Consultants’ parking blunder (From The Argus)
Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.
Consultants’ parking blunder
11:50am Friday 7th December 2012 in News By Neil Vowles
Blundering consultants advised a council to hike parking charges illegally.
The error was only discovered after The Argus raised queries about the £27,000 report produced by auditors Deloitte for West Sussex County Council.
Consultants suggested the council could net up to an extra £1 million a year by introducing parking charges at weekends and evenings in car parks.
However, councils are forbidden by the Traffic Management Act to set on-street parking charges to generate extra income, with money raised from charges ring-fenced for traffic policies.
West Sussex County Council also only has responsibility for on-street parking, with the power to increase charges in car parks residing with district and borough councils.
The proposals were due to be discussed by a council committee today but the council announced prior to the meeting they would not be taking up the suggestion in the report after being contacted by The Argus.
Committee member and Liberal Democrat councillor Dr James Walsh said the report was part of a worrying trend to rely on outside consultants at every opportunity.
'Legal powers'
He said: “I don’t think this report is value for money. You would expect the council to know what legal powers it has to raise revenue without asking outside consultants.”
The council commissioned the firm to look into where extra revenue could be generated after a report placed the authority in the lowest 5% of councils for income raised through fees and charges.
The report suggested the council could increase the £94 million per year it raises in fees and charges after identifying opportunities to increase fees for transport and adult services.
A county council spokesman said it would not be taking the suggestion forward because it related to off street car parks which are generally the responsibility of district and borough councils.
He added: “These are not proposals until a detailed assessment has been carried out by the professional officers for consideration by the responsible cabinet member.”
A Deloitte spokesman said: “This was just one of a range of potential options put forward for the council to consider.”
See the latest news headlines from The Argus:
- Victim "fabricated" sex assault story - day eleven of Albion players' trial
- Dad-of-two was visiting brother and nephew when he was gunned down in Hove
- UPDATE: A27 closed in both directions near Worthing after serious accident
- Sussex artists put their skills on show
- Sussex's sewage will become drinking water under new plans
Add us to your circles on Google+
Comments(8)
getThisCoalitionOut
says...
12:28pm Fri 7 Dec 12
derekhunt
says...
12:37pm Fri 7 Dec 12
Fairfax Sakes
says...
1:37pm Fri 7 Dec 12
getThisCoalitionOut wrote:Consultants get paid on average £100-125k per year on an annualised basis-I work for a consultanc firm on a contract basis and can assert that they DO provide good value if used correctly.
How much were these consultants paid? Are they refunding their fees to the council as they gave incorrect advice which would have resulted in the council acting illegally?
bogs
says...
4:44pm Fri 7 Dec 12
Fairfax Sakes wrote:So for £100-£125k a year, you get to talk bo**ocks and don't need to be able to spell either.
getThisCoalitionOut wrote: How much were these consultants paid? Are they refunding their fees to the council as they gave incorrect advice which would have resulted in the council acting illegally?Consultants get paid on average £100-125k per year on an annualised basis-I work for a consultanc firm on a contract basis and can assert that they DO provide good value if used correctly.
Now we know why consultants are such a waste of money!
peterthomas
says...
4:58pm Fri 7 Dec 12
peterthomas
says...
4:59pm Fri 7 Dec 12
Maxwell's Ghost
says...
5:24pm Fri 7 Dec 12
We have been pied to about every other project in the city recently, including the incorrect press release about the Lewes Road scheme which was withdrawn by the council just days before the FoI request lead to the publication of the officers' report which actually showed the scheme's real value, which was less than one per cent of traffic will be removed from the roads with other traffic being diverted onto the residential roads.
There's nothing worse than a council lacking honest and transparency no matter what its colour.
Bob_The_Ferret says...
12:04pm Fri 7 Dec 12