Is council phone service meant to discourage?

I WISH to comment on two issues recently published in Mailbox. First, the problem of vehicles driving over and parking on grass verges. We have this problem in Kerrial Gardens.

The grass verge has now been turned into an area of deep mud with even deeper wheel marks – much worse than anything pictured recently in the Mercury.

I wrote to Leicester City Council about the problem and handed my letter in at the council offices in Granby Street.

Three days later, I had a telephone call from the traffic management team at the council to inform me that as there were no parking restrictions – double yellow lines or no parking signs on Kerrial Gardens – there was nothing they could do about it and I should report it to the police for them to deal with it.

The following day, I went to Beaumont Leys police station as advised.

I began to explain the problem to the duty Pcso. I was interrupted half way through and told they could do nothing as it was not a police matter and I should report it to the council.

I have now contacted the councillor for this area – and I know he is trying to get something done about this problem. I am still awaiting a positive reply.

The second issue is to do with Sir Peter Soulsby’s defence of council staff over claims they ignore the public.

In the recent past, I have at times tried to contact Leicester City Council by telephone.

Having obtained the correct telephone number, I dialled, to be answered by a recorded voice informing you that you are talking to Leicester City Council and reminding you of their opening and closing times.

It then proceeds to give you several options to choose from and which number to press.

Having pressed what you hope is the correct number, you then get music for several minutes – then the voice to tell you that you are 10th in the queue.

Then music, then the voice again reminding you of the services provided by the council and to inform you that you can contact the council via the website...

The council needs to be reminded there must be a great number of the public that do not have the means to use the website. The point I am trying to make is that all this could take anything from 15 minutes to however long the caller is prepared to wait.

This, Mr Mayor, is tantamount to ignoring the public – and could lead to what you describe as a confrontational situation.

I am beginning to have the thought this telephone answering service has been designed to discourage the public from phoning in the first place.

T G Lewis, Leicester