Declining profitability; up until the controvertial bus station opened
The news broken in December that the Tory CCTV car was a liability in all but name could be about to re-suface, as the Council spin machine released a statement today indicating a new potential revenue stream had been identified at the over-budget bus station, at the same time that the cars were lambasted for declining profitability and high staff turnover.
In December the press reported in great detail (see above) about how the cars were loosing profitability and were subject to huge numbers of public appeals against there operation.
It now appears that the Tory Car had found a new wheeze with which to make money
You will remember the below facts from December
- Tory CCTV issued over 55,000 tickets, but only two-thirds have been paid due to disputes. A quarter have been cancelled after residents fought and won
- Tory CCTV car has made revenues of £1.6m since 2008, with £771,000 remaining after costs
- Staff have cost £421,000, the cars have cost £319,000 and fuel, maintenance and the 'uniforms' have cost £31,000
- 30 staff have left since 2008. Six were sacked, five were laid off and 19 left of their own accord
- Number of tickets issued has declined since November 2010 with only 754 tickets issued in October 2011
- The cars made equivalent to £192,000 per annum or a total profit of £771,000 profit after cost
Readers will be particularly interested to read the Council statement rushed out today indicating the 'danger's of motorists driving through the Chatham Bus Station' which has come as a response to an FoI request disclosing 'Penalty Charge Notices issued at Medway St' the fact the CCTV car has potentially made a small fortune out of catching motorists using the bus station as a cut through.
This blog welcomes enforcement of inappropriate driving but does raise serious questions about why a permanent camera was not fixed in October, and more worrying that other resources, namely the Police have been used to give out warning notices over a key period; namely Halloween and Bonfire night.
The press release states the timeline which shows why a fixed ANPR camera should have been fixed far earlier;
This statement indicates that Police Officers, paid by you the tax payer to combat real crime, namely anti-social behaviour in my ward in Luton & Wayfield or Gillingham North were actually spending periods of time giving warnings out to drivers undertaking minor traffic offences.
Whilst I have no issue with the Police warning people, we do have traffic wardens that could do the same job. Why have Police resources, already stretched due to budget cuts, being used to in this regard?
This type of non-endorsable wrist slapping is a waste of Police resource for absolutely no gain at all. Taking into account the number of days (equivalent to 30/31 days) that is the equivalent of a cop car giving out 16 non-endorsable notices per day.
Moving on...
Now comes the crux. All residents are aware that the CCTV cars have been a declining revenue source and after reports in December, were at serious risk of being deemed decreasinly profitable to the point where the PR reputational damage would outway revenue raised.
How convenient, how terribly convenient, that the CCTV car finds a miraculous source of income for its exploits, which it is allowed to exploit for almost two months, twice the length of the Police operation, to penalise road users. In total this car would have made on my calculations £28,860 if everyone paid the £30 charge as stipulated, on the Medway Council website, and if all these PCNs were given by the vehicles.
In the press release it states that the Council has 962 notices paid but in their own FoI submission to a member of the public a total of 1786 fixed penalty notices were given. An amnesty of four weeks was given from the Police but it is still questionable tactics employed.
Despite the warm words of Conservatives indicating that CCTV car would in fact be ensuring schools and residential roads were clear of traffic the cars also spent a disproportionate of time at the bus station. One could say why move if the cash keeps flowing into the coffers...
You may remember the justification a few years ago that:
"Our CCTV cars make it safer for children by operating outside schools and help cut down on congestion by people illegally parking on roads throughout Medway."
It seems however this car was spending a lot of time not outside schools at all.
The Council have now stopped the cash cow and have
"Now permanent ANPR cameras are being put in place to stop those that continue to flout driving regulations. "
Notice the words 'are being' not 'have been'
Absolutely correct; but why did it take months of penalising the public with the CCTV car to install ANPR cameras, and when was this decision made (e.g. not today)? ANPR camera's or fixed camera's should have installed from the very start on this stretch of road or surely after Police reports; the fact they were not, and the CCTV car allowed to operate at such revenue does raise serious questions here. The timing is very co-incidental indeed.
It looks very much like, one could argue, that a previously decreasingly profitable set of vehicles, with a declining revenue stream, were seemingly allowed to rake in revenue from an area which should have been fitted with a permanent camera at the very start.
Pointing both ways; revenue generation or simply enforcement? You decide?
Of course there are a number of ways that individuals can oppose the PCNs but one very interesting spot tonight from the above. The bus symbol used on the turn 'right' side of this image is not one I have seen before. Also; I cant say I saw a lot of indications of a bus lane on the roads themselves.
This is a very suspicious state of affairs; someone somewhere needs to ask how much profit these cars made out of this failure, and why it took so long for a decision to made to place a permanent camera.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar