Forum Topic

FOI data from council on hartington/stavely fines - it's a lot!

Since there were so many numbers floating around on the fines i thought i would ask the council for the data direct — it's embedded here in the answer to my FOIR https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/fines_issue_in_grove_park IF their data is right and assuming an average fine of £65  (some will be rescinded, some will pay £130 late fine) then they have earned £6.87m for 2 streets in 12 months ! I have queried the data however as Staveley fines are sometimes 4x than Hartington & I don't understand why that would be

Ceinwen Mailvagnam ● 460d53 Comments

If projects initiated by Johnson are used as the benchmark, then everything would be considered good value.Whether you think the bridge was worth it or not, the money from PCNs appears to have been used to cover much of the cost. If it was not available then it would have had to have come from other sources which might have required painful cost saving measures.The council has already developed a dependency on this revenue and will be very reluctant to give it up. External factors causing pressure for change do not seem very strong.  Residents have mixed views on the measures and residents groups seem to be arguing for more restrictions not fewer, still living under the delusion that the primary aim of the schemes is their benefit.The extra queues on the A316 that it generates are not material enough to cause concern for TfL who would only be particularly bothered if they stretched back to Chalkers Corner. The only possible stress point that I can see is Barrowgate Road which is now on the only viable route into non-exempt traffic approach from the west. Even so, there doesn't seem to be any concerted effort by residents on the road to stop traffic being directed in their direction so no need for Hounslow Council to rethink the current arrangement.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 450d

Even £8m would be good value compared to the abandoned garden bridge.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-47228698

Andrew Jones ● 454d

Whether you agree the walkway is a good thing or not (for the record I think it is fantastic) if the PCN revenue wasn't available to cover overspends, then it would have to come from somewhere else. Originally, it was reported that a large part of the ccost was going to come from unspent money in the schools capital fund. I don't know if this is what ultimately happened but, if fine revenue enabled this not to be needed, then this is one positive.On the cost of the walkway, ChiswickW4.com's report on the opening states 'over £4million' and they tend not to publish figures provided by the council without verification. £8 million would be a surprisingly high amount - whose 'best estimate' is this?

Jeremy Parkinson ● 454d

It was openly admitted in a press release that an undisclosed percentage of the muggings, sorry fines, were spent on the Dukes Meadows Walkway.Hounslow originally told us this project was budgeted at 2.5m but the best estimate is now plus or minus 8m. I can't confirm an actual figure as Hounslow are being rather coy in saying what the true cost is.

Adrian Irving ● 454d

The broader problem here is that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the restrictions, the amount collected is so large that is has a meaningful impact on council finances and a dependency is developing. With budgets under severe stress, they aren't going to be able to ween themselves off so getting the restrictions scrapped or even mitigated is going to be an uphill struggle.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 454d

'I'm not sure which of the "failing causes" of Hounslow Cycling Campaign you are referring to: C9 is being upgraded and extended.'C9T (yes, we are advised that it is still temporary, but that could be a lie) continues to have money thrown at it because it is dangerous and does not work. Spending yet another £600k (or £1,000K?) to 'upgrade' it by taking away yet more pedestrian pavement and narrowing exits from side roads leading on to it is further testament to its failure. Ten years of planning and two and a half years of almost continuous implementation for something that is more dangerous than the previous road layout doesn't say much for the 'skills' of the planners, designers and engineers responsible. Admit it - you got it wrong.

Mandy Waters ● 458d

Less than half of the LTNs installed were surveyed, most in inner London. That’s a fundamental flaw, since vehicle usage is higher in outer London anyway.Then you have pneumatic tube traffic counters do not count traffic below 10kph as standard, due to accuracy issues, any increase in congestion could mask a rise in traffic flow or even show as a reduction.Perhaps a comprehensive study by an independent, properly constituted body, not funded by a pressure group would be a start towards credibility.But then you are happy to exaggerate things that suit you and downplay irvignire those that don’t. Imagine if people in education were able to make things up to prove a point. There’d be a massive outcry about lowering standards. But then you know that, don’t you?

Simon Hayes ● 458d

Can’t disagree with the OP, it’s a lot !http://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?section=info&page=conroad383.htm

Michael Good ● 458d

Yes Tom,my point stands. Even in Hounslow people are free to make their views known even if you don't like it.

