A few nice search used automobiles images I found:
Factory Lane N17 – 24 March 2009
Image by Alan Stanton
24 March 2009. Factory Lane, Tottenham. Straight ahead, is High Road Tottenham. (Though there is no automobile exit. )
On 19 March 2009 Dr Ita O’Donovan, then Haringey’s Chief Executive, wrote to me listing "Factory Road" as one of the streets within Tottenham Hale Controlled Parking Zone (untrue). Dr O’Donovan had been told that the lines were compliant with Statutory Regulations (true) and that parking enforcement was taking place,
As the pic shows; there are no parking bays – Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) or otherwise. At its western end, Factory Lane was entirely marked with double yellow lines: meaning no parking at any time. As you can see, the lines were not being enforced when I took this photo.
This elementary error was not the only glaring mistake in the information in Dr O’Donovan’s emails to me between 13 -19 March 2009 about roads within and just outside the Tottenham Hale CPZ.
I’d written to Dr O’Donovan as part of my ongoing attempts since June 2008 to establish that Haringey had prefabricated numerous mistakes in parking lines crossways the borough.
I worked closely on this with former councillor Ray Dodds. LibDem councillor Martin Newton was also raising these issues and finding similar reluctance by the Urban Environment Department to admit and correct these errors.
Of course, as one of the Tottenham Hale ward councillors, I appreciate that a Chief Executive can't micro-manage services crossways a whole Borough. Nor be familiar with parking lines and signs in apiece back street. In this case Dr O’Donovan selected to rely on information supplied by staff in the Urban Environment Department – the same people who were responsible for the mistakes and – at that time – were still denying them.
Naturally I prefabricated my ideal efforts to assist Dr O’Donovan by giving detailed and accurate information – including the evidence of my pictures posted on Flickr. I illustrated that what she had been told was comical gobbledegook.
Here’s the email sequence – beginning with a Freedom of Information Act request on 13 March 2009.
?????????????????????????????????????????????
From : Alan Stanton Tottenham Hale ward councillor
Sent : 13 March 2009 13:39
To : Ita O’Donovan, Chief Executive
Cc : Cllr Claire Kober (Council Leader); Cllr Lorna Reith (Deputy Leader) ; Cllr Ray Dodds
Subject: Tottenham Hale CPZ
Freedom of Information Act Request & Member Inquiry
Dear Dr O’Donovan,
Could I please ask you to read the [previous] emails. As you’ll see, the reply to my email on 4 March ignored my detailed questions and – as is usual in my inquiries about this area of the Council’s service – prefabricated unhelpful general statements instead.
I therefore wish to restate my questions:
(1) As a Freedom of Information Act Inquiry; as well as
(2) Repeating the questions as a formal Member Inquiry under the Council’s Constitution.
Could I please request your help to assist my receiving full and proper answers; and if doable to ensure that I am not required to move a further 28 days for this information.
As you will appreciate, for many months there has been a clear pattern of delays, denial, mystification and supplying partial information about Parking and Lines & Signs issues, experienced by me, Cllr Dodds and Cllr Newton.
Therefore can I make an additional request to you: to discover who prefabricated the decision to ignore my detailed questions and supply this vague reply; and their reasons for doing so. Though signed by Ms Hancox, I adopt the draft reply would have been considered by more senior officers.
As well as the above could I please make the recommendation that important arrangements are place in hand for Mr Niall Bolger and his colleagues to receive training on:
• the general issue of the need for transparency and openness as good practice by local authorities.
• the general law and viands of the Haringey Constitution regarding councillors’ Access to Information
I also wish to make it clear that should I encounter any similar difficulties when making reasonable requests from this Service or Department in response to a future Member Inquiry, I intend
(a) Repeating my Member Inquiry as a formal Freedom of Information Request and,
(b) If necessary referring the matter to the Information Commissioner.
