduces a “lottery” where an important criteria for
deciding whether a penalty charge should be enforced is the level of
available staffing. This inevitably means that a recipient of a PCN who
advances mitigating circumstances or indeed a statutory ground of challenge
may well not have those representations considered properly at the first
stage of the process. A Notice of Rejection would then be issued and the
individual would have to decide whether to pay the penalty charge but
without the knowledge that if an appeal was pursued to the Tribunal there
would be a significant chance that the case would not be contested
depending on the staffing levels available to the Council at the time. This in
my judgement does not represent a fair way of dealing with challenges and
cannot be properly considered as a process which is sufficiently compliant
either with the principles of public law, the duty in the Regulations or the
recommendations set out in Chapter 7 of the Guidance on Bus Lane
Enforcement issued by the Department for Transport in 2008."
This is bad enough. Let's say though that the council do take this to court and it finds in their favour, and they are allowed to issue retrospective PCNs based on the numbers being recorded by the cameras now.
If the court process took 6 months not only would they have a backlog of 6 months PCNs to deal with, it would mean that a motorist who wished to appeal would have to remember exactly what happened 6 months ago! However since the council don't bother to contest appeals it would probably be accepted.
I suppose the best way to ensure the termination of this scheme would be if every single motorist appealed, throwing the appeal system into chaos?
A good reason to suspend issuing fines but leave the cameras on would have been that they could gain useful data on how many and what type of vehicle use the bridge now, compared with when fines were being issued. That could be used to set future policy.

However, I'm not naive enough to think our Council have either the capability to process that information, or the foresight to make the decision to collect it.

I also don't believe that there is any threat of fines being issued retrospectively, using the camera data being collected now. I think the cameras have been left on in the hope that some drivers will believe they might be fined, and will therefore continue to avoid the bridge.

For those who have already paid fines, I suspect they will ultimately get a refund, but it could be years away.

For anyone who has received a fine and not paid it, I would suggest they appeal. Alternatively, they could just ignore it, but that would be gambling on whether or not the Council tries to take it further.

For myself, I'm now treating the restrictions as being temporarily suspended. I appreciate that the scheme itself hasn't been found unlawful, and that a Policeman could issue me with a fine, so I'll keep an eye out for one.

To my mind, the restrictions are toothless while ever the Council is fighting the "bus lane or not" cause. When they give up, or lose (I can't see them winning) then they might decide to operate the scheme differently, and I might have to start obeying.

I suspect there will be many more like me, so if this Council does believe
that the restrictions make sense then the sensible course of action would be to do something straight away. The easiest way would be to convert the restrictions to those that do qualify as bus lanes. They really ought to improve the signs as well, because the adjudicator did point out a lot of weaknesses. He said they were adequate from February, but his report read as if he was saying they were "just about OK, but no better".

I'm not against reducing inner city traffic, just against the stupid disjointed way it was attempted.

Finally though, I'd re-open Lendal fully, and restrict Ouse Bridge instead.
[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mutley12321[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mutley12321[/bold] wrote: Hello Darren, Couple of questions. You state "Fines will not be issued upon these recordings until further legal process." How long is this process likely to take and how what advice have you received to suggest the legal process will be complete within this time? Also, the article states "PCNs had not been issued to every private vehicle breaching the restrictions". This seems rather an odd statement to make so late into the process? Who has not been fined, why were they not fined and what documented process did CoYC adopt to decide who was exempt?? Who agreed this process? Regards, Mutt.[/p][/quote]If you read the adjudicator's report the council admitted right at the start of the scheme that they had neither the staff nor the resources to issue PCNs or challenge appeals in court - this was one of the central planks in the adjudicator's findings against them. The PCNs were dealt with in batches and some batches were ignored because of the backlog or workload.[/p][/quote]Afternoon Pinza, Some batches ignored? Which batches were ignored and who decided to ignore these? Which dates? Why weren't extra staff brought in to? I'm probably wrong and ask as you're knowledge is better than mine on the Knapp report, but I understood the council had 6 months from the offence being committed for a PCN to be issued? Surely this is more than adequate time to run through the backlog, if as Darren's comment suggests - breaches had “peaked and started to decline”? Any thoughts? Regards, Mutt[/p][/quote]Here's the report http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/resources/fil es/31754 Key passages "28. It is stated that: “The Council operates an ad hoc system whereby appeals to the TPT are not contested when sufficient resource to deal with them is not available. This is determined simply on a workload basis and when more TPT cases require attention than the available staff can deal with a batch of them will be returned as not contested. As it was always likely to be the case that more appeals would be received than could be resourced consideration was given to formal mechanisms to determine which to contest and which to not contest. It was concluded that any such mechanism would be arbitrary to some extent and unless extremely complex, open to accusations of bias or unfairness. Therefore the system we operate whereby batches of appeals are not contested randomly based on workload commitments was considered to be the fairest, most understandable and least corruptible system possible”." And "29. However, whatever the practicalities, it is unacceptable that the Council commenced the bus street scheme in the knowledge that sufficient resources to deal with challenges and appeals would not be available despitethe statutory obligation to consider each of the representations fairly and based on the general principles of public law. 30. The process in effect introduces a “lottery” where an important criteria for deciding whether a penalty charge should be enforced is the level of available staffing. This inevitably means that a recipient of a PCN who advances mitigating circumstances or indeed a statutory ground of challenge may well not have those representations considered properly at the first stage of the process. A Notice of Rejection would then be issued and the individual would have to decide whether to pay the penalty charge but without the knowledge that if an appeal was pursued to the Tribunal there would be a significant chance that the case would not be contested depending on the staffing levels available to the Council at the time. This in my judgement does not represent a fair way of dealing with challenges and cannot be properly considered as a process which is sufficiently compliant either with the principles of public law, the duty in the Regulations or the recommendations set out in Chapter 7 of the Guidance on Bus Lane Enforcement issued by the Department for Transport in 2008." This is bad enough. Let's say though that the council do take this to court and it finds in their favour, and they are allowed to issue retrospective PCNs based on the numbers being recorded by the cameras now. If the court process took 6 months not only would they have a backlog of 6 months PCNs to deal with, it would mean that a motorist who wished to appeal would have to remember exactly what happened 6 months ago! However since the council don't bother to contest appeals it would probably be accepted. I suppose the best way to ensure the termination of this scheme would be if every single motorist appealed, throwing the appeal system into chaos?[/p][/quote]A good reason to suspend issuing fines but leave the cameras on would have been that they could gain useful data on how many and what type of vehicle use the bridge now, compared with when fines were being issued. That could be used to set future policy. However, I'm not naive enough to think our Council have either the capability to process that information, or the foresight to make the decision to collect it. I also don't believe that there is any threat of fines being issued retrospectively, using the camera data being collected now. I think the cameras have been left on in the hope that some drivers will believe they might be fined, and will therefore continue to avoid the bridge. For those who have already paid fines, I suspect they will ultimately get a refund, but it could be years away. For anyone who has received a fine and not paid it, I would suggest they appeal. Alternatively, they could just ignore it, but that would be gambling on whether or not the Council tries to take it further. For myself, I'm now treating the restrictions as being temporarily suspended. I appreciate that the scheme itself hasn't been found unlawful, and that a Policeman could issue me with a fine, so I'll keep an eye out for one. To my mind, the restrictions are toothless while ever the Council is fighting the "bus lane or not" cause. When they give up, or lose (I can't see them winning) then they might decide to operate the scheme differently, and I might have to start obeying. I suspect there will be many more like me, so if this Council does believe that the restrictions make sense then the sensible course of action would be to do something straight away. The easiest way would be to convert the restrictions to those that do qualify as bus lanes. They really ought to improve the signs as well, because the adjudicator did point out a lot of weaknesses. He said they were adequate from February, but his report read as if he was saying they were "just about OK, but no better". I'm not against reducing inner city traffic, just against the stupid disjointed way it was attempted. Finally though, I'd re-open Lendal fully, and restrict Ouse Bridge instead. the original Homer
  • Score: -62

1:44pm Mon 7 Apr 14

cynic3 says...

I am not a number, I an a resident of York

"...... after trial data collection was completed, enforcement levels were reviewed and reduced, meaning since the experiment ended on February 27, PCNs had not been issued to every private vehicle breaching the restrictions."

Fair enough I suppose, CYC cannot be forced to issue PCNs for every offence. I hope they remember this when that little camera car is on its travels. What I cannot understand is if CYC had all this unexpected money coming in which they considered legal, why could they not employ some sensible temporary staff to run the procedure correctly.

"In an email to Lib Dem leader Coun Keith Aspden, council chief executive Kersten England said the legal advice could not be made public as it “will be used for the internal appeal process with the adjudicator”."

The legal advice will be used in the appeal process and which stage the arguments will be divulged. Of course the advice can be made public now. What Kersten means is she does not want to make it public now.
I am not a number, I an a resident of York "...... after trial data collection was completed, enforcement levels were reviewed and reduced, meaning since the experiment ended on February 27, PCNs had not been issued to every private vehicle breaching the restrictions." Fair enough I suppose, CYC cannot be forced to issue PCNs for every offence. I hope they remember this when that little camera car is on its travels. What I cannot understand is if CYC had all this unexpected money coming in which they considered legal, why could they not employ some sensible temporary staff to run the procedure correctly. "In an email to Lib Dem leader Coun Keith Aspden, council chief executive Kersten England said the legal advice could not be made public as it “will be used for the internal appeal process with the adjudicator”." The legal advice will be used in the appeal process and which stage the arguments will be divulged. Of course the advice can be made public now. What Kersten means is she does not want to make it public now. cynic3
  • Score: -70

1:48pm Mon 7 Apr 14

AnotherPointofView says...

the original Homer wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
mutley12321 wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
mutley12321 wrote:
Hello Darren,

Couple of questions.

You state "Fines will not be issued upon these recordings until further legal process." How long is this process likely to take and how what advice have you received to suggest the legal process will be complete within this time?

Also, the article states "PCNs had not been issued to every private vehicle breaching the restrictions". This seems rather an odd statement to make so late into the process? Who has not been fined, why were they not fined and what documented process did CoYC adopt to decide who was exempt?? Who agreed this process?

Regards,

Mutt.
If you read the adjudicator's report the council admitted right at the start of the scheme that they had neither the staff nor the resources to issue PCNs or challenge appeals in court - this was one of the central planks in the adjudicator's findings against them. The PCNs were dealt with in batches and some batches were ignored because of the backlog or workload.
Afternoon Pinza,

Some batches ignored? Which batches were ignored and who decided to ignore these? Which dates? Why weren't extra staff brought in to?

I'm probably wrong and ask as you're knowledge is better than mine on the Knapp report, but I understood the council had 6 months from the offence being committed for a PCN to be issued? Surely this is more than adequate time to run through the backlog, if as Darren's comment suggests - breaches had “peaked and started to decline”?

Any thoughts?

Regards,

Mutt
Here's the report http://www.yorkpress


.co.uk/resources/fil


es/31754
Key passages
"28. It is stated that:
“The Council operates an ad hoc system whereby appeals to the TPT are
not contested when sufficient resource to deal with them is not available.
This is determined simply on a workload basis and when more TPT cases
require attention than the available staff can deal with a batch of them will
be returned as not contested.
As it was always likely to be the case that more appeals would be received
than could be resourced consideration was given to formal mechanisms to
determine which to contest and which to not contest. It was concluded
that any such mechanism would be arbitrary to some extent and unless
extremely complex, open to accusations of bias or unfairness. Therefore
the system we operate whereby batches of appeals are not contested
randomly based on workload commitments was considered to be the
fairest, most understandable and least corruptible system possible”."
And
"29. However, whatever the practicalities, it is unacceptable that the Council

commenced the bus street scheme in the knowledge that sufficient
resources to deal with challenges and appeals would not be available despitethe statutory obligation to consider each of the representations fairly and
based on the general principles of public law.
30. The process in effect introduces a “lottery” where an important criteria for
deciding whether a penalty charge should be enforced is the level of
available staffing. This inevitably means that a recipient of a PCN who
advances mitigating circumstances or indeed a statutory ground of challenge
may well not have those representations considered properly at the first
stage of the process. A Notice of Rejection would then be issued and the
individual would have to decide whether to pay the penalty charge but
without the knowledge that if an appeal was pursued to the Tribunal there
would be a significant chance that the case would not be contested
depending on the staffing levels available to the Council at the time. This in
my judgement does not represent a fair way of dealing with challenges and
cannot be properly considered as a process which is sufficiently compliant
either with the principles of public law, the duty in the Regulations or the
recommendations set out in Chapter 7 of the Guidance on Bus Lane
Enforcement issued by the Department for Transport in 2008."
This is bad enough. Let's say though that the council do take this to court and it finds in their favour, and they are allowed to issue retrospective PCNs based on the numbers being recorded by the cameras now.
If the court process took 6 months not only would they have a backlog of 6 months PCNs to deal with, it would mean that a motorist who wished to appeal would have to remember exactly what happened 6 months ago! However since the council don't bother to contest appeals it would probably be accepted.
I suppose the best way to ensure the termination of this scheme would be if every single motorist appealed, throwing the appeal system into chaos?
A good reason to suspend issuing fines but leave the cameras on would have been that they could gain useful data on how many and what type of vehicle use the bridge now, compared with when fines were being issued. That could be used to set future policy.

However, I'm not naive enough to think our Council have either the capability to process that information, or the foresight to make the decision to collect it.

I also don't believe that there is any threat of fines being issued retrospectively, using the camera data being collected now. I think the cameras have been left on in the hope that some drivers will believe they might be fined, and will therefore continue to avoid the bridge.

For those who have already paid fines, I suspect they will ultimately get a refund, but it could be years away.

For anyone who has received a fine and not paid it, I would suggest they appeal. Alternatively, they could just ignore it, but that would be gambling on whether or not the Council tries to take it further.

For myself, I'm now treating the restrictions as being temporarily suspended. I appreciate that the scheme itself hasn't been found unlawful, and that a Policeman could issue me with a fine, so I'll keep an eye out for one.

To my mind, the restrictions are toothless while ever the Council is fighting the "bus lane or not" cause. When they give up, or lose (I can't see them winning) then they might decide to operate the scheme differently, and I might have to start obeying.

I suspect there will be many more like me, so if this Council does believe
that the restrictions make sense then the sensible course of action would be to do something straight away. The easiest way would be to convert the restrictions to those that do qualify as bus lanes. They really ought to improve the signs as well, because the adjudicator did point out a lot of weaknesses. He said they were adequate from February, but his report read as if he was saying they were "just about OK, but no better".

I'm not against reducing inner city traffic, just against the stupid disjointed way it was attempted.

