Digital Life
We all know the rules of a committee meeting. The more convenient it is to be there and the less time it lasts, the more likely there will be decent attendance and sensible decisions.
This is why the innovation of online meetings has been a revelation. There have been challenges (‘Minister, you’re still on mute…’) but, in my view, these are outweighed by the benefits. For example, I attended a club AGM this year for the first time simply because it was online; otherwise it would have been a four-hour round trip, and I wouldn’t have bothered.
Indeed, that AGM attendance was their highest ever; other organisations are having similar experiences. Since meetings have moved online, more people have been able and willing to turn up and, while we miss some of the personal aspects of such events, the fact that people from far away can easily take part has been a boon.
The same has been true within our village; too small to have a parish council, it has a parish meeting, and our online AGM had the highest-ever recorded attendance. This included several less mobile villagers who would have struggled to go to a physical meeting, but whose contributions were invaluable.
I am also a trustee of a charity that has found Zoom meetings to be not only effective but preferable. Trustees can attend from here or abroad; nobody has to drive anywhere, we don’t need a meeting room and so on. In fact, we have even changed our trust deed to permit all future meetings to be held online.
I have a regular ‘working lunch’ with a couple of colleagues; we make our own sandwiches and then chat for an hour, spread between Suffolk, Newcastle and Edinburgh. We enjoy it very much, and will be carrying on, pandemic or not.
So far, so good; online meetings, if properly run, can be effective and well attended. They can also take up much less time than a meeting in person, which is especially important if you are all volunteers.
Despite this, it is now illegal (yes, illegal) for local authorities and parish councils to meet online. The relaxation of the rules during the pandemic expired on 6th May. This was bonkers; you’ll recall that the general unlocking was not expected until 21st June at the earliest.
It left councils in an impossible position: they were not allowed to hold meetings online and not allowed to gather in person by virtue of the COVID rules. Ridiculous.
I suppose they could meet in a field, socially distanced, using megaphones, but somehow that lacks an appropriate level of civic dignity.
However, the ban has undoubtedly galvanised opinion in favour of allowing the option of remote attendance. To be fair to the Government, a consultation on the issue was briskly launched and may result in a change in the law. I certainly hope so; to pretend that the technology just doesn’t exist is futile, and to ignore its undoubted benefits would be foolish.
There are issues to overcome; one parish councillor in Yorkshire who couldn’t get the hang of Zoom fell foul of rules that force disqualification for non-attendance. Obviously that sort of thing needs sorting out, but surely councils should have the chance to meet online if they want to. Apart from anything else, it means we can watch what they are up to. Very democratic.
In fact, I believe that we are heading towards a world where meetings are hybrids of online and offline; in other words, both at once. Believe me, it’s coming.
It would be also great if more people could learn how to position their computer so it’s not looking up their nose – but let’s fight one battle at a time.
of complainants had their fines cancelled.
Strictly speaking, private car-parking firms cannot impose fines. Only localauthority traffic wardens and the police issue fines, labelled ‘penalty charge notices’ or ‘fixed penalty notices’. Private firms issue invoices – ‘parking charge notices’ or ‘parking ticket notices’ – which are usually designed to imitate the official fines.
The latest proposals for private car parks include:
Tiered penalties, capped at £40 to £80 (currently it’s £100) depending on the seriousness of the offence – whether using an expired permit, parking in a taxi bay or reparking within a prohibited period. As there are now, there will be reductions for prompt payment.
Higher fines up to £120 for serious offences, such as wrongly parking in a disabled bay or ambulance bay.
A ten-minute grace period after the parking time ends.
A five-minute cooling off period to change your mind about parking.
Clearly displayed terms, conditions and prices.
A mandatory appeals charter. This can cancel fines or reduce them to £20 for genuine mistakes and mitigating circumstances: perhaps your car broke down, your parking ticket slipped off the dashboard or you made a small mistake keying in the registration number. Punching in the number of your other car is a more serious error.
Parking companies can track you down because the DVLA sells them your names and addresses. It charges just £2.50 a time, enabling car parks to penalise you £100, and it makes millions of pounds a year from the service.
Private firms that fail to join a trade association could lose access to the DVLA database, which would make it impossible for them to contact you after you had driven away.
For advice on challenging unfair parking tickets, check out the free resolution service Resolver, at www. resolver.co.uk; or Moneysavingexpert, at www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/ private-parking-tickets.
The private parking firms are arguing against cutting their charges, claiming it will not be a deterrent and will encourage expensive rogue operators.