Adrian Irving ● 458d

The earlier reference to less than 1000 cyclists per day is certainly misleading.  I believe that the TfL digital camera at countline 22096 recorded a weekday average of 1,448 in April 2022 and a higher average weekday figure of 1,839 for September 2022, and although winter figures are not to hand it is clear that an average over a whole year could be somewhere close to the lower of these two figures.  However, I also understand that the DfT derived averages from 2018, on Chiswick High Road, before the cycleway, were around 1,900 per day, so it is hard to see just what all the expenditure has achieved in terms of growth in cycle use, changes in modal share and, of course, safety given earlier discussions on the Forum about the cycleway actually being less safe than the prior conditions.

David Kerr ● 458d

"a cycleway used by less than 1000 people a day on average"Now that certainly looks like a made up number, or are you able to give a source for it?

Tom Pike ● 458d

Is Michael Robinson real. Surely a real person wouldn’t condone spending £10m on a cycleway used by less than 1000 people a day on average, or condone a council that issues 60000 PCNs on one road in 121 days and claims signage is “adequate”. Is Michael Robinson a sock puppet of Katherine Dunne and the London Borough of Hounslow Cycling Campaign? (Or is that the other way round?)

Richard Tate ● 458d

"Richard Tate", I didn't post any spurious data but I certainly did say it was unlikely that Staveley Road would be seeing three times more PCNs that Hartington Road. And the full figures are even more surprising: Staveley Road actually had consistently four times the fines of Hartington Road until July, at which point it suddenly dropped to an equivalent number for the rest of the year. I'm not the only one to notice this unexpected behaviour, and I'm certainly willing to admit that I didn't anticipate such an outcome. However, I did give an estimate of the likely fines paid by Chiswick residents, based on the original £10m figure assuming that it corresponded to £130 a PCN (which was indeed correct) precisely because the cheque gave an amount to repay the "carers, nurses and workers of Chiswick" for the fines on those two roads. In fact the residents of Chiswick have likely paid around a twentieth or less of that sum.I'm not sure which of the "failing causes" of Hounslow Cycling Campaign you are referring to: C9 is being upgraded and extended.

Tom Pike ● 458d

Andrew. I see your point, but the carers, teachers, nurses of Chiswick obviously in large part don’t live in Chiswick. It’s an obvious fact that they couldn’t afford to. The cheque was clearly a stunt. To take it literally is missing the point. A lot of people received several PCNs all at once for £100s that they couldn’t afford to pay due to a restriction with poor signage. 60000 PCNs in just 121 days and the council says the signage is adequate. Oh and Tom Pike scoffed at the number.

Richard Tate ● 458d

Exactly Andrew."Richard Tate" looks like a sock puppet Onesie posting under a  fake name.And with typical OneChiswick incompetence when it comes to facts, didn't even remember that the fake cheque specifically said "repay" meaning £10M had been paid by the "Carers, Nurses and Workers of Chiswick" in the first place. Which is of course, a lie.But then OneChiswick loved writing big cheques (to their lawyers...)

Michael Robinson ● 458d

Er, I have to disagee with you Richard on your point in bold."And while it was a bit of a stunt to brandish the cheque for £10m at the Chiswick Area Forum (a stunt which the professor seems to have taken rather literally - it never said the fines were paid by people in Chiswick as Pike has again incorrectly claimed), it turns out that you can trust data from OneChiswick."What was on the cheque? Third line had this "Repay: The Carers, Nurses and Workers of Chiswick"The cheque was alluding to £10m having been paid by those mentioned in the third line. Do you disagree Richard?Maybe it wasn't meant to be taken literally, but it's an entirely reasonable assumption to make that the 'stunt' was trying to draw attention to the fact that £10m had been paid to Hounslow by the "Carers, Nurses and Workers of Chiswick".A stunt I agree, and I was really surprised to find out that just over £10m in PCNs had been issued over the period in question.I was also surprised, given how quite a few people questioned this figure, that no one who had sight of the FOI request at the time could be bothered to post the information to verify the info the figure of £10m was based on.

Andrew Jones ● 458d

Oh look, another sock puppet Onesie crawling out of the toxic cesspool of OneChiswick using fake names to post on this forum.