Finally though, I'd re-open Lendal fully, and restrict Ouse Bridge instead.
Agreed Original Homer. Except that for all road bridges were built for a reason. I think that Lendal should re-open and Ouse remain as is.
[quote][p][bold]the original Homer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mutley12321[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mutley12321[/bold] wrote: Hello Darren, Couple of questions. You state "Fines will not be issued upon these recordings until further legal process." How long is this process likely to take and how what advice have you received to suggest the legal process will be complete within this time? Also, the article states "PCNs had not been issued to every private vehicle breaching the restrictions". This seems rather an odd statement to make so late into the process? Who has not been fined, why were they not fined and what documented process did CoYC adopt to decide who was exempt?? Who agreed this process? Regards, Mutt.[/p][/quote]If you read the adjudicator's report the council admitted right at the start of the scheme that they had neither the staff nor the resources to issue PCNs or challenge appeals in court - this was one of the central planks in the adjudicator's findings against them. The PCNs were dealt with in batches and some batches were ignored because of the backlog or workload.[/p][/quote]Afternoon Pinza, Some batches ignored? Which batches were ignored and who decided to ignore these? Which dates? Why weren't extra staff brought in to? I'm probably wrong and ask as you're knowledge is better than mine on the Knapp report, but I understood the council had 6 months from the offence being committed for a PCN to be issued? Surely this is more than adequate time to run through the backlog, if as Darren's comment suggests - breaches had “peaked and started to decline”? Any thoughts? Regards, Mutt[/p][/quote]Here's the report http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/resources/fil es/31754 Key passages "28. It is stated that: “The Council operates an ad hoc system whereby appeals to the TPT are not contested when sufficient resource to deal with them is not available. This is determined simply on a workload basis and when more TPT cases require attention than the available staff can deal with a batch of them will be returned as not contested. As it was always likely to be the case that more appeals would be received than could be resourced consideration was given to formal mechanisms to determine which to contest and which to not contest. It was concluded that any such mechanism would be arbitrary to some extent and unless extremely complex, open to accusations of bias or unfairness. Therefore the system we operate whereby batches of appeals are not contested randomly based on workload commitments was considered to be the fairest, most understandable and least corruptible system possible”." And "29. However, whatever the practicalities, it is unacceptable that the Council commenced the bus street scheme in the knowledge that sufficient resources to deal with challenges and appeals would not be available despitethe statutory obligation to consider each of the representations fairly and based on the general principles of public law. 30. The process in effect introduces a “lottery” where an important criteria for deciding whether a penalty charge should be enforced is the level of available staffing. This inevitably means that a recipient of a PCN who advances mitigating circumstances or indeed a statutory ground of challenge may well not have those representations considered properly at the first stage of the process. A Notice of Rejection would then be issued and the individual would have to decide whether to pay the penalty charge but without the knowledge that if an appeal was pursued to the Tribunal there would be a significant chance that the case would not be contested depending on the staffing levels available to the Council at the time. This in my judgement does not represent a fair way of dealing with challenges and cannot be properly considered as a process which is sufficiently compliant either with the principles of public law, the duty in the Regulations or the recommendations set out in Chapter 7 of the Guidance on Bus Lane Enforcement issued by the Department for Transport in 2008." This is bad enough. Let's say though that the council do take this to court and it finds in their favour, and they are allowed to issue retrospective PCNs based on the numbers being recorded by the cameras now. If the court process took 6 months not only would they have a backlog of 6 months PCNs to deal with, it would mean that a motorist who wished to appeal would have to remember exactly what happened 6 months ago! However since the council don't bother to contest appeals it would probably be accepted. I suppose the best way to ensure the termination of this scheme would be if every single motorist appealed, throwing the appeal system into chaos?[/p][/quote]A good reason to suspend issuing fines but leave the cameras on would have been that they could gain useful data on how many and what type of vehicle use the bridge now, compared with when fines were being issued. That could be used to set future policy. However, I'm not naive enough to think our Council have either the capability to process that information, or the foresight to make the decision to collect it. I also don't believe that there is any threat of fines being issued retrospectively, using the camera data being collected now. I think the cameras have been left on in the hope that some drivers will believe they might be fined, and will therefore continue to avoid the bridge. For those who have already paid fines, I suspect they will ultimately get a refund, but it could be years away. For anyone who has received a fine and not paid it, I would suggest they appeal. Alternatively, they could just ignore it, but that would be gambling on whether or not the Council tries to take it further. For myself, I'm now treating the restrictions as being temporarily suspended. I appreciate that the scheme itself hasn't been found unlawful, and that a Policeman could issue me with a fine, so I'll keep an eye out for one. To my mind, the restrictions are toothless while ever the Council is fighting the "bus lane or not" cause. When they give up, or lose (I can't see them winning) then they might decide to operate the scheme differently, and I might have to start obeying. I suspect there will be many more like me, so if this Council does believe that the restrictions make sense then the sensible course of action would be to do something straight away. The easiest way would be to convert the restrictions to those that do qualify as bus lanes. They really ought to improve the signs as well, because the adjudicator did point out a lot of weaknesses. He said they were adequate from February, but his report read as if he was saying they were "just about OK, but no better". I'm not against reducing inner city traffic, just against the stupid disjointed way it was attempted. Finally though, I'd re-open Lendal fully, and restrict Ouse Bridge instead.[/p][/quote]Agreed Original Homer. Except that for all road bridges were built for a reason. I think that Lendal should re-open and Ouse remain as is. AnotherPointofView
  • Score: -63

1:49pm Mon 7 Apr 14

the original Homer says...

AnotherPointofView wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
These are the regulations for issuing PCNs but I have to admit it is very confusing! It is either 28 days or 6 months? More likely 6 months.

http://www.legislati


on.gov.uk/uksi/2005/


2757/regulation/8/ma


de
"Penalty charge notices

8. (1) Where an approved local authority have reason to believe that a penalty charge is payable under Part 2 with respect to a vehicle, they may, in accordance with paragraphs (2) and (5) below, serve a notice (“penalty charge notice”) on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle or on the person appearing to them to be the person liable to pay the charge.

(2) Subject to paragraph (3), a penalty charge notice shall be served before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the detection date.

(3) Where—

(a)within 14 days of the detection date an approved local authority have made a request to the Secretary of State for the supply of relevant particulars; and.

(b)those particulars have not been supplied before the date after which the authority would not be entitled to serve a penalty charge notice by virtue of paragraph (2),.

the authority shall continue to be entitled to serve a penalty charge notice for a further period of six months beginning with the date mentioned in sub-paragraph (b).
I thought it was six months, which is a ridiculous length of time. Can you remember what you where doing six months ago?

Compare that to the police who have fourteen days to issue a speeding ticket.

It has just become a farce now. The council should just get rid of the closure NOW.
That says it's 28 days.
The six months is to cover them if the delay is with DVLC providing ownership details.
The Council can only use the 6 months clause if they asked DVLC within 14 days of the offence, and were late being given details.

If the Council don't ask DVLC within 14 days, they can't use the 6 month clause.

They also can't ask DVLC and then put the fines on hold, because the 6 months only applies if the delay is with DVLC.

My opinion is that there will be no more fines issued for the period between the adjudicator's report and such time as the Council alter the way they run the scheme.
[quote][p][bold]AnotherPointofView[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: These are the regulations for issuing PCNs but I have to admit it is very confusing! It is either 28 days or 6 months? More likely 6 months. http://www.legislati on.gov.uk/uksi/2005/ 2757/regulation/8/ma de "Penalty charge notices 8. (1) Where an approved local authority have reason to believe that a penalty charge is payable under Part 2 with respect to a vehicle, they may, in accordance with paragraphs (2) and (5) below, serve a notice (“penalty charge notice”) on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle or on the person appearing to them to be the person liable to pay the charge. (2) Subject to paragraph (3), a penalty charge notice shall be served before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the detection date. (3) Where— (a)within 14 days of the detection date an approved local authority have made a request to the Secretary of State for the supply of relevant particulars; and. (b)those particulars have not been supplied before the date after which the authority would not be entitled to serve a penalty charge notice by virtue of paragraph (2),. the authority shall continue to be entitled to serve a penalty charge notice for a further period of six months beginning with the date mentioned in sub-paragraph (b).[/p][/quote]I thought it was six months, which is a ridiculous length of time. Can you remember what you where doing six months ago? Compare that to the police who have fourteen days to issue a speeding ticket. It has just become a farce now. The council should just get rid of the closure NOW.[/p][/quote]That says it's 28 days. The six months is to cover them if the delay is with DVLC providing ownership details. The Council can only use the 6 months clause if they asked DVLC within 14 days of the offence, and were late being given details. If the Council don't ask DVLC within 14 days, they can't use the 6 month clause. They also can't ask DVLC and then put the fines on hold, because the 6 months only applies if the delay is with DVLC. My opinion is that there will be no more fines issued for the period between the adjudicator's report and such time as the Council alter the way they run the scheme. the original Homer
  • Score: -58

1:49pm Mon 7 Apr 14

cynic3 says...

the original Homer wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
mutley12321 wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
mutley12321 wrote:
Hello Darren,

Couple of questions.

You state "Fines will not be issued upon these recordings until further legal process." How long is this process likely to take and how what advice have you received to suggest the legal process will be complete within this time?

Also, the article states "PCNs had not been issued to every private vehicle breaching the restrictions". This seems rather an odd statement to make so late into the process? Who has not been fined, why were they not fined and what documented process did CoYC adopt to decide who was exempt?? Who agreed this process?

Regards,

Mutt.
If you read the adjudicator's report the council admitted right at the start of the scheme that they had neither the staff nor the resources to issue PCNs or challenge appeals in court - this was one of the central planks in the adjudicator's findings against them. The PCNs were dealt with in batches and some batches were ignored because of the backlog or workload.
Afternoon Pinza,

Some batches ignored? Which batches were ignored and who decided to ignore these? Which dates? Why weren't extra staff brought in to?

I'm probably wrong and ask as you're knowledge is better than mine on the Knapp report, but I understood the council had 6 months from the offence being committed for a PCN to be issued? Surely this is more than adequate time to run through the backlog, if as Darren's comment suggests - breaches had “peaked and started to decline”?

Any thoughts?

Regards,

Mutt
Here's the report http://www.yorkpress


.co.uk/resources/fil


es/31754
Key passages
"28. It is stated that:
“The Council operates an ad hoc system whereby appeals to the TPT are
not contested when sufficient resource to deal with them is not available.
This is determined simply on a workload basis and when more TPT cases
require attention than the available staff can deal with a batch of them will
be returned as not contested.
As it was always likely to be the case that more appeals would be received
than could be resourced consideration was given to formal mechanisms to
determine which to contest and which to not contest. It was concluded
that any such mechanism would be arbitrary to some extent and unless
extremely complex, open to accusations of bias or unfairness. Therefore
the system we operate whereby batches of appeals are not contested
randomly based on workload commitments was considered to be the
fairest, most understandable and least corruptible system possible”."
And
"29. However, whatever the practicalities, it is unacceptable that the Council
commenced the bus street scheme in the knowledge that sufficient
resources to deal with challenges and appeals would not be available despitethe statutory obligation to consider each of the representations fairly and
based on the general principles of public law.
30. The process in effect introduces a “lottery” where an important criteria for
deciding whether a penalty charge should be enforced is the level of
available staffing. This inevitably means that a recipient of a PCN who
advances mitigating circumstances or indeed a statutory ground of challenge
may well not have those representations considered properly at the first
stage of the process. A Notice of Rejection would then be issued and the
individual would have to decide whether to pay the penalty charge but
without the knowledge that if an appeal was pursued to the Tribunal there
would be a significant chance that the case would not be contested
depending on the staffing levels available to the Council at the time. This in
my judgement does not represent a fair way of dealing with challenges and
cannot be properly considered as a process which is sufficiently compliant
either with the principles of public law, the duty in the Regulations or the
recommendations set out in Chapter 7 of the Guidance on Bus Lane
Enforcement issued by the Department for Transport in 2008."
This is bad enough. Let's say though that the council do take this to court and it finds in their favour, and they are allowed to issue retrospective PCNs based on the numbers being recorded by the cameras now.
If the court process took 6 months not only would they have a backlog of 6 months PCNs to deal with, it would mean that a motorist who wished to appeal would have to remember exactly what happened 6 months ago! However since the council don't bother to contest appeals it would probably be accepted.
I suppose the best way to ensure the termination of this scheme would be if every single motorist appealed, throwing the appeal system into chaos?
A good reason to suspend issuing fines but leave the cameras on would have been that they could gain useful data on how many and what type of vehicle use the bridge now, compared with when fines were being issued. That could be used to set future policy.

However, I'm not naive enough to think our Council have either the capability to process that information, or the foresight to make the decision to collect it.

I also don't believe that there is any threat of fines being issued retrospectively, using the camera data being collected now. I think the cameras have been left on in the hope that some drivers will believe they might be fined, and will therefore continue to avoid the bridge.

For those who have already paid fines, I suspect they will ultimately get a refund, but it could be years away.

For anyone who has received a fine and not paid it, I would suggest they appeal. Alternatively, they could just ignore it, but that would be gambling on whether or not the Council tries to take it further.

For myself, I'm now treating the restrictions as being temporarily suspended. I appreciate that the scheme itself hasn't been found unlawful, and that a Policeman could issue me with a fine, so I'll keep an eye out for one.

To my mind, the restrictions are toothless while ever the Council is fighting the "bus lane or not" cause. When they give up, or lose (I can't see them winning) then they might decide to operate the scheme differently, and I might have to start obeying.

I suspect there will be many more like me, so if this Council does believe
that the restrictions make sense then the sensible course of action would be to do something straight away. The easiest way would be to convert the restrictions to those that do qualify as bus lanes. They really ought to improve the signs as well, because the adjudicator did point out a lot of weaknesses. He said they were adequate from February, but his report read as if he was saying they were "just about OK, but no better".

I'm not against reducing inner city traffic, just against the stupid disjointed way it was attempted.

Finally though, I'd re-open Lendal fully, and restrict Ouse Bridge instead.
the original Homer wrote:

Finally though, I'd re-open Lendal fully, and restrict Ouse Bridge instead.

