No convenience in pay method

Further to my letter in last week’s Gazette, I understand that Canterbury City Council claim that it is possible to telephone to arrange advance parking at Seasalter from a landline before leaving home.

If this was true, it would certainly be a move in the right direction. However, one of my group has told me that when she tried this, she simply got a recorded message saying that she had to telephone from a mobile phone - so we are no further forward. Those without smart phones and those unable or unwilling to put in the relevant details, including bank card information by phone, will not be able to park at Seasalter.

I have been contacted by many people who saw my letter and your editorial and article [‘Cashless parking app branded ageist by frustrated swimmers’, Gazette, April 21] to tell me how sad they are that they will no longer be able to swim in this very suitable and safe location, unless a user friendly method of paying is made available.

I also find it strange that although the signs at Seasalter say that there is “no convenience charge” - there is! The weekday charge is supposed to be £1.50 but I have not yet found anyone who has been charged that.

Various amounts between £1.70 and £1.90 seem to be charged, depending on which of the two phone numbers on the signs are used or if you use the app.

There is absolutely no convenience in this method of payment!

Sheila Miller

Oxford Road, Canterbury

How right the ‘frustrated pensioners’ were in complaining about only being able to pay for parking by mobile phone.

This is straightforward discrimination. Discrimination by gender, race or religion is quite rightly not tolerated. Discrimination by ownership of a smartphone, never mind age, is similarly intolerable.

Not everyone has a mobile phone, or come to that a credit card. Nor can they pay before they leave home as their trip might not be planned or they may wish to stay longer.

This method of payment has mainly been introduced at car parks where people go for some physical exercise. A known health benefit. So the council is actively discouraging people from getting a bit fitter by imposing

a discriminatory method of charging. How utterly stupid!

It should be withdrawn immediately.

Lib Dem, Wincheap Ward

I am writing in total support of last week’s letter from Sheila Miller, and the report, and your leader. I first came across Ringgo in a car park in Blackheath a few years ago. A woman was struggling in tears to follow the instructions; blinding sunlight making the use of her mobile impossible. A year later I saw an older man trying to park at Camber - he gave up, as did we. And I thought ‘thank goodness Canterbury hasn’t gone down that route; that’s one good thing I can say about our council’. How foolish of me.

Whatiwanttoknowiswho invented this problem-ridden system which is designed to torment the less technically adept among our population? And who in the council didn’t see it for what it is - a money-making venture for a private company, but no service to the public at all?

I love Seasalter; it has become very important to me over the past few years; I’m a walker, and

Cllr Nick Eden-green

not a swimmer, by the way. But I will never try to pay by Ringgo. At 75, and a tentative mobile phone user at best, I won’t put myself through the worry and disappointment.

May I warn the councillors and officers who made this unkind and thoughtless decision: in 20 or 30 years, or even sooner, when they are elderly and advancing technology has been allowed to race ahead without any safeguards, as we know it will, I hope they remember the anxiety and sadness this decision has caused; for they too will then be among the excluded.

I do believe we should be exploring the possibility of bringing an age discrimination claim against the council. Judith Dimond

Dryden Close, Canterbury

Sheila Miller and Helen Nattrass spoke out about the new parking payment method at Seasalter