Michael Robinson ● 458d

So, what I take from this is that you can’t trust anything Tom Pike says, or his cronies from the London Borough of Hounslow Cycling Campaign. Only last month “Professor” Pike was saying on this forum, “ Some basic due diligence is certainly in order.  Claiming Staveley is collecting three times the fines of Hartington when it has a third of the traffic seems unlikely. I suspect someone might have got a factor of ten wrong in the Staveley number, even before it was further bulked up on spurious grounds.”It turns out the only person wrong by a factor of ten and the only person posting spurious data is Tom Pike, backed up by Paul Campbell and Michael Robinson, his cronies from London Borough of Hounslow Cycling Campaign. And while it was a bit of a stunt to brandish the cheque for £10m at the Chiswick Area Forum (a stunt which the professor seems to have taken rather literally - it never said the fines were paid by people in Chiswick as Pike has again incorrectly claimed), it turns out that you can trust data from OneChiswick. Who’d have funk it? OneChiswick honest. London Borough of Hounslow Cycling Campaign making up the numbers as they go.p to support their failing causes.

Richard Tate ● 458d

No, I just reiterated what you had either overlooked or ignored:“ANPR approaches, such as in SCLN and LBHF, do give preference to car travel by residents while preventing through traffic so they are politically appealing.  But those who want those advantages can’t in the same breath decry that they lead to PCNs.”

Tom Pike ● 458d

"something that works for us all"You are deluding yourself if you think there is some magical solution that will simultaneously provide quieter and safer streets while at the same time, doesn't inconvenience drivers in the slightest

Michael Robinson ● 458d

It’s a bonkers plan, if plan it could be called. They made it up as they went along, taking select advice from local cycle lobbyists and ignoring the rest of us. Now they’re up to the same old tricks, still making it up on the hoof, or bike tyre, and calling for even more physical barriers to divide up Grove Park and split it in two. Let’s hope LBH doesn’t listen to this nonsense, this time. What they need to do is work with the local community and businesses and come up with something that works for us all, and not for just two or three ideologically driven noisy blowhards.

Russell Pearson ● 458d

Ah, David Kerr and Jackie Elton, the Onesies who both appeared in a campaign video for failed Conservative mayoral candidate, Shaun Bailey.What does David Kerr consider "properly quantified"? The original traffic surveys for the S Chiswick scheme covered over 40 locations for several weeks consisting of traffic volume, speed and ANPR based journey tracking so there was ample evidence of the traffic volumes and speeds on the blighted roads and the 90%+ proportion of through traffic compared to local traffic.By "areas affected by diverted traffic", it looks like he means the multi-lane A316 and A4 which were built by demolishing large swathes of historic Chiswick housing to provide high capacity arterial routes for drivers. It looks like he would prefer drivers to use narrow residential streets like Harvard Hill instead,Emlyn Road will be covered by LBH&F's LTN programme as part of the Wendell Park LTN area so I look forward to the LBH&F plans to remove through traffic from this area. Somehow I don't think they will meet with David Kerr's approval.

Michael Robinson ● 458d

David, are you aware that Emlyn Road will be part of the new Wendell Park Clean Air Neighbourhood (CAN) with out-of-borough traffic restricted by ANPR? Obviously traffic calming is not regarded as sufficiently effective there, as was also the case in South Fulham, the first example of a CAN in LBHF.

Tom Pike ● 458d

I agree - Emlyn Road in Chiswick is a good example of a properly traffic calmed road which also caters for buses.  Speeds are contained.  The scheme in Grove Park is overkill for a "problem" that has never been properly quantified or compared against the damage done on areas affected by diverted traffic. Ideology over common sense.

David Kerr ● 458d

My point still stands despite your belated explination Tom.

Adrian Irving ● 458d

My comment was directed at those who want more ANPR but sat on the data that showed the level of PCNs six months ago.

Tom Pike ● 458d

"you would have a job persuading Hounslow Council, TfL, the emergency services and the people of Grove Park they [hard barriers] are a good idea."I think Hounslow would certainly prefer a hard barrier.  There is cost for the initial bollard/planter/build-out and some small ongoing maintenance if there is new trees or greenery, but nothing compared to the 'whole life' costs of a camera, the associated power and data comms systems, the back end systems for enforcement and ongoing maintenance given the technology will need to be replaced every 5 years or so.Pointing to the money generated by fine is missing the point.  Every fine is a failure for the effectiveness of a camera.  Physical measures are, in general, almost 100% effective.I don't see why you think TfL should oppose physical measures given the long list of physical measures TfL have implemented on the roads they control.Regarding emergency services,  I can point towards literally dozens of physical measures to restrict traffic in the local area.  Given some of these barriers have been in place for 20+ years, you'd think there would have been calls to remove them by now if they had presented issues to emergency services, wouldn't you?Really cameras are there to appease drivers in an attempt to have a 'have cake and eat it' scheme.  The Grove Park Group has called for even more cameras to increase the 'cakeism'.I've mentioned this multiple times before, but to make cameras effective, there needs to be physical measures supplementing them to force drivers to slow down, stop and actually look at signage rather than driving blithely through because the road doesn't look any different.  So stick a couple of planters with signs in Hartington Road so drivers need to negotiate around them.