Really? I would make Lendal Bridge through to Lord Mayor's Walk one way in that direction for all except emergency vehicles on active service, buses and bikes.
[quote][p][bold]the original Homer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mutley12321[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mutley12321[/bold] wrote: Hello Darren, Couple of questions. You state "Fines will not be issued upon these recordings until further legal process." How long is this process likely to take and how what advice have you received to suggest the legal process will be complete within this time? Also, the article states "PCNs had not been issued to every private vehicle breaching the restrictions". This seems rather an odd statement to make so late into the process? Who has not been fined, why were they not fined and what documented process did CoYC adopt to decide who was exempt?? Who agreed this process? Regards, Mutt.[/p][/quote]If you read the adjudicator's report the council admitted right at the start of the scheme that they had neither the staff nor the resources to issue PCNs or challenge appeals in court - this was one of the central planks in the adjudicator's findings against them. The PCNs were dealt with in batches and some batches were ignored because of the backlog or workload.[/p][/quote]Afternoon Pinza, Some batches ignored? Which batches were ignored and who decided to ignore these? Which dates? Why weren't extra staff brought in to? I'm probably wrong and ask as you're knowledge is better than mine on the Knapp report, but I understood the council had 6 months from the offence being committed for a PCN to be issued? Surely this is more than adequate time to run through the backlog, if as Darren's comment suggests - breaches had “peaked and started to decline”? Any thoughts? Regards, Mutt[/p][/quote]Here's the report http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/resources/fil es/31754 Key passages "28. It is stated that: “The Council operates an ad hoc system whereby appeals to the TPT are not contested when sufficient resource to deal with them is not available. This is determined simply on a workload basis and when more TPT cases require attention than the available staff can deal with a batch of them will be returned as not contested. As it was always likely to be the case that more appeals would be received than could be resourced consideration was given to formal mechanisms to determine which to contest and which to not contest. It was concluded that any such mechanism would be arbitrary to some extent and unless extremely complex, open to accusations of bias or unfairness. Therefore the system we operate whereby batches of appeals are not contested randomly based on workload commitments was considered to be the fairest, most understandable and least corruptible system possible”." And "29. However, whatever the practicalities, it is unacceptable that the Council commenced the bus street scheme in the knowledge that sufficient resources to deal with challenges and appeals would not be available despitethe statutory obligation to consider each of the representations fairly and based on the general principles of public law. 30. The process in effect introduces a “lottery” where an important criteria for deciding whether a penalty charge should be enforced is the level of available staffing. This inevitably means that a recipient of a PCN who advances mitigating circumstances or indeed a statutory ground of challenge may well not have those representations considered properly at the first stage of the process. A Notice of Rejection would then be issued and the individual would have to decide whether to pay the penalty charge but without the knowledge that if an appeal was pursued to the Tribunal there would be a significant chance that the case would not be contested depending on the staffing levels available to the Council at the time. This in my judgement does not represent a fair way of dealing with challenges and cannot be properly considered as a process which is sufficiently compliant either with the principles of public law, the duty in the Regulations or the recommendations set out in Chapter 7 of the Guidance on Bus Lane Enforcement issued by the Department for Transport in 2008." This is bad enough. Let's say though that the council do take this to court and it finds in their favour, and they are allowed to issue retrospective PCNs based on the numbers being recorded by the cameras now. If the court process took 6 months not only would they have a backlog of 6 months PCNs to deal with, it would mean that a motorist who wished to appeal would have to remember exactly what happened 6 months ago! However since the council don't bother to contest appeals it would probably be accepted. I suppose the best way to ensure the termination of this scheme would be if every single motorist appealed, throwing the appeal system into chaos?[/p][/quote]A good reason to suspend issuing fines but leave the cameras on would have been that they could gain useful data on how many and what type of vehicle use the bridge now, compared with when fines were being issued. That could be used to set future policy. However, I'm not naive enough to think our Council have either the capability to process that information, or the foresight to make the decision to collect it. I also don't believe that there is any threat of fines being issued retrospectively, using the camera data being collected now. I think the cameras have been left on in the hope that some drivers will believe they might be fined, and will therefore continue to avoid the bridge. For those who have already paid fines, I suspect they will ultimately get a refund, but it could be years away. For anyone who has received a fine and not paid it, I would suggest they appeal. Alternatively, they could just ignore it, but that would be gambling on whether or not the Council tries to take it further. For myself, I'm now treating the restrictions as being temporarily suspended. I appreciate that the scheme itself hasn't been found unlawful, and that a Policeman could issue me with a fine, so I'll keep an eye out for one. To my mind, the restrictions are toothless while ever the Council is fighting the "bus lane or not" cause. When they give up, or lose (I can't see them winning) then they might decide to operate the scheme differently, and I might have to start obeying. I suspect there will be many more like me, so if this Council does believe that the restrictions make sense then the sensible course of action would be to do something straight away. The easiest way would be to convert the restrictions to those that do qualify as bus lanes. They really ought to improve the signs as well, because the adjudicator did point out a lot of weaknesses. He said they were adequate from February, but his report read as if he was saying they were "just about OK, but no better". I'm not against reducing inner city traffic, just against the stupid disjointed way it was attempted. Finally though, I'd re-open Lendal fully, and restrict Ouse Bridge instead.[/p][/quote]the original Homer wrote: Finally though, I'd re-open Lendal fully, and restrict Ouse Bridge instead. Really? I would make Lendal Bridge through to Lord Mayor's Walk one way in that direction for all except emergency vehicles on active service, buses and bikes. cynic3
  • Score: -88

1:51pm Mon 7 Apr 14

strangebuttrue? says...

The council also claim "breaches had “peaked and started to decline”. more misleading?. Is it the fact that they are not now issuing notices that has caused the decline?. We may never know.
The council also claim "breaches had “peaked and started to decline”. more misleading?. Is it the fact that they are not now issuing notices that has caused the decline?. We may never know. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -87

2:02pm Mon 7 Apr 14

the original Homer says...

AnotherPointofView wrote:
the original Homer wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
mutley12321 wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
mutley12321 wrote:
Hello Darren,

Couple of questions.

You state "Fines will not be issued upon these recordings until further legal process." How long is this process likely to take and how what advice have you received to suggest the legal process will be complete within this time?

Also, the article states "PCNs had not been issued to every private vehicle breaching the restrictions". This seems rather an odd statement to make so late into the process? Who has not been fined, why were they not fined and what documented process did CoYC adopt to decide who was exempt?? Who agreed this process?

Regards,

Mutt.
If you read the adjudicator's report the council admitted right at the start of the scheme that they had neither the staff nor the resources to issue PCNs or challenge appeals in court - this was one of the central planks in the adjudicator's findings against them. The PCNs were dealt with in batches and some batches were ignored because of the backlog or workload.
Afternoon Pinza,

Some batches ignored? Which batches were ignored and who decided to ignore these? Which dates? Why weren't extra staff brought in to?

I'm probably wrong and ask as you're knowledge is better than mine on the Knapp report, but I understood the council had 6 months from the offence being committed for a PCN to be issued? Surely this is more than adequate time to run through the backlog, if as Darren's comment suggests - breaches had “peaked and started to decline”?

Any thoughts?

Regards,

Mutt
Here's the report http://www.yorkpress



.co.uk/resources/fil



es/31754
Key passages
"28. It is stated that:
“The Council operates an ad hoc system whereby appeals to the TPT are
not contested when sufficient resource to deal with them is not available.
This is determined simply on a workload basis and when more TPT cases
require attention than the available staff can deal with a batch of them will
be returned as not contested.
As it was always likely to be the case that more appeals would be received
than could be resourced consideration was given to formal mechanisms to
determine which to contest and which to not contest. It was concluded
that any such mechanism would be arbitrary to some extent and unless
extremely complex, open to accusations of bias or unfairness. Therefore
the system we operate whereby batches of appeals are not contested
randomly based on workload commitments was considered to be the
fairest, most understandable and least corruptible system possible”."
And
"29. However, whatever the practicalities, it is unacceptable that the Council

commenced the bus street scheme in the knowledge that sufficient
resources to deal with challenges and appeals would not be available despitethe statutory obligation to consider each of the representations fairly and
based on the general principles of public law.
30. The process in effect introduces a “lottery” where an important criteria for
deciding whether a penalty charge should be enforced is the level of
available staffing. This inevitably means that a recipient of a PCN who
advances mitigating circumstances or indeed a statutory ground of challenge
may well not have those representations considered properly at the first
stage of the process. A Notice of Rejection would then be issued and the
individual would have to decide whether to pay the penalty charge but
without the knowledge that if an appeal was pursued to the Tribunal there
would be a significant chance that the case would not be contested
depending on the staffing levels available to the Council at the time. This in
my judgement does not represent a fair way of dealing with challenges and
cannot be properly considered as a process which is sufficiently compliant
either with the principles of public law, the duty in the Regulations or the
recommendations set out in Chapter 7 of the Guidance on Bus Lane
Enforcement issued by the Department for Transport in 2008."
This is bad enough. Let's say though that the council do take this to court and it finds in their favour, and they are allowed to issue retrospective PCNs based on the numbers being recorded by the cameras now.
If the court process took 6 months not only would they have a backlog of 6 months PCNs to deal with, it would mean that a motorist who wished to appeal would have to remember exactly what happened 6 months ago! However since the council don't bother to contest appeals it would probably be accepted.
I suppose the best way to ensure the termination of this scheme would be if every single motorist appealed, throwing the appeal system into chaos?
A good reason to suspend issuing fines but leave the cameras on would have been that they could gain useful data on how many and what type of vehicle use the bridge now, compared with when fines were being issued. That could be used to set future policy.

However, I'm not naive enough to think our Council have either the capability to process that information, or the foresight to make the decision to collect it.

I also don't believe that there is any threat of fines being issued retrospectively, using the camera data being collected now. I think the cameras have been left on in the hope that some drivers will believe they might be fined, and will therefore continue to avoid the bridge.

For those who have already paid fines, I suspect they will ultimately get a refund, but it could be years away.

For anyone who has received a fine and not paid it, I would suggest they appeal. Alternatively, they could just ignore it, but that would be gambling on whether or not the Council tries to take it further.

For myself, I'm now treating the restrictions as being temporarily suspended. I appreciate that the scheme itself hasn't been found unlawful, and that a Policeman could issue me with a fine, so I'll keep an eye out for one.

To my mind, the restrictions are toothless while ever the Council is fighting the "bus lane or not" cause. When they give up, or lose (I can't see them winning) then they might decide to operate the scheme differently, and I might have to start obeying.

I suspect there will be many more like me, so if this Council does believe
that the restrictions make sense then the sensible course of action would be to do something straight away. The easiest way would be to convert the restrictions to those that do qualify as bus lanes. They really ought to improve the signs as well, because the adjudicator did point out a lot of weaknesses. He said they were adequate from February, but his report read as if he was saying they were "just about OK, but no better".

I'm not against reducing inner city traffic, just against the stupid disjointed way it was attempted.

Finally though, I'd re-open Lendal fully, and restrict Ouse Bridge instead.
Agreed Original Homer. Except that for all road bridges were built for a reason. I think that Lendal should re-open and Ouse remain as is.
Fair point APoV, and I can see reasons for and against.

If we had a Council that respected democracy, then that's the kind of thing they could debate and maybe even seek public opinion about.

They could then make an informed decision, which both you and I would be able to respect.

Unfortunately, as things stand, neither of us would trust the process, and one or the other of us (maybe even both?) wouldn't respect the outcome.

I wonder how many voters would currently say they trust the integrity of this Council?

There's a big wide door open for anyone willing to speak the truth and represent public opinion.
[quote][p][bold]AnotherPointofView[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the original Homer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mutley12321[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mutley12321[/bold] wrote: Hello Darren, Couple of questions. You state "Fines will not be issued upon these recordings until further legal process." How long is this process likely to take and how what advice have you received to suggest the legal process will be complete within this time? Also, the article states "PCNs had not been issued to every private vehicle breaching the restrictions". This seems rather an odd statement to make so late into the process? Who has not been fined, why were they not fined and what documented process did CoYC adopt to decide who was exempt?? Who agreed this process? Regards, Mutt.[/p][/quote]If you read the adjudicator's report the council admitted right at the start of the scheme that they had neither the staff nor the resources to issue PCNs or challenge appeals in court - this was one of the central planks in the adjudicator's findings against them. The PCNs were dealt with in batches and some batches were ignored because of the backlog or workload.[/p][/quote]Afternoon Pinza, Some batches ignored? Which batches were ignored and who decided to ignore these? Which dates? Why weren't extra staff brought in to? I'm probably wrong and ask as you're knowledge is better than mine on the Knapp report, but I understood the council had 6 months from the offence being committed for a PCN to be issued? Surely this is more than adequate time to run through the backlog, if as Darren's comment suggests - breaches had “peaked and started to decline”? Any thoughts? Regards, Mutt[/p][/quote]Here's the report http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/resources/fil es/31754 Key passages "28. It is stated that: “The Council operates an ad hoc system whereby appeals to the TPT are not contested when sufficient resource to deal with them is not available. This is determined simply on a workload basis and when more TPT cases require attention than the available staff can deal with a batch of them will be returned as not contested. As it was always likely to be the case that more appeals would be received than could be resourced consideration was given to formal mechanisms to determine which to contest and which to not contest. It was concluded that any such mechanism would be arbitrary to some extent and unless extremely complex, open to accusations of bias or unfairness. Therefore the system we operate whereby batches of appeals are not contested randomly based on workload commitments was considered to be the fairest, most understandable and least corruptible system possible”." And "29. However, whatever the practicalities, it is unacceptable that the Council commenced the bus street scheme in the knowledge that sufficient resources to deal with challenges and appeals would not be available despitethe statutory obligation to consider each of the representations fairly and based on the general principles of public law. 30. The process in effect introduces a “lottery” where an important criteria for deciding whether a penalty charge should be enforced is the level of available staffing. This inevitably means that a recipient of a PCN who advances mitigating circumstances or indeed a statutory ground of challenge may well not have those representations considered properly at the first stage of the process. A Notice of Rejection would then be issued and the individual would have to decide whether to pay the penalty charge but without the knowledge that if an appeal was pursued to the Tribunal there would be a significant chance that the case would not be contested depending on the staffing levels available to the Council at the time. This in my judgement does not represent a fair way of dealing with challenges and cannot be properly considered as a process which is sufficiently compliant either with the principles of public law, the duty in the Regulations or the recommendations set out in Chapter 7 of the Guidance on Bus Lane Enforcement issued by the Department for Transport in 2008." This is bad enough. Let's say though that the council do take this to court and it finds in their favour, and they are allowed to issue retrospective PCNs based on the numbers being recorded by the cameras now. If the court process took 6 months not only would they have a backlog of 6 months PCNs to deal with, it would mean that a motorist who wished to appeal would have to remember exactly what happened 6 months ago! However since the council don't bother to contest appeals it would probably be accepted. I suppose the best way to ensure the termination of this scheme would be if every single motorist appealed, throwing the appeal system into chaos?[/p][/quote]A good reason to suspend issuing fines but leave the cameras on would have been that they could gain useful data on how many and what type of vehicle use the bridge now, compared with when fines were being issued. That could be used to set future policy. However, I'm not naive enough to think our Council have either the capability to process that information, or the foresight to make the decision to collect it. I also don't believe that there is any threat of fines being issued retrospectively, using the camera data being collected now. I think the cameras have been left on in the hope that some drivers will believe they might be fined, and will therefore continue to avoid the bridge. For those who have already paid fines, I suspect they will ultimately get a refund, but it could be years away. For anyone who has received a fine and not paid it, I would suggest they appeal. Alternatively, they could just ignore it, but that would be gambling on whether or not the Council tries to take it further. For myself, I'm now treating the restrictions as being temporarily suspended. I appreciate that the scheme itself hasn't been found unlawful, and that a Policeman could issue me with a fine, so I'll keep an eye out for one. To my mind, the restrictions are toothless while ever the Council is fighting the "bus lane or not" cause. When they give up, or lose (I can't see them winning) then they might decide to operate the scheme differently, and I might have to start obeying. I suspect there will be many more like me, so if this Council does believe that the restrictions make sense then the sensible course of action would be to do something straight away. The easiest way would be to convert the restrictions to those that do qualify as bus lanes. They really ought to improve the signs as well, because the adjudicator did point out a lot of weaknesses. He said they were adequate from February, but his report read as if he was saying they were "just about OK, but no better". I'm not against reducing inner city traffic, just against the stupid disjointed way it was attempted. Finally though, I'd re-open Lendal fully, and restrict Ouse Bridge instead.[/p][/quote]Agreed Original Homer. Except that for all road bridges were built for a reason. I think that Lendal should re-open and Ouse remain as is.[/p][/quote]Fair point APoV, and I can see reasons for and against. If we had a Council that respected democracy, then that's the kind of thing they could debate and maybe even seek public opinion about. They could then make an informed decision, which both you and I would be able to respect. Unfortunately, as things stand, neither of us would trust the process, and one or the other of us (maybe even both?) wouldn't respect the outcome. I wonder how many voters would currently say they trust the integrity of this Council? There's a big wide door open for anyone willing to speak the truth and represent public opinion. the original Homer
  • Score: -92

2:03pm Mon 7 Apr 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

cynic3 wrote:
I am not a number, I an a resident of York

"...... after trial data collection was completed, enforcement levels were reviewed and reduced, meaning since the experiment ended on February 27, PCNs had not been issued to every private vehicle breaching the restrictions."