I look forward to your reply,
—– Original Message —–
From : Ita O’Donovan
To: Cllr Stanton Alan
Sent : Thursday, March 19, 2009 6:47 PM
Subject : LBH 60583 [not 60474] – Tottenham Hale + FOI Request ref 81000153
Dear Councillor Stanton,
Thank you for your e-mail raising your concerns about the response you received to your enquiry about the enforcement of the Tottenham Hale CPZ. I comprehend that, unfortunately, there has been a misunderstanding as we were dealing with two inquiries from you on this issue at the same time, one a phone inquiry and one by e-mail.
Your phone inquiry on 2nd March to the Parking Service asked for clarification on whether the streets within the Tottenham Hale CPZ were being enforced. This inquiry, reference LBH60474, was the one responded to by Joan Hancox on the 13th March 2009, and cleared by her manager, Beverley Taylor.
On the 4th March you e-mailed Frontline Members with more specific questions on this topic. This inquiry was allocated the reference LBH60583 and an acknowledgement was sent to you on the 9th March saying that a full response will be sent to you by the 18th March 2009. Unfortunately, due to an administrative error, a connection was not prefabricated between the two inquiries. I have raised this with senior managers in the service who have taken steps to make sure that this does not happen in future.
I would like to reassure you that there was no intention by officers to wage you with a less than full response to the issues you raised and these answers are now provided below. I comprehend that we have provided you with a number of detailed responses on the issue of parking lines and signs in the past, as you mention. If you are dissatisfied with these responses, as you suggest, it would be helpful for me to have specific details.
In response to your enquiry LBH 60583 please find below an answer to apiece of the questions you raise.
• Is the Tottenham Hale CPZ currently being enforced or not?
Response
Part is being enforced, please see the list of roads below.
• If not, when did enforcement cease?
Response
Enforcement ceased on the roads listed below in the 14th October 2008.
• If it is being enforced, is this on apiece road within the CPZ? Or only those roads and for automobiles parked on lines which comply with the law?
Response
Enforcement is taking place on roads where all signs and lines are compliant.
List of streets where enforcement is not taking place in Tottenham Hale CPZ N17
• Holcombe Road • Dawlish Road • Mitchley Road • Junction Road • • Devon close Road • Scales Road • Malvern Road • Park View Road.
List of street where enforcement is taking place in Tottenham Hale CPZ N17
• Dowsett Road • Kimberley Road • Ladysmith Road • Carew Road • Mafeking Road • Buller Road • Circular Road • Factory Road • Reform Row • Reed Road • Stoneleigh Road
• On what dates is it planned to start correcting non-compliant parking lines and signs within the Tottenham Hale CPZ; and on what date will the work be complete?
Response
We are currently undertaking inventory surveys to refer the extent of works required and envisage that compliance works will be finished by the end of May.
• If it is being enforced, could you please tell me how many PCNs were issued in Tottenham Hale CPZ in Jan 2009 and in February 2009.
Response
In Jan we issued 208 PCNs in the Tottenham Hale CPZ, and in February, 87.
I trust that this now answers your inquiry and clarifies any misunderstanding. However, as you have also requested that this enquiry be treated as an FOI, should you have any further queries, or are unhappy with how we have dealt with your request and wish to make a complaint, please contact the Feedback and Information Team as below. [Address and contact details given].
Yours sincerely
Dr Ita O’Donovan
Chief Executive
—– Original Message —–
From : Alan Stanton
To : Ita O’Donovan
Cc:Ray Dodds ; Claire Kober ; Lorna Reith
Sent : Friday, March 20, 2009 3:43 PM
Subject : LBH 60583 [not 60474] – Tottenham Hale + FOI Request ref 81000153
Dear Dr O’Donovan,
My thanks for your rapid response.
Reading your email, my initial thought was: ‘Welcome to the club’. Plainly, whoever in the Urban Environment Department drafted, authorised and checked this reply approached their task with a similar demand of care and concern as they do with an enquiry from me.