Michael Robinson ● 458d

"But those who want those advantages can’t in the same breath decry that they lead to PCNs."Yes they can and who are you to say they can't? By simple logic the people that get the PCNs don't live in the zone and therefore don't get any "advatages" just their pockets picked because of the woeful lack of clarity surrounding access.

Adrian Irving ● 458d

I used to visit Grove Park and SOTG, see friends, enjoy local restaurants but that was before all this. A few restrictions at rush hour and  careful traffic calming could have sorted out most of the problems. Life is never perfect but this is so much worse. Do these people have any real idea what damage they are doing through these cruel and punitive measures?

Jackie Elton ● 458d

Hard barriers are the standard approach to LTNs elsewhere and the reduction in traffic they provide has been shown to improve the overall response times of the emergency services. ANPR approaches, such as in SCLN and LBHF, do give preference to car travel by residents while preventing through traffic so they are politically appealing.  But those who want those advantages can’t in the same breath decry that they lead to PCNs.

Tom Pike ● 458d

Simon, I’ve seen no coherent critique of that latest research: and if you disaggregate the borough results it certainly demonstrates there is no evidence of simple displacement of traffic from internal to boundary roads from the introduction of an LTN.Maybe you could share the fundamental flaw in the analysis.

Tom Pike ● 459d

I stand corrected on the average, I was looking at the percentage paying the lower amount - the numbers are similar.The average for the first year of operation is £65 though and it is brought down by the later months when alot of people have not yet got around to paying but it is reasonable to assume that, as payments continue to trickle in the overall average will approach this level.This suggests Ceinwen is pretty near the mark in her analysis using £65 for the likely level of revenue the council will receive. In other words for 2022 fines on the two roads will  have contributed between £6 million and £7 million.You might prefer hard barriers but I think you would have a job persuading Hounslow Council, TfL, the emergency services and the people of Grove Park they are a good idea.

Francis Rowe ● 459d

You could, of course, have no barrier and no cameras. The ‘problem’ complained about cane from a small number of residents, and Hounslow Council was only too keen to jump in that as a reason to impose the restrictions. People happily managed for years before.Pike, you really ought to get a life. Your statistical obsession simply bores people. And you are clearly looking for anything that might justify your simplistic viewpoint. Just like Rachel Aldred, whose latest ‘academic study’ has been torn to shreds within hours of publication for being subjective and jacking rigour.

Simon Hayes ● 459d

It was, and certainly not by Francis who is quite right to say that was preposterous. What is less certain is why the original source of the large number of PCNs, if not actual amount collected from them, was so coy about confirming it. Maybe it was because if the current restrictions had a compliance issue, their proposed amendment based on timed transit between multiple ANPR cameras would most likely lead to even more PCNs.  The clarity of a hard barrier has no issue of either recognition or interpretation. In fact we happily live with many throughout Chiswick with nobody decrying their effects on business, people with disabilities or older residents, nor questioning the ulterior motives of the council or the inequity of any financial penalties.

Tom Pike ● 459d

Sitting on the fence here a bit, but I don't think Francis ever suggested that W4 residents paid anything like £10m.If I recall correctly, he expressed surprise that a figure of £10m raised by these cameras could be true.The claim that W4 residents (specifically Carers, Nurses and Workers) was alluded to in the Stunt at the chiswick area forum meeting. http://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?section=info&page=evcaf2211b.htmI'm willing to be corrected, but I can't remember anyone else repeating that claim in print on this forum!

Andrew Jones ● 459d

Francis, it actually averages £61 a month, not £70. Happy to use that figure to give an estimated £450k paid by Chiswick residents, but £50 was not an unreasonable figure.  You’re making rather a meal out of differences that are well within the uncertainties.  Maybe 10% of residents of W4 are paying PCNs, or 6%, but that won’t change the fact that it was gross exaggeration by at least a factor of 20 to claim it came to £10m.  You’re right the number of fines are eye-wateringly high. I would prefer hard barriers.