Fair enough I suppose, CYC cannot be forced to issue PCNs for every offence. I hope they remember this when that little camera car is on its travels. What I cannot understand is if CYC had all this unexpected money coming in which they considered legal, why could they not employ some sensible temporary staff to run the procedure correctly.

"In an email to Lib Dem leader Coun Keith Aspden, council chief executive Kersten England said the legal advice could not be made public as it “will be used for the internal appeal process with the adjudicator”."

The legal advice will be used in the appeal process and which stage the arguments will be divulged. Of course the advice can be made public now. What Kersten means is she does not want to make it public now.
It would be interesting to learn which private vehicle groups were issued with a PCN after 27th Feb. Who decided which vehicles would be served with a penalty and who would not and would that be just vehicles with York registered plates.

If an amnesty has been granted to some private plate drivers what were the groupings, FOI request looming, have York residents been singled out and targeted.
[quote][p][bold]cynic3[/bold] wrote: I am not a number, I an a resident of York "...... after trial data collection was completed, enforcement levels were reviewed and reduced, meaning since the experiment ended on February 27, PCNs had not been issued to every private vehicle breaching the restrictions." Fair enough I suppose, CYC cannot be forced to issue PCNs for every offence. I hope they remember this when that little camera car is on its travels. What I cannot understand is if CYC had all this unexpected money coming in which they considered legal, why could they not employ some sensible temporary staff to run the procedure correctly. "In an email to Lib Dem leader Coun Keith Aspden, council chief executive Kersten England said the legal advice could not be made public as it “will be used for the internal appeal process with the adjudicator”." The legal advice will be used in the appeal process and which stage the arguments will be divulged. Of course the advice can be made public now. What Kersten means is she does not want to make it public now.[/p][/quote]It would be interesting to learn which private vehicle groups were issued with a PCN after 27th Feb. Who decided which vehicles would be served with a penalty and who would not and would that be just vehicles with York registered plates. If an amnesty has been granted to some private plate drivers what were the groupings, FOI request looming, have York residents been singled out and targeted. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -101

2:04pm Mon 7 Apr 14

the original Homer says...

cynic3 wrote:
the original Homer wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
mutley12321 wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
mutley12321 wrote:
Hello Darren,

Couple of questions.

You state "Fines will not be issued upon these recordings until further legal process." How long is this process likely to take and how what advice have you received to suggest the legal process will be complete within this time?

Also, the article states "PCNs had not been issued to every private vehicle breaching the restrictions". This seems rather an odd statement to make so late into the process? Who has not been fined, why were they not fined and what documented process did CoYC adopt to decide who was exempt?? Who agreed this process?

Regards,

Mutt.
If you read the adjudicator's report the council admitted right at the start of the scheme that they had neither the staff nor the resources to issue PCNs or challenge appeals in court - this was one of the central planks in the adjudicator's findings against them. The PCNs were dealt with in batches and some batches were ignored because of the backlog or workload.
Afternoon Pinza,

Some batches ignored? Which batches were ignored and who decided to ignore these? Which dates? Why weren't extra staff brought in to?

I'm probably wrong and ask as you're knowledge is better than mine on the Knapp report, but I understood the council had 6 months from the offence being committed for a PCN to be issued? Surely this is more than adequate time to run through the backlog, if as Darren's comment suggests - breaches had “peaked and started to decline”?

Any thoughts?

Regards,

Mutt
Here's the report http://www.yorkpress



.co.uk/resources/fil



es/31754
Key passages
"28. It is stated that:
“The Council operates an ad hoc system whereby appeals to the TPT are
not contested when sufficient resource to deal with them is not available.
This is determined simply on a workload basis and when more TPT cases
require attention than the available staff can deal with a batch of them will
be returned as not contested.
As it was always likely to be the case that more appeals would be received
than could be resourced consideration was given to formal mechanisms to
determine which to contest and which to not contest. It was concluded
that any such mechanism would be arbitrary to some extent and unless
extremely complex, open to accusations of bias or unfairness. Therefore
the system we operate whereby batches of appeals are not contested
randomly based on workload commitments was considered to be the
fairest, most understandable and least corruptible system possible”."
And
"29. However, whatever the practicalities, it is unacceptable that the Council
commenced the bus street scheme in the knowledge that sufficient
resources to deal with challenges and appeals would not be available despitethe statutory obligation to consider each of the representations fairly and
based on the general principles of public law.
30. The process in effect introduces a “lottery” where an important criteria for
deciding whether a penalty charge should be enforced is the level of
available staffing. This inevitably means that a recipient of a PCN who
advances mitigating circumstances or indeed a statutory ground of challenge
may well not have those representations considered properly at the first
stage of the process. A Notice of Rejection would then be issued and the
individual would have to decide whether to pay the penalty charge but
without the knowledge that if an appeal was pursued to the Tribunal there
would be a significant chance that the case would not be contested
depending on the staffing levels available to the Council at the time. This in
my judgement does not represent a fair way of dealing with challenges and
cannot be properly considered as a process which is sufficiently compliant
either with the principles of public law, the duty in the Regulations or the
recommendations set out in Chapter 7 of the Guidance on Bus Lane
Enforcement issued by the Department for Transport in 2008."
This is bad enough. Let's say though that the council do take this to court and it finds in their favour, and they are allowed to issue retrospective PCNs based on the numbers being recorded by the cameras now.
If the court process took 6 months not only would they have a backlog of 6 months PCNs to deal with, it would mean that a motorist who wished to appeal would have to remember exactly what happened 6 months ago! However since the council don't bother to contest appeals it would probably be accepted.
I suppose the best way to ensure the termination of this scheme would be if every single motorist appealed, throwing the appeal system into chaos?
A good reason to suspend issuing fines but leave the cameras on would have been that they could gain useful data on how many and what type of vehicle use the bridge now, compared with when fines were being issued. That could be used to set future policy.

However, I'm not naive enough to think our Council have either the capability to process that information, or the foresight to make the decision to collect it.

I also don't believe that there is any threat of fines being issued retrospectively, using the camera data being collected now. I think the cameras have been left on in the hope that some drivers will believe they might be fined, and will therefore continue to avoid the bridge.

For those who have already paid fines, I suspect they will ultimately get a refund, but it could be years away.

For anyone who has received a fine and not paid it, I would suggest they appeal. Alternatively, they could just ignore it, but that would be gambling on whether or not the Council tries to take it further.

For myself, I'm now treating the restrictions as being temporarily suspended. I appreciate that the scheme itself hasn't been found unlawful, and that a Policeman could issue me with a fine, so I'll keep an eye out for one.

To my mind, the restrictions are toothless while ever the Council is fighting the "bus lane or not" cause. When they give up, or lose (I can't see them winning) then they might decide to operate the scheme differently, and I might have to start obeying.

I suspect there will be many more like me, so if this Council does believe
that the restrictions make sense then the sensible course of action would be to do something straight away. The easiest way would be to convert the restrictions to those that do qualify as bus lanes. They really ought to improve the signs as well, because the adjudicator did point out a lot of weaknesses. He said they were adequate from February, but his report read as if he was saying they were "just about OK, but no better".

I'm not against reducing inner city traffic, just against the stupid disjointed way it was attempted.

Finally though, I'd re-open Lendal fully, and restrict Ouse Bridge instead.
the original Homer wrote:

Finally though, I'd re-open Lendal fully, and restrict Ouse Bridge instead.

Really? I would make Lendal Bridge through to Lord Mayor's Walk one way in that direction for all except emergency vehicles on active service, buses and bikes.
Stop being sensible!

Seriously though, I think that's a better suggestion than mine
[quote][p][bold]cynic3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the original Homer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mutley12321[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mutley12321[/bold] wrote: Hello Darren, Couple of questions. You state "Fines will not be issued upon these recordings until further legal process." How long is this process likely to take and how what advice have you received to suggest the legal process will be complete within this time? Also, the article states "PCNs had not been issued to every private vehicle breaching the restrictions". This seems rather an odd statement to make so late into the process? Who has not been fined, why were they not fined and what documented process did CoYC adopt to decide who was exempt?? Who agreed this process? Regards, Mutt.[/p][/quote]If you read the adjudicator's report the council admitted right at the start of the scheme that they had neither the staff nor the resources to issue PCNs or challenge appeals in court - this was one of the central planks in the adjudicator's findings against them. The PCNs were dealt with in batches and some batches were ignored because of the backlog or workload.[/p][/quote]Afternoon Pinza, Some batches ignored? Which batches were ignored and who decided to ignore these? Which dates? Why weren't extra staff brought in to? I'm probably wrong and ask as you're knowledge is better than mine on the Knapp report, but I understood the council had 6 months from the offence being committed for a PCN to be issued? Surely this is more than adequate time to run through the backlog, if as Darren's comment suggests - breaches had “peaked and started to decline”? Any thoughts? Regards, Mutt[/p][/quote]Here's the report http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/resources/fil es/31754 Key passages "28. It is stated that: “The Council operates an ad hoc system whereby appeals to the TPT are not contested when sufficient resource to deal with them is not available. This is determined simply on a workload basis and when more TPT cases require attention than the available staff can deal with a batch of them will be returned as not contested. As it was always likely to be the case that more appeals would be received than could be resourced consideration was given to formal mechanisms to determine which to contest and which to not contest. It was concluded that any such mechanism would be arbitrary to some extent and unless extremely complex, open to accusations of bias or unfairness. Therefore the system we operate whereby batches of appeals are not contested randomly based on workload commitments was considered to be the fairest, most understandable and least corruptible system possible”." And "29. However, whatever the practicalities, it is unacceptable that the Council commenced the bus street scheme in the knowledge that sufficient resources to deal with challenges and appeals would not be available despitethe statutory obligation to consider each of the representations fairly and based on the general principles of public law. 30. The process in effect introduces a “lottery” where an important criteria for deciding whether a penalty charge should be enforced is the level of available staffing. This inevitably means that a recipient of a PCN who advances mitigating circumstances or indeed a statutory ground of challenge may well not have those representations considered properly at the first stage of the process. A Notice of Rejection would then be issued and the individual would have to decide whether to pay the penalty charge but without the knowledge that if an appeal was pursued to the Tribunal there would be a significant chance that the case would not be contested depending on the staffing levels available to the Council at the time. This in my judgement does not represent a fair way of dealing with challenges and cannot be properly considered as a process which is sufficiently compliant either with the principles of public law, the duty in the Regulations or the recommendations set out in Chapter 7 of the Guidance on Bus Lane Enforcement issued by the Department for Transport in 2008." This is bad enough. Let's say though that the council do take this to court and it finds in their favour, and they are allowed to issue retrospective PCNs based on the numbers being recorded by the cameras now. If the court process took 6 months not only would they have a backlog of 6 months PCNs to deal with, it would mean that a motorist who wished to appeal would have to remember exactly what happened 6 months ago! However since the council don't bother to contest appeals it would probably be accepted. I suppose the best way to ensure the termination of this scheme would be if every single motorist appealed, throwing the appeal system into chaos?[/p][/quote]A good reason to suspend issuing fines but leave the cameras on would have been that they could gain useful data on how many and what type of vehicle use the bridge now, compared with when fines were being issued. That could be used to set future policy. However, I'm not naive enough to think our Council have either the capability to process that information, or the foresight to make the decision to collect it. I also don't believe that there is any threat of fines being issued retrospectively, using the camera data being collected now. I think the cameras have been left on in the hope that some drivers will believe they might be fined, and will therefore continue to avoid the bridge. For those who have already paid fines, I suspect they will ultimately get a refund, but it could be years away. For anyone who has received a fine and not paid it, I would suggest they appeal. Alternatively, they could just ignore it, but that would be gambling on whether or not the Council tries to take it further. For myself, I'm now treating the restrictions as being temporarily suspended. I appreciate that the scheme itself hasn't been found unlawful, and that a Policeman could issue me with a fine, so I'll keep an eye out for one. To my mind, the restrictions are toothless while ever the Council is fighting the "bus lane or not" cause. When they give up, or lose (I can't see them winning) then they might decide to operate the scheme differently, and I might have to start obeying. I suspect there will be many more like me, so if this Council does believe that the restrictions make sense then the sensible course of action would be to do something straight away. The easiest way would be to convert the restrictions to those that do qualify as bus lanes. They really ought to improve the signs as well, because the adjudicator did point out a lot of weaknesses. He said they were adequate from February, but his report read as if he was saying they were "just about OK, but no better". I'm not against reducing inner city traffic, just against the stupid disjointed way it was attempted. Finally though, I'd re-open Lendal fully, and restrict Ouse Bridge instead.[/p][/quote]the original Homer wrote: Finally though, I'd re-open Lendal fully, and restrict Ouse Bridge instead. Really? I would make Lendal Bridge through to Lord Mayor's Walk one way in that direction for all except emergency vehicles on active service, buses and bikes.[/p][/quote]Stop being sensible! Seriously though, I think that's a better suggestion than mine the original Homer
  • Score: -95

2:05pm Mon 7 Apr 14

long distance depressive says...

Don't you just love this, the council buffoons still can't come to terms with the debacle. The story that just keeps on giving! :)
Don't you just love this, the council buffoons still can't come to terms with the debacle. The story that just keeps on giving! :) long distance depressive
  • Score: -72

2:05pm Mon 7 Apr 14

AnotherPointofView says...

the original Homer wrote:
AnotherPointofView wrote:
the original Homer wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
mutley12321 wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
mutley12321 wrote:
Hello Darren,

Couple of questions.

You state "Fines will not be issued upon these recordings until further legal process." How long is this process likely to take and how what advice have you received to suggest the legal process will be complete within this time?

Also, the article states "PCNs had not been issued to every private vehicle breaching the restrictions". This seems rather an odd statement to make so late into the process? Who has not been fined, why were they not fined and what documented process did CoYC adopt to decide who was exempt?? Who agreed this process?

Regards,

Mutt.
If you read the adjudicator's report the council admitted right at the start of the scheme that they had neither the staff nor the resources to issue PCNs or challenge appeals in court - this was one of the central planks in the adjudicator's findings against them. The PCNs were dealt with in batches and some batches were ignored because of the backlog or workload.
Afternoon Pinza,

Some batches ignored? Which batches were ignored and who decided to ignore these? Which dates? Why weren't extra staff brought in to?

I'm probably wrong and ask as you're knowledge is better than mine on the Knapp report, but I understood the council had 6 months from the offence being committed for a PCN to be issued? Surely this is more than adequate time to run through the backlog, if as Darren's comment suggests - breaches had “peaked and started to decline”?

Any thoughts?