The information you have been supplied is factually incorrect in most respects. Before I go on to explain why, let me add my second thought. ‘If that’s how they respond to the Chief Executive, heaven help residents who write in’.
Recent Changes
I realise that information about signs-and-lines can swiftly become out-of-date as errors are corrected. And, as you will appreciate, I have not had time this day to do more than re-check a few roads within Tottenham Hale CPZ.
As far as I can tell from my own observations and a swift limited re-check this morning, the only current changes have been:
(1) Ladysmith Road N17 was resurfaced last year. The lines and signs were absolutely repainted and – as far as I am aware – are compliant with the Statutory Regulations. (But see 2.)
(2) Many roads within the CPZ have had traffic calming measures; including entry ‘cushions’ and corner build-outs. In a few cases these destroyed parking lines or part of the lines. Plainly, inspection of these works should have spotted this problem with minor rectification taking place without delay. Of course, it’s doable that such works are already in process. (But were I a betting man, I would not place money on it. Nor, I envision would you.)
(3) A number of parking lines are badly fading. So it could be doubtful if they are compliant. In my view, monitoring and refreshing lines and signs should be a priority call on the parking income. Not – as appears in Haringey – an afterthought.
(4) One aspect I’ve not raised before is the demand of T-bars on single and double-yellow lines. In one case a Parking Adjudicator ruled this was de minimis. However, I am told there is now a Review pending in the High Court which seeks to challenge that ruling. I adopt your colleagues in Urban Environment are aware of this.
Inventory Survey
You stated that last October officers in Urban Environment ceased enforcement in roads within the Tottenham Hale CPZ. So I find it mystifying that they are only now "undertaking inventory surveys to refer the extent of works required".
I’m surprised that you have not found it equally perplexing that officers compile a list (albeit a grossly inaccurate one) of roads within the CPZ, saying which ones are or are not compliant and which they are currently enforcing; but without having first carried out an accurate survey.
Frankly, Tottenham Hale CPZ does not cover a massive area or many streets. It is perfectly feasible for someone with the necessary expertise and of reasonable intelligence to survey it using a camera and a notebook. My guess is that no more than 2-3 days would be needed for travel round and then producing a comprehensive and reliable report.
The fact that corrective works will not be finished until the end of Might I regard as maladministration. Unless I can be given some reasonable explanation for this delay, I am considering taking up the matter with the District Auditor (re loss of income to the Council) and the Ombudsman on behalf of residents in my ward who are paying for a service they do not receive.
Roads within Tottenham Hale CPZ
Below is an alphabetical list of roads in Tottenham Hale CPZ. For some reason not all of them are in the list you were given; and there are also roads in your list which are not within the CPZ.
I have added [original] where a road was in the original CPZ area; and [extension] for roads in the extension. Your email sets out the roads "where all signs and lines are compliant" and enforcement is taking place. I’ve added my comments below apiece street where I disagree with this list; giving my reasons why.
As officers in Urban Environment are aware, for many months I have posted pictures on my Flickr pages for most of the streets in this CPZ; with comments about the compliance (or otherwise) of the lines. These are part of a group of sixty pictures – including from other parts of Haringey and elsewhere. You can find them here.
Buller Road [Extension added to the CPZ] My two pictures show the bays are non-compliant. Not compliant as listed in your email.
Burbridge Way [Extension] This road was omitted altogether from the list in your email. Two pictures posted – bays are non-compliant.
Carew Road [Extension] Three pictures – bays are non-compliant. Not as listed in your email.
Chesnut Grove [Original CPZ] This street was omitted from your email. My three pictures show bays non-compliant. However, like many roads in the original CPZ, this one had double white lines wrongly painted at the ends of the street with the correct single white lines in the middle. This elegant variation on the Statutory Regulations means those end bays are non-compliant.
