It's more than my job's worth.
Discussion
I would imagine that the TRO has not been rescinded along there and the marking contractor has got a list of sites (from the TRO system) and is just going round repainting everything. It's not on him to check the legality of the order.
You get the same with disabled bays, where the original "recipient" of the bay has long since passed away, but the legal order is still in place.
It would have cost about £150, and maybe half an hour to do that, so hardly mega money.
You get the same with disabled bays, where the original "recipient" of the bay has long since passed away, but the legal order is still in place.
It would have cost about £150, and maybe half an hour to do that, so hardly mega money.
Ian Geary said:
Organisation holding thousands of pieces of data is found to have one that's out of date: apologies, and corrects it.
Not surprised really, that's what I would expect from any organisation, private or public sector.
I think you missed my point.Not surprised really, that's what I would expect from any organisation, private or public sector.
I'm not having a pop at the council.
The contractor could have used just a little bit of common sense here.
Jenny Tailor said:
I think you missed my point.
I'm not having a pop at the council.
The contractor could have used just a little bit of common sense here.
He probably wanted to be paid for the job, I'm sure he'll go back out to burn it off if the council pay him, had they been on the councils payroll the urge to continue might have been less. I'm not having a pop at the council.
The contractor could have used just a little bit of common sense here.
Jenny Tailor said:
Ian Geary said:
Organisation holding thousands of pieces of data is found to have one that's out of date: apologies, and corrects it.
Not surprised really, that's what I would expect from any organisation, private or public sector.
I think you missed my point.Not surprised really, that's what I would expect from any organisation, private or public sector.
I'm not having a pop at the council.
The contractor could have used just a little bit of common sense here.
Your OP just asks why you're not surprised. If you don't know, and you don't explain it, then you can't be expect people not to misinterpret what your write.
OpulentBob said:
I would imagine that the TRO has not been rescinded along there and the marking contractor has got a list of sites (from the TRO system) and is just going round repainting everything. It's not on him to check the legality of the order.
You get the same with disabled bays, where the original "recipient" of the bay has long since passed away, but the legal order is still in place.
It would have cost about £150, and maybe half an hour to do that, so hardly mega money.
Council contract, £150 to complete a job? You get the same with disabled bays, where the original "recipient" of the bay has long since passed away, but the legal order is still in place.
It would have cost about £150, and maybe half an hour to do that, so hardly mega money.
Ari said:
OpulentBob said:
I would imagine that the TRO has not been rescinded along there and the marking contractor has got a list of sites (from the TRO system) and is just going round repainting everything. It's not on him to check the legality of the order.
You get the same with disabled bays, where the original "recipient" of the bay has long since passed away, but the legal order is still in place.
It would have cost about £150, and maybe half an hour to do that, so hardly mega money.
Council contract, £150 to complete a job? You get the same with disabled bays, where the original "recipient" of the bay has long since passed away, but the legal order is still in place.
It would have cost about £150, and maybe half an hour to do that, so hardly mega money.
Jenny Tailor said:
I think you missed my point.
I'm not having a pop at the council.
The contractor could have used just a little bit of common sense here.
The contractor will do as they are asked in order to get paid for the work.I'm not having a pop at the council.
The contractor could have used just a little bit of common sense here.
Abandoning the job on the say so of a homeowner would have meant disputing the work with the client (council) and losing out on the money for performing the task.
I can tell you from experience, that home owners and busybodies are constantly out of their houses and telling council contractors they are 'doing something wrong' when usually they aren't, so contractors are generally well used to ignoring the public.
In my humble opinion, the contractor did use a bit of common sense. Anything else would have been worse for them.
£150 to the contractor to paint it on, despite being obviously wrong, but just doing what he was told to do.
£150 to the contractor to remove it.
Kerching!
How many schools get sold into private ownership and have their TRO's rescinded? A tiny amount. It's an edge case in what is probably a number of disjointed systems and processes that will probably not happen again in this Local Authority for decades.
Yes, it's stupid, yes, it's a waste of money, but it's an honest mistake and, of course, 'lessons will be learned' (but not at that ex-school, ba-dum-tish!)
£150 to the contractor to remove it.
Kerching!
How many schools get sold into private ownership and have their TRO's rescinded? A tiny amount. It's an edge case in what is probably a number of disjointed systems and processes that will probably not happen again in this Local Authority for decades.
Yes, it's stupid, yes, it's a waste of money, but it's an honest mistake and, of course, 'lessons will be learned' (but not at that ex-school, ba-dum-tish!)
Lord Marylebone said:
I can tell you from experience, that home owners and busybodies are constantly out of their houses and telling council contractors they are 'doing something wrong' when usually they aren't, so contractors are generally well used to ignoring the public.
If someone told you you were painting school markings outside a building that is not a school, and the school is down the street, would you not confirm which building is the school?Especially when you had another work order for that other building?
InitialDave said:
Lord Marylebone said:
I can tell you from experience, that home owners and busybodies are constantly out of their houses and telling council contractors they are 'doing something wrong' when usually they aren't, so contractors are generally well used to ignoring the public.
If someone told you you were painting school markings outside a building that is not a school, and the school is down the street, would you not confirm which building is the school?Especially when you had another work order for that other building?
In reality, we don't know if they checked with the council or not. Even if they did, they would likely have got a "Computer says its correct" type response and told to paint the lines, because that is what the council mapping/database apparently said.
If it was me personally and a bloke had come out of his house to tell me that the building ceased being a school 18 years ago, I would have tried to briefly raise the query with the council, and if I didn't get an answer within 15-20 mins or so, I would carry on with the job as asked because time is money and all that. Sometimes councils have their (odd) reasons for wanting road marking where they want them.
Lord Marylebone said:
If it was me personally and a bloke had come out of his house to tell me that the building ceased being a school 18 years ago, I would have tried to briefly raise the query with the council, and if I didn't get an answer within 15-20 mins or so, I would carry on with the job as asked because time is money and all that. Sometimes councils have their (odd) reasons for wanting road marking where they want them.
Fair enough.If it were my house, I'd have parked a couple of cars over where the markings "needed" to go.
Lord Marylebone said:
InitialDave said:
Lord Marylebone said:
I can tell you from experience, that home owners and busybodies are constantly out of their houses and telling council contractors they are 'doing something wrong' when usually they aren't, so contractors are generally well used to ignoring the public.
If someone told you you were painting school markings outside a building that is not a school, and the school is down the street, would you not confirm which building is the school?Especially when you had another work order for that other building?
In reality, we don't know if they checked with the council or not. Even if they did, they would likely have got a "Computer says its correct" type response and told to paint the lines, because that is what the council mapping/database apparently said.
If it was me personally and a bloke had come out of his house to tell me that the building ceased being a school 18 years ago, I would have tried to briefly raise the query with the council, and if I didn't get an answer within 15-20 mins or so, I would carry on with the job as asked because time is money and all that. Sometimes councils have their (odd) reasons for wanting road marking where they want them.
Unfortunately, there is an expectation for the public sector to be infallible but mistakes do happen, often they are high profile and just add fuel to the fire for those who hate them (and their gold plated pensions)
InitialDave said:
Lord Marylebone said:
If it was me personally and a bloke had come out of his house to tell me that the building ceased being a school 18 years ago, I would have tried to briefly raise the query with the council, and if I didn't get an answer within 15-20 mins or so, I would carry on with the job as asked because time is money and all that. Sometimes councils have their (odd) reasons for wanting road marking where they want them.
Fair enough.If it were my house, I'd have parked a couple of cars over where the markings "needed" to go.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff