More Parking Fun Outside the Town Hall!

The latest instalment of the saga of arrogance in the Town Hall with regards to car parking!  The latest first, which was sent today 15th May.

Dear Mr Battersby,

Thank you for your apology for the Chief Executive not replying to my communication.

I totally agree with you that it is not acceptable for any RMBC Officer or Member to fail to respond to a communication from a “customer”, particularly when the failure comes from someone who is paid such an astronomically eye-watering sum of money from the public purse.

However, I accept your apology without reservation. Thank you.

Please point me to the specific section and paragraph of the 2004 Traffic Management Act which allows for the parking that I have referred to.

I understand why you made the mistake in assuming that my previous correspondence was a “complaint”, but I can assure you that when I complain I will make reference to the word “complaint” in my communication to alleviate potential misunderstandings that may occur.

I look forward to receipt of the information that you have promised to send.

Thank you for your prompt response to my further enquiry.

Kind Regards,

Donald H. Buxton

— On Tue, 15/5/12, Battersby, Karl <Karl.Battersby@rotherham.gov.uk> wrote:

From: Battersby, Karl <Karl.Battersby@rotherham.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: RE: FURTHER RMBC VEHICLE PARKED ON PAVEMENT TODAY OUTSIDE TOWN HALL
To: Don Buxton
Cc: “Hatton, Lesley” <Lesley.Hatton@rotherham.gov.uk>, “Kemp, Liz” <Liz.Kemp@rotherham.gov.uk>
Date: Tuesday, 15 May, 2012, 11:28

Mr Buxton, I responded to your email of the 18th April, but not your email of the 19th as I was not copied into your response.

Please accept my apologies on behalf of the Council that you have not received a response to date. That is clearly not acceptable.

Hopefully I will have the vehicle log, mileage and destination information available today, and I will forward it to you as soon as I have it.

In terms of the other two questions

(a) details of the specific legal instrument by which this RMBC vehicle is authorised to park on the said paved pedestrian area otherwise than in accordance with local parking regulations

The vehicle in question is a fleet vehicle leased by Rotherham MBC and is therefore a statutory vehicle. The Traffic Management Act 2004 allows for statutory vehicles to be exempt from parking restrictions when being used for official duties. This is official Mayoral car.

(c) who within RMBC has authorised this vehicle to park on the paved pedestrian area.

I am not aware of a specific authorisation from any individual.

In my email of the 19th April I referred to your previous correspondence regarding the vehicle YM08 DZP as a complaint. It was my view that from the tone of your email of the 8th March, and the nature of the issues that you raised, that you were complaining about a vehicle being parked on the footway outside of the Town Hall. That is why I referred to it as a complaint.

Regards.
Karl Battersby
Strategic Director
Environment and Development Services
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

From: DON BUXTON
Sent: 14 May 2012 16:22
To: ChiefExecutive
Subject: Fw: RE: FURTHER RMBC VEHICLE PARKED ON PAVEMENT TODAY OUTSIDE TOWN HALL

Dear chiefexecutive@rotherham.gov.uk

I note with much concern that I have not had a comprehensive response with accompanying information from you or your subordinates to my original e-mail to you of 18th April.

As a matter of common courtesy I would have expected either an apology for any delay in responding or provision of the public information that I reasonably requested.

Is it now your wish for me to resort to the formality and expense of using FOI to obtain the statutory information that I reasonably requested on 18th April?

Yours Sincerely,

Donald H. Buxton

— On Thu, 19/4/12, DON BUXTON wrote:

From: DON BUXTON
Subject: RE: FURTHER RMBC VEHICLE PARKED ON PAVEMENT TODAY OUTSIDE TOWN HALL
To: “ROTHERHAM TOWN CLERK” <chiefexecutive@rotherham.gov.uk>
Date: Thursday, 19 April, 2012, 10:59

Dear chiefexecutive@rotherham.gov.uk

Thank you for your partial response.

I did not submit my previous communication as a “complaint”.

Please inform me why it is referred to as such.

Also please respond to my specific points (a) and (c).

Yours Sincerely,

Donald H. Buxton

— On Thu, 19/4/12, Battersby, Karl <Karl.Battersby@rotherham.gov.uk> wrote:
From: Battersby, Karl <Karl.Battersby@rotherham.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: FURTHER RMBC VEHICLE PARKED ON PAVEMENT TODAY OUTSIDE TOWN HALL
To: Don Buxton
Cc: ” Hatton, Lesley ” <Lesley.Hatton@rotherham.gov.uk>, ” Kemp, Liz ” <Liz.Kemp@rotherham.gov.uk>
Date: Thursday, 19 April, 2012, 9:50

Mr Buxton, the Chief Executive has asked me to respond on his behalf. Your previous complaint regarded the vehicle that is used in the main by the leader YM08 DZP, which is no longer parked outside the Town Hall, as confirmed by my last email. There is no contravention of my previous statement.

The vehicle to which you now refer is the mayoral vehicle ET1, which is parked there when required to take the mayor to and from mayoral duties, as it has been for some time. We can of course provide you with the vehicle log, mileage and destination information in due course.

Regards

Karl Battersby
Strategic Director
Environment and Development Services
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

From: DON BUXTON
Sent: 18 April 2012 18:14
To: ChiefExecutive

Subject: FURTHER RMBC VEHICLE PARKED ON PAVEMENT TODAY OUTSIDE TOWN HALL

Dear chiefexecutive@rotherham.gov.uk

Further to our previous conversations about the unlawful and irresponsible parking of RMBC vehicles on the paved pedestrian area outside the Town Hall and the response from your subordinate employee that vehicles would no longer be parked there when not in use, I am attaching a photo taken this afternoon around 1630 hrs which clearly shows another RMBC vehicle, registation number ET1, to be parking in contravention of the specific statement issued to me by your employee Karly Battersby, and copied for your information below.

I would be grateful if you can supply me with –

a) details of the specific legal instrument by which this RMBC vehicle is authorised to park on the said paved pedestrian area otherwise than in accordance with local parking regulations.

(b) specific details of today’s journey log for this vehicle, including destinations and times.

(c) who within RMBC has authorised this vehicle to park on the paved pedestrian area.

I look forward to your prompt and complete response to my enquiry.

Yours Sincerely,

Donald H. Buxton