Circular Road [Original] Shown as compliant in your email. This street has pavement parking and I don’t know whether or not the existing signage is compliant as I am told the regulations changed since these lines and signs were installed.
Dawlish Road [Original] Shown as non-compliant in your email. Three pictures posted showing the lines at both ends of the road are wrongly painted with a double white line. Otherwise the bays are compliant.
Devon Close [Original] Shown as non-compliant in your email. Pavement parking allowed. The signs and lines appear to be the same as the adjacent Circular Road – which is shown as compliant.
Dowsett Road [Extension] Shown as compliant in your email. My four pictures show specific non-compliant bays. Some of the bays in this road might be compliant.
Factory Lane [including Palm Tree Court]. [Extension] This is wrongly shown in your list as ‘Factory Road’. It’s also shown as compliant. I haven’t checked today, but as I recall, is not actually in the CPZ but marked entirely with yellow lines. Which should of course, be enforced.
Holcombe Road [Original] Shown as non-compliant in your email. My two posted pictures show that two bays at the Park View Road end of Holcombe Road are indeed wrongly painted with a double white line. (And no T-bars). But apart from this improvisation, all other bays in this street are compliant and should be enforced.
Junction Road [Original] Shown as non-compliant in your email. However, my one pic shows only the two bays at the Scales Road end of Junction Road are wrongly painted with a double white line. Otherwise the bays are compliant.
Kimberley Road [Extension] Shown as compliant in your email. On the contrary, my seven pictures show that apiece bay in this street was wrongly painted with a double white end line – and therefore entirely non-compliant. The end lines at the Dowsett Road junction have been destroyed by the new build-out.
Last week I re-checked all the lines in this street as I have taken-up the case of a resident who was refused a refund of her PCN. Hopefully, this refund will now be forthcoming; either from Haringey or via a complaint to the Ombudsman.
Ladysmith Road [Extension] This is shown in your email as compliant; with enforcement taking place. As I mentioned, this street was resurfaced and re-lined. Even though lines destroyed by a new build-out are now needed. Otherwise I concur with your email.
Malvern Road [Original] Shown as non-compliant in your email. However my two pictures show the same pattern as in other roads in the original CPZ. The end lines of both pairs of end bays were wrongly given two white lines and are non-compliant. However, the middle bays are okay.
Mafeking Road [Extension] Shown as compliant in your email and enforcement taking place. However my three pictures show that the parking bays are in fact non-compliant.
Mitchley Road [Original] Shown as non-compliant in your email. One pic indicates the same pattern as in Malvern Road above. Apart from the end lines on the end bays, the others are compliant.
Park View Road This was partly in the original CPZ and partly in the extension.
It is shown as non-compliant in your email. My one pic shows a single bay near the corner with Dowsett Road which has double white transverse lines at the north end of the bay. Apart from this bay, other parking bay lines (on the western side of this street) appear correctly marked. The orient side of Park View Road is a double yellow line and should be enforced.
Reed Road [Extension] Shown as compliant in your email. However my pic shows non-compliant lines.
Scales Road [Original] Shown as non-compliant in your email. My pic shows one end of the end bay wrongly marked – the same pattern as in the adjoining Malvern Road and Mitchley above. Other bays are compliant.
Stoneleigh Road [Original] Shown as compliant in your email. I posted one photo. In my view, all the bays appear to be non-compliant
Wilson’s Avenue This street was omitted from your list. I am unclear whether or not this was properly included in the Statutory Order which authorised the CPZ. It has a parking bay which is wrongly marked. This street is also outside the area demarcated by the CPZ signage. I raised this several years ago and was assured it prefabricated no difference. But that is not my reading of the Regulations.
Reform Row. This street was included in your list as compliant and being enforced. As far as I am aware Reform Row is not and has never been in the Tottenham Hale CPZ.