Regards,

Mutt
Here's the report http://www.yorkpress




.co.uk/resources/fil




es/31754
Key passages
"28. It is stated that:
“The Council operates an ad hoc system whereby appeals to the TPT are
not contested when sufficient resource to deal with them is not available.
This is determined simply on a workload basis and when more TPT cases
require attention than the available staff can deal with a batch of them will
be returned as not contested.
As it was always likely to be the case that more appeals would be received
than could be resourced consideration was given to formal mechanisms to
determine which to contest and which to not contest. It was concluded
that any such mechanism would be arbitrary to some extent and unless
extremely complex, open to accusations of bias or unfairness. Therefore
the system we operate whereby batches of appeals are not contested
randomly based on workload commitments was considered to be the
fairest, most understandable and least corruptible system possible”."
And
"29. However, whatever the practicalities, it is unacceptable that the Council

commenced the bus street scheme in the knowledge that sufficient
resources to deal with challenges and appeals would not be available despitethe statutory obligation to consider each of the representations fairly and
based on the general principles of public law.
30. The process in effect introduces a “lottery” where an important criteria for
deciding whether a penalty charge should be enforced is the level of
available staffing. This inevitably means that a recipient of a PCN who
advances mitigating circumstances or indeed a statutory ground of challenge
may well not have those representations considered properly at the first
stage of the process. A Notice of Rejection would then be issued and the
individual would have to decide whether to pay the penalty charge but
without the knowledge that if an appeal was pursued to the Tribunal there
would be a significant chance that the case would not be contested
depending on the staffing levels available to the Council at the time. This in
my judgement does not represent a fair way of dealing with challenges and
cannot be properly considered as a process which is sufficiently compliant
either with the principles of public law, the duty in the Regulations or the
recommendations set out in Chapter 7 of the Guidance on Bus Lane
Enforcement issued by the Department for Transport in 2008."
This is bad enough. Let's say though that the council do take this to court and it finds in their favour, and they are allowed to issue retrospective PCNs based on the numbers being recorded by the cameras now.
If the court process took 6 months not only would they have a backlog of 6 months PCNs to deal with, it would mean that a motorist who wished to appeal would have to remember exactly what happened 6 months ago! However since the council don't bother to contest appeals it would probably be accepted.
I suppose the best way to ensure the termination of this scheme would be if every single motorist appealed, throwing the appeal system into chaos?
A good reason to suspend issuing fines but leave the cameras on would have been that they could gain useful data on how many and what type of vehicle use the bridge now, compared with when fines were being issued. That could be used to set future policy.

However, I'm not naive enough to think our Council have either the capability to process that information, or the foresight to make the decision to collect it.

I also don't believe that there is any threat of fines being issued retrospectively, using the camera data being collected now. I think the cameras have been left on in the hope that some drivers will believe they might be fined, and will therefore continue to avoid the bridge.

For those who have already paid fines, I suspect they will ultimately get a refund, but it could be years away.

For anyone who has received a fine and not paid it, I would suggest they appeal. Alternatively, they could just ignore it, but that would be gambling on whether or not the Council tries to take it further.

For myself, I'm now treating the restrictions as being temporarily suspended. I appreciate that the scheme itself hasn't been found unlawful, and that a Policeman could issue me with a fine, so I'll keep an eye out for one.

To my mind, the restrictions are toothless while ever the Council is fighting the "bus lane or not" cause. When they give up, or lose (I can't see them winning) then they might decide to operate the scheme differently, and I might have to start obeying.

I suspect there will be many more like me, so if this Council does believe
that the restrictions make sense then the sensible course of action would be to do something straight away. The easiest way would be to convert the restrictions to those that do qualify as bus lanes. They really ought to improve the signs as well, because the adjudicator did point out a lot of weaknesses. He said they were adequate from February, but his report read as if he was saying they were "just about OK, but no better".

I'm not against reducing inner city traffic, just against the stupid disjointed way it was attempted.

Finally though, I'd re-open Lendal fully, and restrict Ouse Bridge instead.
Agreed Original Homer. Except that for all road bridges were built for a reason. I think that Lendal should re-open and Ouse remain as is.
Fair point APoV, and I can see reasons for and against.

If we had a Council that respected democracy, then that's the kind of thing they could debate and maybe even seek public opinion about.

They could then make an informed decision, which both you and I would be able to respect.

Unfortunately, as things stand, neither of us would trust the process, and one or the other of us (maybe even both?) wouldn't respect the outcome.

I wonder how many voters would currently say they trust the integrity of this Council?

There's a big wide door open for anyone willing to speak the truth and represent public opinion.
That's so true. Original Homer, I'm with you 100%
[quote][p][bold]the original Homer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AnotherPointofView[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the original Homer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mutley12321[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mutley12321[/bold] wrote: Hello Darren, Couple of questions. You state "Fines will not be issued upon these recordings until further legal process." How long is this process likely to take and how what advice have you received to suggest the legal process will be complete within this time? Also, the article states "PCNs had not been issued to every private vehicle breaching the restrictions". This seems rather an odd statement to make so late into the process? Who has not been fined, why were they not fined and what documented process did CoYC adopt to decide who was exempt?? Who agreed this process? Regards, Mutt.[/p][/quote]If you read the adjudicator's report the council admitted right at the start of the scheme that they had neither the staff nor the resources to issue PCNs or challenge appeals in court - this was one of the central planks in the adjudicator's findings against them. The PCNs were dealt with in batches and some batches were ignored because of the backlog or workload.[/p][/quote]Afternoon Pinza, Some batches ignored? Which batches were ignored and who decided to ignore these? Which dates? Why weren't extra staff brought in to? I'm probably wrong and ask as you're knowledge is better than mine on the Knapp report, but I understood the council had 6 months from the offence being committed for a PCN to be issued? Surely this is more than adequate time to run through the backlog, if as Darren's comment suggests - breaches had “peaked and started to decline”? Any thoughts? Regards, Mutt[/p][/quote]Here's the report http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/resources/fil es/31754 Key passages "28. It is stated that: “The Council operates an ad hoc system whereby appeals to the TPT are not contested when sufficient resource to deal with them is not available. This is determined simply on a workload basis and when more TPT cases require attention than the available staff can deal with a batch of them will be returned as not contested. As it was always likely to be the case that more appeals would be received than could be resourced consideration was given to formal mechanisms to determine which to contest and which to not contest. It was concluded that any such mechanism would be arbitrary to some extent and unless extremely complex, open to accusations of bias or unfairness. Therefore the system we operate whereby batches of appeals are not contested randomly based on workload commitments was considered to be the fairest, most understandable and least corruptible system possible”." And "29. However, whatever the practicalities, it is unacceptable that the Council commenced the bus street scheme in the knowledge that sufficient resources to deal with challenges and appeals would not be available despitethe statutory obligation to consider each of the representations fairly and based on the general principles of public law. 30. The process in effect introduces a “lottery” where an important criteria for deciding whether a penalty charge should be enforced is the level of available staffing. This inevitably means that a recipient of a PCN who advances mitigating circumstances or indeed a statutory ground of challenge may well not have those representations considered properly at the first stage of the process. A Notice of Rejection would then be issued and the individual would have to decide whether to pay the penalty charge but without the knowledge that if an appeal was pursued to the Tribunal there would be a significant chance that the case would not be contested depending on the staffing levels available to the Council at the time. This in my judgement does not represent a fair way of dealing with challenges and cannot be properly considered as a process which is sufficiently compliant either with the principles of public law, the duty in the Regulations or the recommendations set out in Chapter 7 of the Guidance on Bus Lane Enforcement issued by the Department for Transport in 2008." This is bad enough. Let's say though that the council do take this to court and it finds in their favour, and they are allowed to issue retrospective PCNs based on the numbers being recorded by the cameras now. If the court process took 6 months not only would they have a backlog of 6 months PCNs to deal with, it would mean that a motorist who wished to appeal would have to remember exactly what happened 6 months ago! However since the council don't bother to contest appeals it would probably be accepted. I suppose the best way to ensure the termination of this scheme would be if every single motorist appealed, throwing the appeal system into chaos?[/p][/quote]A good reason to suspend issuing fines but leave the cameras on would have been that they could gain useful data on how many and what type of vehicle use the bridge now, compared with when fines were being issued. That could be used to set future policy. However, I'm not naive enough to think our Council have either the capability to process that information, or the foresight to make the decision to collect it. I also don't believe that there is any threat of fines being issued retrospectively, using the camera data being collected now. I think the cameras have been left on in the hope that some drivers will believe they might be fined, and will therefore continue to avoid the bridge. For those who have already paid fines, I suspect they will ultimately get a refund, but it could be years away. For anyone who has received a fine and not paid it, I would suggest they appeal. Alternatively, they could just ignore it, but that would be gambling on whether or not the Council tries to take it further. For myself, I'm now treating the restrictions as being temporarily suspended. I appreciate that the scheme itself hasn't been found unlawful, and that a Policeman could issue me with a fine, so I'll keep an eye out for one. To my mind, the restrictions are toothless while ever the Council is fighting the "bus lane or not" cause. When they give up, or lose (I can't see them winning) then they might decide to operate the scheme differently, and I might have to start obeying. I suspect there will be many more like me, so if this Council does believe that the restrictions make sense then the sensible course of action would be to do something straight away. The easiest way would be to convert the restrictions to those that do qualify as bus lanes. They really ought to improve the signs as well, because the adjudicator did point out a lot of weaknesses. He said they were adequate from February, but his report read as if he was saying they were "just about OK, but no better". I'm not against reducing inner city traffic, just against the stupid disjointed way it was attempted. Finally though, I'd re-open Lendal fully, and restrict Ouse Bridge instead.[/p][/quote]Agreed Original Homer. Except that for all road bridges were built for a reason. I think that Lendal should re-open and Ouse remain as is.[/p][/quote]Fair point APoV, and I can see reasons for and against. If we had a Council that respected democracy, then that's the kind of thing they could debate and maybe even seek public opinion about. They could then make an informed decision, which both you and I would be able to respect. Unfortunately, as things stand, neither of us would trust the process, and one or the other of us (maybe even both?) wouldn't respect the outcome. I wonder how many voters would currently say they trust the integrity of this Council? There's a big wide door open for anyone willing to speak the truth and represent public opinion.[/p][/quote]That's so true. Original Homer, I'm with you 100% AnotherPointofView
  • Score: -74

2:39pm Mon 7 Apr 14

the equalizer squad says...

Suck this YCC


https://www.dropbox.
com/sh/ptonllw1i7i9u
m7/X0UbyQqaXK/York_P
CN_Refund.doc
Suck this YCC https://www.dropbox. com/sh/ptonllw1i7i9u m7/X0UbyQqaXK/York_P CN_Refund.doc the equalizer squad
  • Score: -68

2:51pm Mon 7 Apr 14

mutley12321 says...

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
cynic3 wrote:
I am not a number, I an a resident of York

"...... after trial data collection was completed, enforcement levels were reviewed and reduced, meaning since the experiment ended on February 27, PCNs had not been issued to every private vehicle breaching the restrictions."

Fair enough I suppose, CYC cannot be forced to issue PCNs for every offence. I hope they remember this when that little camera car is on its travels. What I cannot understand is if CYC had all this unexpected money coming in which they considered legal, why could they not employ some sensible temporary staff to run the procedure correctly.

"In an email to Lib Dem leader Coun Keith Aspden, council chief executive Kersten England said the legal advice could not be made public as it “will be used for the internal appeal process with the adjudicator”."

The legal advice will be used in the appeal process and which stage the arguments will be divulged. Of course the advice can be made public now. What Kersten means is she does not want to make it public now.
It would be interesting to learn which private vehicle groups were issued with a PCN after 27th Feb. Who decided which vehicles would be served with a penalty and who would not and would that be just vehicles with York registered plates.

If an amnesty has been granted to some private plate drivers what were the groupings, FOI request looming, have York residents been singled out and targeted.
Hello YouwilldoIsay.

Good point well made.

Who has made the decision who to/not to issue PCN's to and who has decided which cases to appeal/not to appeal? If there has been a bias, either in or favour or against York registered plates, I am sure the national press will be interested in the rationale and explanation behind this.

All the best,

Mutt.
[quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cynic3[/bold] wrote: I am not a number, I an a resident of York "...... after trial data collection was completed, enforcement levels were reviewed and reduced, meaning since the experiment ended on February 27, PCNs had not been issued to every private vehicle breaching the restrictions." Fair enough I suppose, CYC cannot be forced to issue PCNs for every offence. I hope they remember this when that little camera car is on its travels. What I cannot understand is if CYC had all this unexpected money coming in which they considered legal, why could they not employ some sensible temporary staff to run the procedure correctly. "In an email to Lib Dem leader Coun Keith Aspden, council chief executive Kersten England said the legal advice could not be made public as it “will be used for the internal appeal process with the adjudicator”." The legal advice will be used in the appeal process and which stage the arguments will be divulged. Of course the advice can be made public now. What Kersten means is she does not want to make it public now.[/p][/quote]It would be interesting to learn which private vehicle groups were issued with a PCN after 27th Feb. Who decided which vehicles would be served with a penalty and who would not and would that be just vehicles with York registered plates. If an amnesty has been granted to some private plate drivers what were the groupings, FOI request looming, have York residents been singled out and targeted.[/p][/quote]Hello YouwilldoIsay. Good point well made. Who has made the decision who to/not to issue PCN's to and who has decided which cases to appeal/not to appeal? If there has been a bias, either in or favour or against York registered plates, I am sure the national press will be interested in the rationale and explanation behind this. All the best, Mutt. mutley12321
  • Score: -43

3:02pm Mon 7 Apr 14

the equalizer squad says...

Do you think this council have ever come across the saying , " Up sh#t creek without a paddle"? " pi##ing into the wind" ?
Do you think this council have ever come across the saying , " Up sh#t creek without a paddle"? " pi##ing into the wind" ? the equalizer squad
  • Score: -54

3:12pm Mon 7 Apr 14

pedalling paul says...

We seem to be mixing it on two topics here. Whether Lendal Bridge , or if not Ouse Bridge should be closed to private cars in the day and

2. If and how ANPR cameras can be legally used for enforcement under current guidance.

I am wholly in favour of the Lendal experiment continuing until the independent Institute of Transport Studies has delivered its Report. This must become public domain at the same time as received by CoYC
.
ANPR cameras are a highly efficient enforcement tool. Their usage outwith exclusively bus lanes needs to be urgently clarified, and the law changed if necessary, so that Local Authorities can use them in Lendal-like circumstances without having loophole chasers breathing down their necks. All York's political parties plus MP's and the Local Govt. Association need to combine forces on this to make Whitehall listen.

The bottom line for us all is that inner city private car use needs to be curbed, so that the road capacity we have is used as efficiently as possible. That includes making room for those who have no practical alternative to using a motor vehicle. Artificial priority for alternative travel options is part of the process.

What about concessions for multiple occupancy vehicles. It's been trialled on some roads. Mind you there are dodgers who have tried to circumvent that, by carrying an inflatable woman in the passenger seat...........
We seem to be mixing it on two topics here. Whether Lendal Bridge , or if not Ouse Bridge should be closed to private cars in the day and 2. If and how ANPR cameras can be legally used for enforcement under current guidance. I am wholly in favour of the Lendal experiment continuing until the independent Institute of Transport Studies has delivered its Report. This must become public domain at the same time as received by CoYC . ANPR cameras are a highly efficient enforcement tool. Their usage outwith exclusively bus lanes needs to be urgently clarified, and the law changed if necessary, so that Local Authorities can use them in Lendal-like circumstances without having loophole chasers breathing down their necks. All York's political parties plus MP's and the Local Govt. Association need to combine forces on this to make Whitehall listen. The bottom line for us all is that inner city private car use needs to be curbed, so that the road capacity we have is used as efficiently as possible. That includes making room for those who have no practical alternative to using a motor vehicle. Artificial priority for alternative travel options is part of the process. What about concessions for multiple occupancy vehicles. It's been trialled on some roads. Mind you there are dodgers who have tried to circumvent that, by carrying an inflatable woman in the passenger seat........... pedalling paul
  • Score: -68

3:15pm Mon 7 Apr 14

acomblass says...