Tom Pike ● 459d

Tom, if you look for instance at the report currently on the front page of this site about fines on Fishers Lane you'll see that the average for fines paid over fines issued hovers around £70 month by month.This also shows that around 70% of people elect to pay the fines early and that the appeals process is very slow. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that gradually more fines will be paid as appeals are declined and the council catches up with tardy payers. This will bring the average collected per ticket even higher.You are right to call out One Chiswick for their sloppy use of figures but you are wrong when you do the same thing to exaggerate their over exaggeration.The one thing hopefully everyone can agree on is that the overall total is eye-wateringly high.

Francis Rowe ● 459d

Andrew, I don't think this really warrants much further analysis. I'm happy to go with whatever figure Francis can reference from what he regards as the most definitive source fir a PCN average, whether or not the total is a multiple of £65 - it won't change my original point.

Tom Pike ● 459d

Tom, to be honest, unless you know the wording of the FOI request that was submitted AND the reply given, you can only get so much information from a statement like "The Council has made £1,879,502 by issuing 44,254 fines from Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs), a Freedom of Information Request from the Local Democracy Reporting Service has revealed."Was that the amount paid already or all the money that those PCNs would ever raise in revenue? And how can the amount raised end in 2? Wouldn't the amount raised have to end in a 0 or a 5?Not disputing the average might be £48 or £60 or some other figure, but I can't see how the total amount raised could possibly be anything that isn't a multiple of £5.

Andrew Jones ● 459d

Francis, the article is clear what those referred to all schemes in Hounslow. The Mail did a similar FOI in in May this year across all London boroughs on the actual sums raised and got responses from 14 councils giving an average of £48 a PCN, with values varying from £40 to £64. But as I said, whether I use £50 or £75 a PCN, my point is the same. What is the "proper detailed analysis" you are referring to?

Tom Pike ● 459d

Tom, sorry but the article you link to doesn't even give the roads that the fines were issued on let along given details of what exactly the figures given represent. I would guess they are for money actually paid at that date. If you are seriously claiming this is the final tally of collection and the average per ticket received is £42 then surely you should be very concerned about massive avoidance of these fines?When I've seen proper detailed analysis of large scale PCN issuance such as this - it seems pretty consistent that the number of people not paying or getting them cancelled is less that the number paying the full amount.I've never disputed a relatively low proportion of these fines go to Chiswick residents. To claim otherwise is preposterous.

Francis Rowe ● 459d

Hi Tom,The scheme might have reduced traffic (I've no reason to doubt this) but the scheme now operates from 8am to 7pm, Mon to Sat, so your 'leakage' figure of 3% is only valid if the reduction of 3000 is a reduction between the hours of operation.The numbers of PCNs issued daily are also highly variable.Looking at the first few days in November, the number of PCNs issued were 236 on 1/11, 312 on 2/11, 266 on 3/11, 273 on 4/11, 478 on 5/11 ALL of which are a lot higher than the November average of 180.Maybe there are reasons for the increase in PCNs issued in early November (Roadworks on the A4 leading to long tailbacks?).

Andrew Jones ● 459d

The estimate of the reduction in traffic on Hartington Road is from 6000 to 3000 vehicles a day, while the number of PCNs is less than 100 a day, taking into account the suspensions. So even though the continuing infractions are too high, it's not correct to say that the scheme is ineffective in reducing through traffic: the "leakage" is about 3% on Hartington.PCN issue rates were certainly significantly larger on Staveley Rd when the restriction there was first introduced, but the rate has dropped back considerably to being pretty similar to Hartington Rd's in the last five months. I'm not sure why it's claimed there's been no reduction when clearly there has, even after taking into account the suspensions.  The figures above don't give the actual fines generated but rather the number of PCNs multiplied by £65.

Tom Pike ● 459d

A previous 2021 FOI on PCNs issued by Hounslow gave £1.88m for 44,000 PCNs, or around £42.50 each:https://brentford.nub.news/news/local-news/over-18-million-paid-in-pcn-fines-since-introduction-of-ltns-in-hounslowThe cancellation rate does seem to be higher earlier in the scheme.Even if you assume an average of £75 a PCN, the total issued to Chiswick residents would be below £500k based on the previous proportion of PCNs on Hartington Road sent to a W4 postcode, still much less than the £10m claimed.

Tom Pike ● 459d

Julia, allow me to back up your polite post.Time for politeness is over. It is undeniably clear that the signage is woeful and has been from the get go. Forget the monetary value of fines for a moment the simple fact is many thousands of drivers have not noticed the "warnings" and will continue to do so making a mockery of the scheme's stated aims.What have Hounslow done about it? Nothing, they couldn't or wouldn't even answer a  simple enough question at the Area Forum. How much have the fines generated? Instead we were told it was too difficult to calculate! This thread has exposed that this response was a fairy tale.Why can't Hounslow just be straight with us? Shameful.