Officers’ Intentions
We will have to concur to differ on the matter of officers’ intentions. When I send an email requesting full and detailed information, I anticipate a full and detailed answer. However, I am always willing to discuss with officers whether my request is reasonable and constructive; and if it requires an unfeasible amount of work. What I am no longer willing to accept is being fobbed-off.
I very much regret to state that my experience does not lead to me to draw the conclusion that these officers are committed to transparency. (Although I also realise that this might not be entirely within their control.)
Whatever the reasons, I have – as you place it – frequently been dissatisfied with responses I received. If you would like details, could I please invite you to read my public comments posted on my Flickr photoblog. A search for ‘tags’ such as: CPZ, PCN, parking; yellow box; should take you to the relevant pages.
My thanks for your help.
Alan Stanton
Tottenham Hale ward councillor
—– Original Message —–
From : Alan Stanton
Sent : 26 March 2009 13:46
To : Ita O’Donovan
Cc : Cllr Ray Dodds Ray; Cllr Claire Kober (Leader of the Council); Cllr Lorna Reith
Subject : LBH 60583 [not 60474] – Tottenham Hale + FOI Request ref 81000153
Dear Dr O’Donovan,
A brief update to my email [above].
As I mentioned, in response to your email last Friday I took new pictures of a few streets within Tottenham Hale CPZ. This week I checked two other locations: Wilson’s Avenue and Factory Lane.
I couldn’t spot any corrections to non-compliant CPZ or yellow lines. In some streets the only change was that markings are more colourless than before. In others, traffic calming measures had covered over some lines – which had not yet been repainted.
All my CPZ pictures are collected in a Flickr ‘set’ which you can access using this ‘guest pass’ link.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Alan Stanton
Tottenham Hale ward councillor
—– Original Message —–
From : Ita O’Donovan
To : Cllr Alan Stanton
Cc : Cllr Ray Dodds ; Cllr Claire Kober (Leader of the Council) ; Cllr Lorna Reith
Sent : Saturday, March 28, 2009 1:03 PM
Subject : LBH 60583 [not 60474] – Tottenham Hale + FOI Request ref 81000153
Dear Cllr Stanton,
Thank you for your further detailed email on the enforcement situation in Tottenham Hale CPZ. You obviously have a real concern about these matters.
In essence these concerns focus on two main issues: firstly, the calibre of the responses that you are receiving from Urban Environment and the accuracy of the information which is being supplied to you. Secondly, you are concerned about the length of time it is taking to rectify compliance issues in this area and feel that the end of Might is not acceptable.
On the first issue, I comprehend that you feel that the response mainly addressed the questions that you raised but did not go into adequate detail to satisfy your concerns about the compliance of lines and signs and our reasons for enforcing or not enforcing.
In response to your question “If it is being enforced, is this apiece road within the CPZ? Or is it only those roads and for automobiles parked on lines which comply with the law?”, the response should have explained that enforcement is taking place in locations in the listed roads where signs are compliant as well as where restrictions are not CPZ specific, for example, footway parking and double yellow lines.
I would also confirm that the Council has not ceased enforcement due to the double white line bay markings as it is still clear to drivers where there are bays, irrespective of whether the bay end is marked with a single or a double bay marking. These will of course be addressed as part of our compliance work as will any colourless or worn lines.
I apologise that there was an error in the roads within the zone. Two roads were included which are just outside as they are on the same parking enforcement beat. I have stressed to Urban Environment officers the need for accuracy in responding to Member Enquiries.
On the second issue, you might be aware that the compliance work that is being carried out in Tottenham Hale CPZ is part of an ongoing programme to improve compliance of lines and signs. This work has started with Finsbury Park CPZ and Seven Sisters CPZ and a great deal of this has already been completed. The work on Tottenham Hale CPZ is part of this ongoing programme. I do not feel that the timescales for completing this work are unreasonable given the scale of all the compliance work being undertaken.
Thank you for the very detailed information you have provided on the compliance issues within the CPZ. I have asked officers to ensure that this is fed into our work and to invite you to accompany them on a achievement around the area, once the compliance work has been completed, to make sure that all of your concerns are fully addressed.