The city is littered with unfinished projects started by the Labour Group when they took office in 2011 - the Guildhall, Kings Square, Parliament Street, the market are just a few. Lendal Bodge will go down in the annals of the history of the city as the biggest mistake this council has made. I am sure that there will be many protestors at the meeting on 6 May when this subject is discussed. Residents of York have been treated as nothing more than fodder for their failed experiments and now we have the chance to tell them our views. M y reading of this saga is that KE rushed out her c omments about the legal advice without reading the small print.
The city is littered with unfinished projects started by the Labour Group when they took office in 2011 - the Guildhall, Kings Square, Parliament Street, the market are just a few. Lendal Bodge will go down in the annals of the history of the city as the biggest mistake this council has made. I am sure that there will be many protestors at the meeting on 6 May when this subject is discussed. Residents of York have been treated as nothing more than fodder for their failed experiments and now we have the chance to tell them our views. M y reading of this saga is that KE rushed out her c omments about the legal advice without reading the small print. acomblass
  • Score: -40

3:24pm Mon 7 Apr 14

strangebuttrue? says...

No Paul there is no mixing of topics the debate is not about which bridge to close as you well know most York residents do not want any bridges closed as this just does what the Lendal Bridge farce has proved move the problem. A problem which had been created by the council in the first place.
No Paul there is no mixing of topics the debate is not about which bridge to close as you well know most York residents do not want any bridges closed as this just does what the Lendal Bridge farce has proved move the problem. A problem which had been created by the council in the first place. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -43

3:28pm Mon 7 Apr 14

bolero says...

pedalling paul wrote:
We seem to be mixing it on two topics here. Whether Lendal Bridge , or if not Ouse Bridge should be closed to private cars in the day and

2. If and how ANPR cameras can be legally used for enforcement under current guidance.

I am wholly in favour of the Lendal experiment continuing until the independent Institute of Transport Studies has delivered its Report. This must become public domain at the same time as received by CoYC
.
ANPR cameras are a highly efficient enforcement tool. Their usage outwith exclusively bus lanes needs to be urgently clarified, and the law changed if necessary, so that Local Authorities can use them in Lendal-like circumstances without having loophole chasers breathing down their necks. All York's political parties plus MP's and the Local Govt. Association need to combine forces on this to make Whitehall listen.

The bottom line for us all is that inner city private car use needs to be curbed, so that the road capacity we have is used as efficiently as possible. That includes making room for those who have no practical alternative to using a motor vehicle. Artificial priority for alternative travel options is part of the process.

What about concessions for multiple occupancy vehicles. It's been trialled on some roads. Mind you there are dodgers who have tried to circumvent that, by carrying an inflatable woman in the passenger seat...........
The circus is in town and here we have the chief clown with a deflated brain.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: We seem to be mixing it on two topics here. Whether Lendal Bridge , or if not Ouse Bridge should be closed to private cars in the day and 2. If and how ANPR cameras can be legally used for enforcement under current guidance. I am wholly in favour of the Lendal experiment continuing until the independent Institute of Transport Studies has delivered its Report. This must become public domain at the same time as received by CoYC . ANPR cameras are a highly efficient enforcement tool. Their usage outwith exclusively bus lanes needs to be urgently clarified, and the law changed if necessary, so that Local Authorities can use them in Lendal-like circumstances without having loophole chasers breathing down their necks. All York's political parties plus MP's and the Local Govt. Association need to combine forces on this to make Whitehall listen. The bottom line for us all is that inner city private car use needs to be curbed, so that the road capacity we have is used as efficiently as possible. That includes making room for those who have no practical alternative to using a motor vehicle. Artificial priority for alternative travel options is part of the process. What about concessions for multiple occupancy vehicles. It's been trialled on some roads. Mind you there are dodgers who have tried to circumvent that, by carrying an inflatable woman in the passenger seat...........[/p][/quote]The circus is in town and here we have the chief clown with a deflated brain. bolero
  • Score: -57

3:29pm Mon 7 Apr 14

bolero says...

pedalling paul wrote:
We seem to be mixing it on two topics here. Whether Lendal Bridge , or if not Ouse Bridge should be closed to private cars in the day and

2. If and how ANPR cameras can be legally used for enforcement under current guidance.

I am wholly in favour of the Lendal experiment continuing until the independent Institute of Transport Studies has delivered its Report. This must become public domain at the same time as received by CoYC
.
ANPR cameras are a highly efficient enforcement tool. Their usage outwith exclusively bus lanes needs to be urgently clarified, and the law changed if necessary, so that Local Authorities can use them in Lendal-like circumstances without having loophole chasers breathing down their necks. All York's political parties plus MP's and the Local Govt. Association need to combine forces on this to make Whitehall listen.

The bottom line for us all is that inner city private car use needs to be curbed, so that the road capacity we have is used as efficiently as possible. That includes making room for those who have no practical alternative to using a motor vehicle. Artificial priority for alternative travel options is part of the process.

What about concessions for multiple occupancy vehicles. It's been trialled on some roads. Mind you there are dodgers who have tried to circumvent that, by carrying an inflatable woman in the passenger seat...........
The circus is in town and here we have the chief clown with a deflated brain.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: We seem to be mixing it on two topics here. Whether Lendal Bridge , or if not Ouse Bridge should be closed to private cars in the day and 2. If and how ANPR cameras can be legally used for enforcement under current guidance. I am wholly in favour of the Lendal experiment continuing until the independent Institute of Transport Studies has delivered its Report. This must become public domain at the same time as received by CoYC . ANPR cameras are a highly efficient enforcement tool. Their usage outwith exclusively bus lanes needs to be urgently clarified, and the law changed if necessary, so that Local Authorities can use them in Lendal-like circumstances without having loophole chasers breathing down their necks. All York's political parties plus MP's and the Local Govt. Association need to combine forces on this to make Whitehall listen. The bottom line for us all is that inner city private car use needs to be curbed, so that the road capacity we have is used as efficiently as possible. That includes making room for those who have no practical alternative to using a motor vehicle. Artificial priority for alternative travel options is part of the process. What about concessions for multiple occupancy vehicles. It's been trialled on some roads. Mind you there are dodgers who have tried to circumvent that, by carrying an inflatable woman in the passenger seat...........[/p][/quote]The circus is in town and here we have the chief clown with a deflated brain. bolero
  • Score: -58

3:35pm Mon 7 Apr 14

AnotherPointofView says...

Piddlin' Paul. You said "Their usage outwith exclusively bus lanes needs to be urgently clarified, and the law changed if necessary"

I think something needs clarifying.
Piddlin' Paul. You said "Their usage outwith exclusively bus lanes needs to be urgently clarified, and the law changed if necessary" I think something needs clarifying. AnotherPointofView
  • Score: -44

3:37pm Mon 7 Apr 14

YorkPatrol says...

pedalling paul wrote:
We seem to be mixing it on two topics here. Whether Lendal Bridge , or if not Ouse Bridge should be closed to private cars in the day and 2. If and how ANPR cameras can be legally used for enforcement under current guidance. I am wholly in favour of the Lendal experiment continuing until the independent Institute of Transport Studies has delivered its Report. This must become public domain at the same time as received by CoYC . ANPR cameras are a highly efficient enforcement tool. Their usage outwith exclusively bus lanes needs to be urgently clarified, and the law changed if necessary, so that Local Authorities can use them in Lendal-like circumstances without having loophole chasers breathing down their necks. All York's political parties plus MP's and the Local Govt. Association need to combine forces on this to make Whitehall listen. The bottom line for us all is that inner city private car use needs to be curbed, so that the road capacity we have is used as efficiently as possible. That includes making room for those who have no practical alternative to using a motor vehicle. Artificial priority for alternative travel options is part of the process. What about concessions for multiple occupancy vehicles. It's been trialled on some roads. Mind you there are dodgers who have tried to circumvent that, by carrying an inflatable woman in the passenger seat...........
Balls
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: We seem to be mixing it on two topics here. Whether Lendal Bridge , or if not Ouse Bridge should be closed to private cars in the day and 2. If and how ANPR cameras can be legally used for enforcement under current guidance. I am wholly in favour of the Lendal experiment continuing until the independent Institute of Transport Studies has delivered its Report. This must become public domain at the same time as received by CoYC . ANPR cameras are a highly efficient enforcement tool. Their usage outwith exclusively bus lanes needs to be urgently clarified, and the law changed if necessary, so that Local Authorities can use them in Lendal-like circumstances without having loophole chasers breathing down their necks. All York's political parties plus MP's and the Local Govt. Association need to combine forces on this to make Whitehall listen. The bottom line for us all is that inner city private car use needs to be curbed, so that the road capacity we have is used as efficiently as possible. That includes making room for those who have no practical alternative to using a motor vehicle. Artificial priority for alternative travel options is part of the process. What about concessions for multiple occupancy vehicles. It's been trialled on some roads. Mind you there are dodgers who have tried to circumvent that, by carrying an inflatable woman in the passenger seat...........[/p][/quote]Balls YorkPatrol
  • Score: -42

3:41pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Pinza-C55 says...

pedalling paul wrote:
We seem to be mixing it on two topics here. Whether Lendal Bridge , or if not Ouse Bridge should be closed to private cars in the day and

2. If and how ANPR cameras can be legally used for enforcement under current guidance.

I am wholly in favour of the Lendal experiment continuing until the independent Institute of Transport Studies has delivered its Report. This must become public domain at the same time as received by CoYC
.
ANPR cameras are a highly efficient enforcement tool. Their usage outwith exclusively bus lanes needs to be urgently clarified, and the law changed if necessary, so that Local Authorities can use them in Lendal-like circumstances without having loophole chasers breathing down their necks. All York's political parties plus MP's and the Local Govt. Association need to combine forces on this to make Whitehall listen.

The bottom line for us all is that inner city private car use needs to be curbed, so that the road capacity we have is used as efficiently as possible. That includes making room for those who have no practical alternative to using a motor vehicle. Artificial priority for alternative travel options is part of the process.

What about concessions for multiple occupancy vehicles. It's been trialled on some roads. Mind you there are dodgers who have tried to circumvent that, by carrying an inflatable woman in the passenger seat...........
You sound as though you have special knowledge of inflatable women? Maybe you need to buy a tandem?
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: We seem to be mixing it on two topics here. Whether Lendal Bridge , or if not Ouse Bridge should be closed to private cars in the day and 2. If and how ANPR cameras can be legally used for enforcement under current guidance. I am wholly in favour of the Lendal experiment continuing until the independent Institute of Transport Studies has delivered its Report. This must become public domain at the same time as received by CoYC . ANPR cameras are a highly efficient enforcement tool. Their usage outwith exclusively bus lanes needs to be urgently clarified, and the law changed if necessary, so that Local Authorities can use them in Lendal-like circumstances without having loophole chasers breathing down their necks. All York's political parties plus MP's and the Local Govt. Association need to combine forces on this to make Whitehall listen. The bottom line for us all is that inner city private car use needs to be curbed, so that the road capacity we have is used as efficiently as possible. That includes making room for those who have no practical alternative to using a motor vehicle. Artificial priority for alternative travel options is part of the process. What about concessions for multiple occupancy vehicles. It's been trialled on some roads. Mind you there are dodgers who have tried to circumvent that, by carrying an inflatable woman in the passenger seat...........[/p][/quote]You sound as though you have special knowledge of inflatable women? Maybe you need to buy a tandem? Pinza-C55
  • Score: -38

3:45pm Mon 7 Apr 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

AnotherPointofView wrote:
Piddlin' Paul. You said "Their usage outwith exclusively bus lanes needs to be urgently clarified, and the law changed if necessary"

I think something needs clarifying.
Absolutely, if the law needs to be changed then it confirms what has been done was wrong. You cannot retrospectivly change the law, otherwise all smokers would be guilty of smoking in pubs if indeed they did, i'm sure many other examples could be made.

the equalizer squad says…

https://www.dropbox.

com/sh/ptonllw1i7i9u

m7/X0UbyQqaXK/York_P

CN_Refund.doc

Anyone already fined has nothing to loose by filling in the form from the link above.
[quote][p][bold]AnotherPointofView[/bold] wrote: Piddlin' Paul. You said "Their usage outwith exclusively bus lanes needs to be urgently clarified, and the law changed if necessary" I think something needs clarifying.[/p][/quote]Absolutely, if the law needs to be changed then it confirms what has been done was wrong. You cannot retrospectivly change the law, otherwise all smokers would be guilty of smoking in pubs if indeed they did, i'm sure many other examples could be made. the equalizer squad says… https://www.dropbox. com/sh/ptonllw1i7i9u m7/X0UbyQqaXK/York_P CN_Refund.doc Anyone already fined has nothing to loose by filling in the form from the link above. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -28

3:46pm Mon 7 Apr 14

sixtyfourfive says...

bolero wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
We seem to be mixing it on two topics here. Whether Lendal Bridge , or if not Ouse Bridge should be closed to private cars in the day and

2. If and how ANPR cameras can be legally used for enforcement under current guidance.

I am wholly in favour of the Lendal experiment continuing until the independent Institute of Transport Studies has delivered its Report. This must become public domain at the same time as received by CoYC
.
ANPR cameras are a highly efficient enforcement tool. Their usage outwith exclusively bus lanes needs to be urgently clarified, and the law changed if necessary, so that Local Authorities can use them in Lendal-like circumstances without having loophole chasers breathing down their necks. All York's political parties plus MP's and the Local Govt. Association need to combine forces on this to make Whitehall listen.

The bottom line for us all is that inner city private car use needs to be curbed, so that the road capacity we have is used as efficiently as possible. That includes making room for those who have no practical alternative to using a motor vehicle. Artificial priority for alternative travel options is part of the process.

What about concessions for multiple occupancy vehicles. It's been trialled on some roads. Mind you there are dodgers who have tried to circumvent that, by carrying an inflatable woman in the passenger seat...........
The circus is in town and here we have the chief clown with a deflated brain.
He could always give his "inflatable woman" a "croggy" over Lendal Bridge on his bike - this guy never ceases to amuse!
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: We seem to be mixing it on two topics here. Whether Lendal Bridge , or if not Ouse Bridge should be closed to private cars in the day and 2. If and how ANPR cameras can be legally used for enforcement under current guidance. I am wholly in favour of the Lendal experiment continuing until the independent Institute of Transport Studies has delivered its Report. This must become public domain at the same time as received by CoYC . ANPR cameras are a highly efficient enforcement tool. Their usage outwith exclusively bus lanes needs to be urgently clarified, and the law changed if necessary, so that Local Authorities can use them in Lendal-like circumstances without having loophole chasers breathing down their necks. All York's political parties plus MP's and the Local Govt. Association need to combine forces on this to make Whitehall listen. The bottom line for us all is that inner city private car use needs to be curbed, so that the road capacity we have is used as efficiently as possible. That includes making room for those who have no practical alternative to using a motor vehicle. Artificial priority for alternative travel options is part of the process. What about concessions for multiple occupancy vehicles. It's been trialled on some roads. Mind you there are dodgers who have tried to circumvent that, by carrying an inflatable woman in the passenger seat...........[/p][/quote]The circus is in town and here we have the chief clown with a deflated brain.[/p][/quote]He could always give his "inflatable woman" a "croggy" over Lendal Bridge on his bike - this guy never ceases to amuse! sixtyfourfive
  • Score: -34

3:56pm Mon 7 Apr 14

the original Homer says...