Adrian Irving ● 459d

How do you justify averaging at £50? Won't most fines be paid at the reduced rate with the proportion paid at the full rate outweighing or at least matching those which are successfully appealed or never paid? This seems to be the pattern on previous FoIs on parking and traffic fines that I have looked at which would give average of £65 or higher.

Francis Rowe ● 459d

I said "there is certainly no truth in the claim that £10m has been paid in fines over 5 or 6 months by the residents of Chiswick, as claimed by One Chiswick."These numbers confirm that. Based on the average return of about £50 per PCN in previous FOIs on Hartington Road, the total raised in the first six months was about £4m. Previous FOIs also showed that 8% of PCNs were issued to residents of W4, which would give a total of £320k, a factor of thirty less than the amount claimed by One Chiswick.What does surprise me, as Ceinwen noted, is the large change in the ratio of fines issued between the two roads, with Staveley Road starting at four times Hartington Road and ending up roughly the same. The actual numbers fluctuate in the second half of the year due to the restrictions being lifted for the A4 works, but that ratio is pretty constant in the last five months.

Tom Pike ● 459d

The fact that the overall number of PCNs doesn't appear to have significantly reduced since the scheme started suggests the signage is inadequate (if not deliberately deceptive). If the council really and genuinely cared about cleaner air, reduced traffic, safer streets (esp Staveley at the school) then surely they would invest in proper signage and road layout to help them achieve these worthy aims by working with motorists, not against them. Oh but then they'd lose millions of pounds of income...

Julia Watkiss ● 459d

I’m surprised messrs Pike, Campbell and others haven’t been on here to apologise for dismissing the claims so vehemently and obnoxiously (in the case of one particular individual).But then if the data doesn’t tally with the LCC narrative they simply deny it.

Simon Hayes ● 459d

This is what I posted on the other thread:I got my FOI request reply from Hounslow this week.I will admit to being surprised that the figure of £10m that was mentioned does stand up to scrutiny even if the amount Hounslow has received would have been lower than £10m.I apologise on record to Steve Taylor for saying he was talking total tosh.According to the info provided to me by Hounslow, it's correct to say that over £10m worth of PCNs were issued in the first six months of 2022 in Staveley Road and Hartington Road.Staveley Road (PCN Code 53C)Jan 131 issued/13 cancelled/5 written offFeb 7969/918/186Mar 15323/2550/245Apr 11751/1352/168May 13257/957/147Jun 12238/1219/52Total 60669 PCNs issued (£7,886,970 @ £130 per PCN)7009 cancelled (£911,170)803 written off (£104,390)Potential revenue if remaining PCNs paid at £130 (£6,871,410)Hartington Road (PCN Code 52M)Jan 1470 issued/127 cancelled/86 written offFeb 2838/284/167Mar 3474/629/64Apr 3093/425/59May 2916/207/42Jun 3294/270/19Total 17085 PCNs issued (£2,221,050 @ £130 per PCN)1942 cancelled (£252,460)437 written off (£56,810)Potential revenue if remaining PCNs paid at £130 (£1,911,780)Total 'value' of PCNs issued for both roads £10,108,020'Potential' revenue £8,783,190Some of the info from Hounslow was puzzling - I asked how many PCNs were paid for at a discounted rate, and none of the 53C or 52M PCNs are down as having been paid at a discounted rate. There also seems a gap in the data for Jan 2022 as no PCNs are shown as being issued between 08/01/22 and 08/02/22 (though perhaps Staveley Road was closed between these days - I don't know).Both roads are still a nice little earner ... as the figures for Oct and Nov 22 will testify.Staveley RoadOct 2601/192/9Nov 4625/198/6Hartingdon RoadOct 1970/161/5Nov 4698/257/4

Andrew Jones ● 459d

Apologies for not spotting this thread and resurrecting an old thread elsewhere. I received a reply yesterday from Hounslow to an FOI request I made on 18th December.I wonder if the same council employee answered both FOI queries.

Andrew Jones ● 459d

Thanks for doing this. Although I think your averaging at £65 is Conservative the amount paid probably won't get to £10 million which, if I recall correctly was being claimed for a six month period rather than a year. However, based on the value of tickets issued, the number comfortably exceeds £10 million.

Francis Rowe ● 459d

Ceinwen Mailvagnam ● 460d