Sincerely
Ita O’Donovan
—– Original Message —–
From : Alan Stanton
To: Ita O’Donovan
Cc : Cllr Ray Dodds ; Cllr Claire Kober (Leader of the Council) ; Cllr Lorna Reith
Sent : Sunday, March 29, 2009 1:43 PM
Subject : LBH 60583 [not 60474] – Tottenham Hale + FOI Request ref 81000153
Dear Dr O’Donovan,
Thanks for your email yesterday 28 March.
I adopt someone else wrote this comical gobbledegook for you. But I’d really appreciate your reading something before it’s sent in your name.
But perhaps you did read it? In which case you’ve apparently unsuccessful to grasp any of the key issues for which – to use your words – I have “a real concern”. Nor, it seems, have you the slightest inkling that whoever advised on yesterday’s email place you in the invidious position of writing nearly precisely the opposite to what you wrote before.
You are correct of course that I have “concerns” about the accuracy of the information supplied to me by the Urban Environment Department.
It is also correct that I am critical about the length of time it has taken to recognise, acknowledge and correct easy errors.
But it might be helpful if I make clear that my main “concerns” are not:
• About officers responding to councillors.
• Nor about my “feeling” that officers have not given me enough detail.
• Nor is all this some anorak-issue of single or double white lines or whether or not yellow lines on roads have T-bars.
There are far more important public issues involved which are at the heart of the relationship between local councils and their residents. These are issues of trust and confidence; openness and accountability.
I asked easy questions. Do the signs and lines in one CPZ comply with the Law of the Land – the Statutory Regulations? Are they being enforced as such?
In response to my formal enquiry and Freedom of Information Act request and an enquiry from you as the Chief Executive, we get the answers:
"No". "Yes". "Here’s a list." "Well, what we meant to state was not these bays and not these lines." "Oops, sorry, the list is wrong." "It’s an ongoing programme." "We are about to do a survey." "We’ll achievement round with you at the end of May."
It’s like wading through porridge. And if it wasn’t serious it would be hilarious.
But it is serious. And not just because we’re taking people’s money for permits and fines. We are breaking an implied agreement with our residents. They purchase permits; they are entitled to anticipate and trust us to place in legally correct lines and signs. We enforce these; and they are entitled to anticipate and have confidence in us to follow the legal rules.
If local authorities behave as if they are above the law that is corrosive of the trust and confidence in these councils, in council staff, and in elected councillors.
Openness and Accountability.
Local government is now fond of referring to ‘customers’; and to ‘business units’, ‘business plans’, delivery’, and ‘service offers’. So let’s take an example from a real business.
Suppose Waitrose were to overcharge you because their scanning equipment was faulty. You would no doubt be outraged. You would insist they apologised to you and all the other customers; immediately stopped using the faulty equipment and fixed it; and refunded any overcharges. As they are a reputable trader they would do so. And without delay, obfuscation, disinformation; and using weasel-words like “addressing the problem”. I would anticipate them to be candid and open; because they value the trust and goodwill of their customers.
So if Haringey Council makes a mistake let’s be candid and honest about it; accept responsibility and accountability; apologise with genuine contrition; and correct the error as swiftly as possible. In other words, let’s behave like a reputable business instead of someone flogging dodgy DVDs at a car-boot sale.
Sincerely,
Alan Stanton
Councillor Tottenham Hale ward
“Car-wala”
Image by iain.davidson100
People have been finding this through Google. But it only had the title (same as now). What one connector were they searching for? For the record, and to help future searchers, this is a koala travel in front of my (former) Suzuki Gran Vitara in the northern carpark at the University of New England where I used to work in the former School of Human and Environmental Studies. The buildings of the School that surrounded that automobile park are also not there any more. So this is a historic photograph in lots of ways–though not about the koala.