Pedalling Paul said

"ANPR cameras are a highly efficient enforcement tool. Their usage outwith exclusively bus lanes needs to be urgently clarified, and the law changed if necessary, so that Local Authorities can use them in Lendal-like circumstances without having loophole chasers breathing down their necks. All York's political parties plus MP's and the Local Govt. Association need to combine forces on this to make Whitehall listen."

Can't see what needs clarification. They can be used in bus lanes, they can't be used in traffic restrictions other than bus lanes. Seems pretty clear to me.

Also not sure why "loophole chasers" are mentioned. This isn't a loophole, it's how the legislation was always meant to work. Bus Lanes are a specific exception, where it has been decided that Local Authorities can be trusted to make the simple distinction between what is and isn't allowed to be there. The knock-on effect is that the Local Authority will only use their privileged access to the DVLC after they have decided a vehicle has broken the rules.

If the restriction isn't a bus lane, due to exceptions, then it becomes likely that the Local Authority will use DVLC first, and use that information to decide whether or not the vehicle was entitled to be there.

That's only the thin end of the wedge, for example, what if the Council decide to use the DVLA responses to compile a list of exempted registrations (so that they didn't have to ask DVLA repeatedly)?

If they could, then it becomes a possibility that Councillors could be driving round knowing how to spot unmarked Police cars.
Pedalling Paul said "ANPR cameras are a highly efficient enforcement tool. Their usage outwith exclusively bus lanes needs to be urgently clarified, and the law changed if necessary, so that Local Authorities can use them in Lendal-like circumstances without having loophole chasers breathing down their necks. All York's political parties plus MP's and the Local Govt. Association need to combine forces on this to make Whitehall listen." Can't see what needs clarification. They can be used in bus lanes, they can't be used in traffic restrictions other than bus lanes. Seems pretty clear to me. Also not sure why "loophole chasers" are mentioned. This isn't a loophole, it's how the legislation was always meant to work. Bus Lanes are a specific exception, where it has been decided that Local Authorities can be trusted to make the simple distinction between what is and isn't allowed to be there. The knock-on effect is that the Local Authority will only use their privileged access to the DVLC after they have decided a vehicle has broken the rules. If the restriction isn't a bus lane, due to exceptions, then it becomes likely that the Local Authority will use DVLC first, and use that information to decide whether or not the vehicle was entitled to be there. That's only the thin end of the wedge, for example, what if the Council decide to use the DVLA responses to compile a list of exempted registrations (so that they didn't have to ask DVLA repeatedly)? If they could, then it becomes a possibility that Councillors could be driving round knowing how to spot unmarked Police cars. the original Homer
  • Score: -37

3:57pm Mon 7 Apr 14

YorkPatrol says...

sixtyfourfive wrote:
bolero wrote:
pedalling paul wrote: We seem to be mixing it on two topics here. Whether Lendal Bridge , or if not Ouse Bridge should be closed to private cars in the day and 2. If and how ANPR cameras can be legally used for enforcement under current guidance. I am wholly in favour of the Lendal experiment continuing until the independent Institute of Transport Studies has delivered its Report. This must become public domain at the same time as received by CoYC . ANPR cameras are a highly efficient enforcement tool. Their usage outwith exclusively bus lanes needs to be urgently clarified, and the law changed if necessary, so that Local Authorities can use them in Lendal-like circumstances without having loophole chasers breathing down their necks. All York's political parties plus MP's and the Local Govt. Association need to combine forces on this to make Whitehall listen. The bottom line for us all is that inner city private car use needs to be curbed, so that the road capacity we have is used as efficiently as possible. That includes making room for those who have no practical alternative to using a motor vehicle. Artificial priority for alternative travel options is part of the process. What about concessions for multiple occupancy vehicles. It's been trialled on some roads. Mind you there are dodgers who have tried to circumvent that, by carrying an inflatable woman in the passenger seat...........
The circus is in town and here we have the chief clown with a deflated brain.
He could always give his "inflatable woman" a "croggy" over Lendal Bridge on his bike - this guy never ceases to amuse!
What about when the city becomes "gridlocked" with bikes?

Then what?
[quote][p][bold]sixtyfourfive[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: We seem to be mixing it on two topics here. Whether Lendal Bridge , or if not Ouse Bridge should be closed to private cars in the day and 2. If and how ANPR cameras can be legally used for enforcement under current guidance. I am wholly in favour of the Lendal experiment continuing until the independent Institute of Transport Studies has delivered its Report. This must become public domain at the same time as received by CoYC . ANPR cameras are a highly efficient enforcement tool. Their usage outwith exclusively bus lanes needs to be urgently clarified, and the law changed if necessary, so that Local Authorities can use them in Lendal-like circumstances without having loophole chasers breathing down their necks. All York's political parties plus MP's and the Local Govt. Association need to combine forces on this to make Whitehall listen. The bottom line for us all is that inner city private car use needs to be curbed, so that the road capacity we have is used as efficiently as possible. That includes making room for those who have no practical alternative to using a motor vehicle. Artificial priority for alternative travel options is part of the process. What about concessions for multiple occupancy vehicles. It's been trialled on some roads. Mind you there are dodgers who have tried to circumvent that, by carrying an inflatable woman in the passenger seat...........[/p][/quote]The circus is in town and here we have the chief clown with a deflated brain.[/p][/quote]He could always give his "inflatable woman" a "croggy" over Lendal Bridge on his bike - this guy never ceases to amuse![/p][/quote]What about when the city becomes "gridlocked" with bikes? Then what? YorkPatrol
  • Score: -28

4:06pm Mon 7 Apr 14

mutley12321 says...

Hello Paul,

Members of the public are quite rightly discussing and consulting with each other on our city and the merits/ drawbacks of the Lendal Bridge closure; consultation which the council seem keen to avoid. If this consultation and debate causes you offence, get over it and move on.

Point 2 – how ANPR cameras can be legally used and your paragraph below about the “experiment” continuing are not mutually exclusive. They’re different things altogether.

Regarding ANPR, Mr Knapp suggests these are a “no-no”? Advice from an unknown mysterious “legal source” suggests this Mr Knapp is wrong. Now, this secondary advice is from an unknown person(s)? Rumpole of the Bailey, the girl from Silk or perhaps the bloke who drinks in the Royal Oak who knows everything about everything but now we have the strange announcement that fines are on hold. Doesn’t the announcement timing strike you as odd?

You’re blaming loophole chasers. Why? If we had a CoYC who before implementation of a poorly thought out scheme had the basic common sense to check what the regulations demanded, the loophole chasers wouldn’t have a leg to stand on and this whole mess would never have happened?? Shall we try to cure the symptom or the cause? Which would you recommend?

We agree road capability needs to be carefully managed. Perhaps if these discussions and consultation was managed led by a council that understands the regulations that they’re expected to adhere to, this would be a reasonable start?

I would ask again what your own role has been in this saga, I doubt though you’ll respond.

Regards,

Mutt.
Hello Paul, Members of the public are quite rightly discussing and consulting with each other on our city and the merits/ drawbacks of the Lendal Bridge closure; consultation which the council seem keen to avoid. If this consultation and debate causes you offence, get over it and move on. Point 2 – how ANPR cameras can be legally used and your paragraph below about the “experiment” continuing are not mutually exclusive. They’re different things altogether. Regarding ANPR, Mr Knapp suggests these are a “no-no”? Advice from an unknown mysterious “legal source” suggests this Mr Knapp is wrong. Now, this secondary advice is from an unknown person(s)? Rumpole of the Bailey, the girl from Silk or perhaps the bloke who drinks in the Royal Oak who knows everything about everything but now we have the strange announcement that fines are on hold. Doesn’t the announcement timing strike you as odd? You’re blaming loophole chasers. Why? If we had a CoYC who before implementation of a poorly thought out scheme had the basic common sense to check what the regulations demanded, the loophole chasers wouldn’t have a leg to stand on and this whole mess would never have happened?? Shall we try to cure the symptom or the cause? Which would you recommend? We agree road capability needs to be carefully managed. Perhaps if these discussions and consultation was managed led by a council that understands the regulations that they’re expected to adhere to, this would be a reasonable start? I would ask again what your own role has been in this saga, I doubt though you’ll respond. Regards, Mutt. mutley12321
  • Score: -27

4:18pm Mon 7 Apr 14

punkrocker says...

council simply admit your wrong and scrap this stupid money making racket.
council simply admit your wrong and scrap this stupid money making racket. punkrocker
  • Score: -32

4:42pm Mon 7 Apr 14

greenmonkey says...

bjb wrote:
If this 'bunch of clowns' is voted out next year, which bunch of clowns should replace them? The ones that have had the job previously and failed miserably. The ones whose party produce a manifesto and cheat everyone who voted for them by ignoring their wishes just to be able to write in history books they were once in power or those whose goal is to line the pockets of their old public school chums.

Your choice! One bunch of clowns will only be replaced with another.
An excellent observation. Media and opposition pressure made Steve Galloway unpopular, even though his administration presided over worsening air pollution, the ftr and big increases in bus fares. Cycle City York funding was won almost in spite of the administration. Now Labour are the unpopular ones, but replace them with a Tory administration and you can be sure they will be lambasted for being unresponsive to public opinion and scrapping funding for bus services etc. Will be interesting to see what happens in Liverpool where the Mayor has scrapped bus lanes on the basis that this eases traffic! No doubt the bus operators will use it as an excuse for increased fares and scrapping more routes.
[quote][p][bold]bjb[/bold] wrote: If this 'bunch of clowns' is voted out next year, which bunch of clowns should replace them? The ones that have had the job previously and failed miserably. The ones whose party produce a manifesto and cheat everyone who voted for them by ignoring their wishes just to be able to write in history books they were once in power or those whose goal is to line the pockets of their old public school chums. Your choice! One bunch of clowns will only be replaced with another.[/p][/quote]An excellent observation. Media and opposition pressure made Steve Galloway unpopular, even though his administration presided over worsening air pollution, the ftr and big increases in bus fares. Cycle City York funding was won almost in spite of the administration. Now Labour are the unpopular ones, but replace them with a Tory administration and you can be sure they will be lambasted for being unresponsive to public opinion and scrapping funding for bus services etc. Will be interesting to see what happens in Liverpool where the Mayor has scrapped bus lanes on the basis that this eases traffic! No doubt the bus operators will use it as an excuse for increased fares and scrapping more routes. greenmonkey
  • Score: -50

4:45pm Mon 7 Apr 14

York2000 says...

Not sure what is more annoying - The photo of James Alexander's smug face on this website, or Mark Stead's smug face with the plethora of article posted on this issue.

Readers, you're being conned into thinking the Press cares.
Not sure what is more annoying - The photo of James Alexander's smug face on this website, or Mark Stead's smug face with the plethora of article posted on this issue. Readers, you're being conned into thinking the Press cares. York2000
  • Score: -72

4:50pm Mon 7 Apr 14

AnotherPointofView says...

YorkPatrol wrote:
sixtyfourfive wrote:
bolero wrote:
pedalling paul wrote: We seem to be mixing it on two topics here. Whether Lendal Bridge , or if not Ouse Bridge should be closed to private cars in the day and 2. If and how ANPR cameras can be legally used for enforcement under current guidance. I am wholly in favour of the Lendal experiment continuing until the independent Institute of Transport Studies has delivered its Report. This must become public domain at the same time as received by CoYC . ANPR cameras are a highly efficient enforcement tool. Their usage outwith exclusively bus lanes needs to be urgently clarified, and the law changed if necessary, so that Local Authorities can use them in Lendal-like circumstances without having loophole chasers breathing down their necks. All York's political parties plus MP's and the Local Govt. Association need to combine forces on this to make Whitehall listen. The bottom line for us all is that inner city private car use needs to be curbed, so that the road capacity we have is used as efficiently as possible. That includes making room for those who have no practical alternative to using a motor vehicle. Artificial priority for alternative travel options is part of the process. What about concessions for multiple occupancy vehicles. It's been trialled on some roads. Mind you there are dodgers who have tried to circumvent that, by carrying an inflatable woman in the passenger seat...........
The circus is in town and here we have the chief clown with a deflated brain.
He could always give his "inflatable woman" a "croggy" over Lendal Bridge on his bike - this guy never ceases to amuse!
What about when the city becomes "gridlocked" with bikes?

Then what?
Would that then be a bikes users paradise?
[quote][p][bold]YorkPatrol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sixtyfourfive[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: We seem to be mixing it on two topics here. Whether Lendal Bridge , or if not Ouse Bridge should be closed to private cars in the day and 2. If and how ANPR cameras can be legally used for enforcement under current guidance. I am wholly in favour of the Lendal experiment continuing until the independent Institute of Transport Studies has delivered its Report. This must become public domain at the same time as received by CoYC . ANPR cameras are a highly efficient enforcement tool. Their usage outwith exclusively bus lanes needs to be urgently clarified, and the law changed if necessary, so that Local Authorities can use them in Lendal-like circumstances without having loophole chasers breathing down their necks. All York's political parties plus MP's and the Local Govt. Association need to combine forces on this to make Whitehall listen. The bottom line for us all is that inner city private car use needs to be curbed, so that the road capacity we have is used as efficiently as possible. That includes making room for those who have no practical alternative to using a motor vehicle. Artificial priority for alternative travel options is part of the process. What about concessions for multiple occupancy vehicles. It's been trialled on some roads. Mind you there are dodgers who have tried to circumvent that, by carrying an inflatable woman in the passenger seat...........[/p][/quote]The circus is in town and here we have the chief clown with a deflated brain.[/p][/quote]He could always give his "inflatable woman" a "croggy" over Lendal Bridge on his bike - this guy never ceases to amuse![/p][/quote]What about when the city becomes "gridlocked" with bikes? Then what?[/p][/quote]Would that then be a bikes users paradise? AnotherPointofView
  • Score: -77

4:55pm Mon 7 Apr 14

MorkofYork says...

Bikes are a horribly inefficient use of road space.
Bikes are a horribly inefficient use of road space. MorkofYork
  • Score: -72

5:10pm Mon 7 Apr 14

cynic3 says...

York2000 wrote:
Not sure what is more annoying - The photo of James Alexander's smug face on this website, or Mark Stead's smug face with the plethora of article posted on this issue.

Readers, you're being conned into thinking the Press cares.
Not being conned. It's quite clear that they are drip feeding points into several "new" articles to maximise interest.
[quote][p][bold]York2000[/bold] wrote: Not sure what is more annoying - The photo of James Alexander's smug face on this website, or Mark Stead's smug face with the plethora of article posted on this issue. Readers, you're being conned into thinking the Press cares.[/p][/quote]Not being conned. It's quite clear that they are drip feeding points into several "new" articles to maximise interest. cynic3
  • Score: -75

5:21pm Mon 7 Apr 14

the equalizer squad says...

