Introducing parking charges in evenings & Sundays

[Litotes 63]

They employ more than 6 staff, just to service the permit renewals, requests and enquiries. Then there' all the costs that go along with that.

 

6 people?

 

 

6 PEOPLE - bloatfulness at its worst.

 

A once a year operation for the majority of permits which are repeats

They are automatically generated from the previous years database - - the envelopes should be automatically filled.

 

So what do the do all day? SFA - like the rest of the council.

[Planner1 438]

6 people?

 

 

6 PEOPLE - bloatfulness at its worst.

 

A once a year operation for the majority of permits which are repeats

They are automatically generated from the previous years database - - the envelopes should be automatically filled.

 

So what do the do all day? SFA - like the rest of the council.

You haven't got a clue how many permits there are, how many enquiries the staff have to deal with or how long it takes to do any of their work. But it's still bloated wastefulness. I see.

[Litotes 63]

You haven't got a clue how many permits there are, how many enquiries the staff have to deal with or how long it takes to do any of their work. But it's still bloated wastefulness. I see.

 

You don't work there, so neither do you...

 

But I would till suggest that 95% of the permits (if not more) are prompted by the automatic letters that get sent out without any manual intervention (apart from pressing the print button on the big letter printing machine).

 

The payment doens't go to them - it goes to the central finance officer, so there is little for them to do there.

 

You need to go and pick the visitor permits up, so that isn't in their staff area...

 

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

 

 

Besides - despite repeated requests under the FoI Act, the council doesn't appear to know the breakdown either.

 

 

Their figures lump the PCN and Permit processing costs together, so it seems fair to lump the income of that together.

 

So 2011-2012

 

PCN and Permit Processing costs - Total: £153,368

PCN and Permit Income: Total: £855,027

 

Surplus of £700,000

 

We can only go on what we are given.

 

 

Therefore it appears that it is a revenue generating scheme and therefore is illegal.

[Penistone999 10]

Write and ask. I'm sure they will oblige.

 

Of course they will. The relevant figures are not available as it is . I wonder why that is ? Would it be because the council dont want us mere mortals seeing how much they cream off motorists with the permit scheme. ?

[Planner1 438]

You don't work there, so neither do you...

 

But I would till suggest that 95% of the permits (if not more) are prompted by the automatic letters that get sent out without any manual intervention (apart from pressing the print button on the big letter printing machine).

 

The payment doens't go to them - it goes to the central finance officer, so there is little for them to do there.

 

 

Well, as usual, I happen to know a bit more than you.

 

The Council have recently transferred their permit processing function to their Customer Service Centre. Leading up to that, they did a very close analysis of all the processes involved, redesigned all the processes and optimised efficiency. Several posts were deleted and all the remaining staff were transferred to Customer Services, where workloads are intensively managed, much like a call centre.

 

So, not bloated or inefficient at all.

[Litotes 63]

Well, as usual, I happen to know a bit more than you.

 

The Council have recently transferred their permit processing function to their Customer Service Centre. Leading up to that, they did a very close analysis of all the processes involved, redesigned all the processes and optimised efficiency. Several posts were deleted and all the remaining staff were transferred to Customer Services, where workloads are intensively managed, much like a call centre.

 

So, not bloated or inefficient at all.

 

Ahhh, so from that it suggests that the years for which we have figures were in fact representative of a bloated and inefficient operation which is why they have now changed them.

 

But hold on...

 

 

There is still a surplus of £700,000 (according to the way SCC reported it).

 

 

And, if the costs associated with the bloated and inefficient operation were £90,000, then I presume the costs will come down - therefore the surplus will increase.

 

 

Oh, and if it is all rolled up into "Customer Services" and there are 6 people, then presumably they have other duties as well, so their whole cost cannot be attributed to the permit scheme.

[Planner1 438]

Oh, and if it is all rolled up into "Customer Services" and there are 6 people, then presumably they have other duties as well, so their whole cost cannot be attributed to the permit scheme.

There are over 6 full time equivalents needed to carry out the work. The fact that the work may be carried out by a wider pool of people doesn't reduce the costs of employing half a dozen people.

[Litotes 63]

Nice example of ignoring the main part of the post... again

[alchemist 37]

There are over 6 full time equivalents needed to carry out the work. The fact that the work may be carried out by a wider pool of people doesn't reduce the costs of employing half a dozen people.

 

But you seem to be dodging the surplus question/issue - WHY??

[Longcol 602]

Y

 

Their figures lump the PCN and Permit processing costs together, so it seems fair to lump the income of that together.

 

So 2011-2012

 

PCN and Permit Processing costs - Total: £153,368

PCN and Permit Income: Total: £855,027

 

Surplus of £700,000

 

 

 

Less the costs of enforcement eg wardens, less signage etc etc.

[Litotes 63]

Fine, if you want the totals... we've been here before...

 

In 2011-2012 the Permit Schemes (Broomhill, Sharrow, Groves and Highfields) made a surplus of...

 

£869,241

 

That is after all costs and expenses were taken into account.

 

Now that Hillsborough has had this imposed on them, that figure will only increase, especially if, as Planner1 suggests, the system has been made more efficient since then.

[alchemist 37]

Fine, if you want the totals... we've been here before...

 

In 2011-2012 the Permit Schemes (Broomhill, Sharrow, Groves and Highfields) made a surplus of...

 

£869,241

 

That is after all costs and expenses were taken into account.

 

Now that Hillsborough has had this imposed on them, that figure will only increase, especially if, as Planner1 suggests, the system has been made more efficient since then.

 

Ahh, but dont forget, the council aint making a penny out of it!!!!

 

Parking, the council cash cow