James Alexander will be on radio York Wednesday morning. Not to be missed.
James Alexander will be on radio York Wednesday morning. Not to be missed. the equalizer squad
  • Score: -74

5:30pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Lance Corporal Jones says...

the equalizer squad wrote:
James Alexander will be on radio York Wednesday morning. Not to be missed.
Would have been more interested if he was on Tyburn.
[quote][p][bold]the equalizer squad[/bold] wrote: James Alexander will be on radio York Wednesday morning. Not to be missed.[/p][/quote]Would have been more interested if he was on Tyburn. Lance Corporal Jones
  • Score: -58

5:46pm Mon 7 Apr 14

bolero says...

MorkofYork wrote:
Bikes are a horribly inefficient use of road space.
No. But some cyclists are a waste of space,period.
[quote][p][bold]MorkofYork[/bold] wrote: Bikes are a horribly inefficient use of road space.[/p][/quote]No. But some cyclists are a waste of space,period. bolero
  • Score: -89

6:00pm Mon 7 Apr 14

MorkofYork says...

I frequently over take cyclists. Not only is their journey slower but they slow down everyone behind them. It's nothing i can't live with but to say bikes are more efficient on the roads is a load of bull.
I frequently over take cyclists. Not only is their journey slower but they slow down everyone behind them. It's nothing i can't live with but to say bikes are more efficient on the roads is a load of bull. MorkofYork
  • Score: -70

6:30pm Mon 7 Apr 14

the equalizer squad says...

I would like Mr Alexander and Nr Merrit to practice this sentence as they may need it soon: " would you're like fries with that"
I would like Mr Alexander and Nr Merrit to practice this sentence as they may need it soon: " would you're like fries with that" the equalizer squad
  • Score: -58

6:33pm Mon 7 Apr 14

the equalizer squad says...

Lance Corporal Jones wrote:
the equalizer squad wrote: James Alexander will be on radio York Wednesday morning. Not to be missed.
Would have been more interested if he was on Tyburn.
You mean give him a suspended sentence.
[quote][p][bold]Lance Corporal Jones[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the equalizer squad[/bold] wrote: James Alexander will be on radio York Wednesday morning. Not to be missed.[/p][/quote]Would have been more interested if he was on Tyburn.[/p][/quote]You mean give him a suspended sentence. the equalizer squad
  • Score: -69

6:54pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Lance Corporal Jones says...

the equalizer squad wrote:
Lance Corporal Jones wrote:
the equalizer squad wrote: James Alexander will be on radio York Wednesday morning. Not to be missed.
Would have been more interested if he was on Tyburn.
You mean give him a suspended sentence.
I just think its a great place for him to hang around with like minded people.
[quote][p][bold]the equalizer squad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lance Corporal Jones[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the equalizer squad[/bold] wrote: James Alexander will be on radio York Wednesday morning. Not to be missed.[/p][/quote]Would have been more interested if he was on Tyburn.[/p][/quote]You mean give him a suspended sentence.[/p][/quote]I just think its a great place for him to hang around with like minded people. Lance Corporal Jones
  • Score: -55

6:54pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Lance Corporal Jones says...

the equalizer squad wrote:
Lance Corporal Jones wrote:
the equalizer squad wrote: James Alexander will be on radio York Wednesday morning. Not to be missed.
Would have been more interested if he was on Tyburn.
You mean give him a suspended sentence.
I just think its a great place for him to hang around with like minded people.
[quote][p][bold]the equalizer squad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lance Corporal Jones[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the equalizer squad[/bold] wrote: James Alexander will be on radio York Wednesday morning. Not to be missed.[/p][/quote]Would have been more interested if he was on Tyburn.[/p][/quote]You mean give him a suspended sentence.[/p][/quote]I just think its a great place for him to hang around with like minded people. Lance Corporal Jones
  • Score: -61

7:32pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Cheeky face says...

James Alexander on Radio York on Wednesday. He has not replied to my questions of 10.12.2013 yet. The prolonged questions by me were similar concerns as those the adjudicator crucified the council on in his report, which took 5 weeks to be completed. WE will all wonder what the delay was!

My question to James was who did Merritt speak to DVLC and what exactly was said by each party!

Whilst all this uncertainty is developing into a snowball we still need a system that looks after locals and businesses/visitors whilst overcoming congestion and pollution.

Many councils must be concerned as theses schemes are developing with local councils the decision makers; at the government's insistence - so the government IS NEVER at fault. So much for localism.

Cameras need maintenance so there will always be periods when they are out of service; the council should be able to tell us those periods; if they wish to be open and honest that is!
James Alexander on Radio York on Wednesday. He has not replied to my questions of 10.12.2013 yet. The prolonged questions by me were similar concerns as those the adjudicator crucified the council on in his report, which took 5 weeks to be completed. WE will all wonder what the delay was! My question to James was who did Merritt speak to DVLC and what exactly was said by each party! Whilst all this uncertainty is developing into a snowball we still need a system that looks after locals and businesses/visitors whilst overcoming congestion and pollution. Many councils must be concerned as theses schemes are developing with local councils the decision makers; at the government's insistence - so the government IS NEVER at fault. So much for localism. Cameras need maintenance so there will always be periods when they are out of service; the council should be able to tell us those periods; if they wish to be open and honest that is! Cheeky face
  • Score: -51

7:58pm Mon 7 Apr 14

ZachCohen says...

COUNCIL chiefs have stopped issuing fines to drivers breaching controversial traffic rules on York’s Lendal Bridge and Coppergate – but are recording the routes in case penalties can be handed out later.

If they knew the legistlation, they would know they cannot hand out fines after 28 days of when the car used the 'bus lane'.

I found this withing 2 minutes on the website why cant the expert legal advisors?
http://www.legislati
on.gov.uk/uksi/2005/
2757/regulation/8/ma
de

(2) Subject to paragraph (3), a penalty charge notice shall be served before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the detection date
COUNCIL chiefs have stopped issuing fines to drivers breaching controversial traffic rules on York’s Lendal Bridge and Coppergate – but are recording the routes in case penalties can be handed out later. If they knew the legistlation, they would know they cannot hand out fines after 28 days of when the car used the 'bus lane'. I found this withing 2 minutes on the website why cant the expert legal advisors? http://www.legislati on.gov.uk/uksi/2005/ 2757/regulation/8/ma de (2) Subject to paragraph (3), a penalty charge notice shall be served before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the detection date ZachCohen
  • Score: -63

8:46pm Mon 7 Apr 14

inthesticks says...

Cheeky face wrote:
James Alexander on Radio York on Wednesday. He has not replied to my questions of 10.12.2013 yet. The prolonged questions by me were similar concerns as those the adjudicator crucified the council on in his report, which took 5 weeks to be completed. WE will all wonder what the delay was!

My question to James was who did Merritt speak to DVLC and what exactly was said by each party!

Whilst all this uncertainty is developing into a snowball we still need a system that looks after locals and businesses/visitors whilst overcoming congestion and pollution.

Many councils must be concerned as theses schemes are developing with local councils the decision makers; at the government's insistence - so the government IS NEVER at fault. So much for localism.

Cameras need maintenance so there will always be periods when they are out of service; the council should be able to tell us those periods; if they wish to be open and honest that is!
If you want access to written records you need to make a freedom of information request. It costs nothing and if you do it via the website whatdotheyknow
everyone has the advantage of seeing your request and the answers. It`s public so they have to reply, (where as a private email to Jimmy can get lost easily, or ignored and no one is any the wiser)
The council have 20 working days to reply. You must use your real name, not make vexatious (or daft) requests, or request info already in the public domain (such as on the COYC website).
[quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: James Alexander on Radio York on Wednesday. He has not replied to my questions of 10.12.2013 yet. The prolonged questions by me were similar concerns as those the adjudicator crucified the council on in his report, which took 5 weeks to be completed. WE will all wonder what the delay was! My question to James was who did Merritt speak to DVLC and what exactly was said by each party! Whilst all this uncertainty is developing into a snowball we still need a system that looks after locals and businesses/visitors whilst overcoming congestion and pollution. Many councils must be concerned as theses schemes are developing with local councils the decision makers; at the government's insistence - so the government IS NEVER at fault. So much for localism. Cameras need maintenance so there will always be periods when they are out of service; the council should be able to tell us those periods; if they wish to be open and honest that is![/p][/quote]If you want access to written records you need to make a freedom of information request. It costs nothing and if you do it via the website whatdotheyknow everyone has the advantage of seeing your request and the answers. It`s public so they have to reply, (where as a private email to Jimmy can get lost easily, or ignored and no one is any the wiser) The council have 20 working days to reply. You must use your real name, not make vexatious (or daft) requests, or request info already in the public domain (such as on the COYC website). inthesticks
  • Score: -65

10:21pm Mon 7 Apr 14

oi oi savaloy says...

The best thing about this whole fiasco is that it has made people aware about Alexander, Merrit and Simply-Wrong, i know loads of staunch labour supporters who have stated they will be not voting for this motley bunch ever again!
The best thing about this whole fiasco is that it has made people aware about Alexander, Merrit and Simply-Wrong, i know loads of staunch labour supporters who have stated they will be not voting for this motley bunch ever again! oi oi savaloy
  • Score: -10

10:34pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Meldrew2 says...

Pinza-C55 wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
We seem to be mixing it on two topics here. Whether Lendal Bridge , or if not Ouse Bridge should be closed to private cars in the day and

2. If and how ANPR cameras can be legally used for enforcement under current guidance.

I am wholly in favour of the Lendal experiment continuing until the independent Institute of Transport Studies has delivered its Report. This must become public domain at the same time as received by CoYC
.
ANPR cameras are a highly efficient enforcement tool. Their usage outwith exclusively bus lanes needs to be urgently clarified, and the law changed if necessary, so that Local Authorities can use them in Lendal-like circumstances without having loophole chasers breathing down their necks. All York's political parties plus MP's and the Local Govt. Association need to combine forces on this to make Whitehall listen.

The bottom line for us all is that inner city private car use needs to be curbed, so that the road capacity we have is used as efficiently as possible. That includes making room for those who have no practical alternative to using a motor vehicle. Artificial priority for alternative travel options is part of the process.

What about concessions for multiple occupancy vehicles. It's been trialled on some roads. Mind you there are dodgers who have tried to circumvent that, by carrying an inflatable woman in the passenger seat...........
You sound as though you have special knowledge of inflatable women? Maybe you need to buy a tandem?
We could end up with peddling Paul & peddling Paula :)
[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: We seem to be mixing it on two topics here. Whether Lendal Bridge , or if not Ouse Bridge should be closed to private cars in the day and 2. If and how ANPR cameras can be legally used for enforcement under current guidance. I am wholly in favour of the Lendal experiment continuing until the independent Institute of Transport Studies has delivered its Report. This must become public domain at the same time as received by CoYC . ANPR cameras are a highly efficient enforcement tool. Their usage outwith exclusively bus lanes needs to be urgently clarified, and the law changed if necessary, so that Local Authorities can use them in Lendal-like circumstances without having loophole chasers breathing down their necks. All York's political parties plus MP's and the Local Govt. Association need to combine forces on this to make Whitehall listen. The bottom line for us all is that inner city private car use needs to be curbed, so that the road capacity we have is used as efficiently as possible. That includes making room for those who have no practical alternative to using a motor vehicle. Artificial priority for alternative travel options is part of the process. What about concessions for multiple occupancy vehicles. It's been trialled on some roads. Mind you there are dodgers who have tried to circumvent that, by carrying an inflatable woman in the passenger seat...........[/p][/quote]You sound as though you have special knowledge of inflatable women? Maybe you need to buy a tandem?[/p][/quote]We could end up with peddling Paul & peddling Paula :) Meldrew2
  • Score: -18

5:58am Tue 8 Apr 14

Non-corporate entity says...

Guido_Fawkes wrote:
It is quite clear that the Council have little or no respect for the people of York.

I hope that when the elections come next year people remember everything all of this and show their contempt to the current administration and vote them out!!
Apparently over three thousand people disliked this comment. Something I find very hard to believe.
[quote][p][bold]Guido_Fawkes[/bold] wrote: It is quite clear that the Council have little or no respect for the people of York. I hope that when the elections come next year people remember everything all of this and show their contempt to the current administration and vote them out!![/p][/quote]Apparently over three thousand people disliked this comment. Something I find very hard to believe. Non-corporate entity
  • Score: -67

6:56am Tue 8 Apr 14

oi oi savaloy says...

Non-corporate entity wrote:
Guido_Fawkes wrote:
It is quite clear that the Council have little or no respect for the people of York.

I hope that when the elections come next year people remember everything all of this and show their contempt to the current administration and vote them out!!
Apparently over three thousand people disliked this comment. Something I find very hard to believe.
its actually one person! you just have to use google chrome as your browser and its really simple to do, there's a tutorial on youtube on how to do it (it's not me btw, i don't touch the thumbs up/down, i think the for and against comments speak for themselves, the against comments outnumber the for massively AND then there was the petition on the york.gov site that was ignored by the council....
[quote][p][bold]Non-corporate entity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Guido_Fawkes[/bold] wrote: It is quite clear that the Council have little or no respect for the people of York. I hope that when the elections come next year people remember everything all of this and show their contempt to the current administration and vote them out!![/p][/quote]Apparently over three thousand people disliked this comment. Something I find very hard to believe.[/p][/quote]its actually one person! you just have to use google chrome as your browser and its really simple to do, there's a tutorial on youtube on how to do it (it's not me btw, i don't touch the thumbs up/down, i think the for and against comments speak for themselves, the against comments outnumber the for massively AND then there was the petition on the york.gov site that was ignored by the council.... oi oi savaloy
  • Score: -55

10:15am Tue 8 Apr 14

Older Sometimes Wiser says...

Sage9 wrote:
I wonder how many people will want to attend the next Cabinet meeting where all this is to be discussed.
You should be able to watch this on the Web along with a range of other Council Meetings.
See www.york.gov.uk/webc
asts
[quote][p][bold]Sage9[/bold] wrote: I wonder how many people will want to attend the next Cabinet meeting where all this is to be discussed.[/p][/quote]You should be able to watch this on the Web along with a range of other Council Meetings. See www.york.gov.uk/webc asts Older Sometimes Wiser
  • Score: 5

2:57pm Tue 8 Apr 14

mel_drew says...

Older Sometimes Wiser wrote:
Sage9 wrote:
I wonder how many people will want to attend the next Cabinet meeting where all this is to be discussed.
You should be able to watch this on the Web along with a range of other Council Meetings.
See www.york.gov.uk/webc

asts
Apart from the bits that are "edited". (They don't like you to see or hear "disturbances".)
[quote][p][bold]Older Sometimes Wiser[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sage9[/bold] wrote: I wonder how many people will want to attend the next Cabinet meeting where all this is to be discussed.[/p][/quote]You should be able to watch this on the Web along with a range of other Council Meetings. See www.york.gov.uk/webc asts[/p][/quote]Apart from the bits that are "edited". (They don't like you to see or hear "disturbances".) mel_drew
  • Score: 2

4:26am Wed 9 Apr 14

Magicman! says...

hmm, so THAT's why there was more traffic on the bridge today, meaning I didn't get through the green light first time. Turn off the cameras and BOOM the traffic queues return.
hmm, so THAT's why there was more traffic on the bridge today, meaning I didn't get through the green light first time. Turn off the cameras and BOOM the traffic queues return. Magicman!
  • Score: -2

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree