House of Commons Transport Committee
Local authority parking enforcement
Seventh Report of Session 2013–14
Volume II Additional written evidence
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published 4 February, 11 March, 22 April , 8 May, 13 May, 3 June, 10 June, 17 June, 1 July, 8 July, 15 July and 9 September 2013
Published on 23 October 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited
The Transport Committee
The Transport Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Transport and its Associate Public Bodies.
Current membership
Mrs Louise Ellman (Labour/Co-operative, Liverpool Riverside) (Chair) Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham) Jim Dobbin (Labour/Co-operative, Heywood and Middleton) Karen Lumley (Conservative, Redditch) Jason McCartney (Conservative, Colne Valley) Karl McCartney (Conservative, Lincoln) Lucy Powell (Labour/Co-operative, Manchester Central) Mr Adrian Sanders (Liberal Democrat, Torbay) Iain Stewart (Conservative, Milton Keynes South) Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton) Martin Vickers (Conservative, Cleethorpes)
The following were also members of the committee during the Parliament. Steve Baker (Conservative, Wycombe), Angie Bray (Conservative, Ealing Central and Acton), Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South), Mr Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South), Julie Hilling (Labour, Bolton West), Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North), Kwasi Kwarteng (Conservative, Spelthorne), Mr John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester Withington) Paul Maynard, (Conservative, Blackpool North and Cleveleys), Gavin Shuker (Labour/Co-operative, Luton South), Angela Smith (Labour, Penistone and Stocksbridge), Julian Sturdy (Conservative, York Outer)
Powers
The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk.
Publication
The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at http://www.parliament.uk/transcom. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume.
The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and some or all written evidence are available in a printed volume. Additional written evidence may be published on the internet only.
Committee staff
The current staff of the Committee are Mark Egan (Clerk), Farrah Bhatti (Second Clerk), Richard Jeremy (Committee Specialist), Adrian Hitchins (Senior Committee Assistant), Stewart McIlvenna (Committee Assistant) and Hannah Pearce (Media Officer)
Contacts
All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Transport Committee, House of Commons, 14 Tothill Street, London SW1N 9NB, The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6263; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]
List of additional written evidence
(published in Volume II on the Committee’s website www.parliament.uk/transcom)
Page 1 Carlton Reid, Executive Editor, BikeBiz.com Ev w1 2 Mr Fraser Mitchell Ev w2 3 Bryn Buck Ev w9 4 Colin Peek Ev w11 5 Michael Fallas Ev w14 6 Phillip Morgan Ev w15 7 Traffic Penalty Tribunal Adjudicator Ev w16 8 Cheryl Kuczynski Ev w20 9 Deborah Skinner Ev w20 10 Ntina Antoniou Ev w25 11 Anthony Engel Ev w26 12 Daniel Wrightson Ev w28 13 Yossi Potas Ev w29 14 Antony Jones Ev w29 15 Dino Burbidge Ev w29 16 C A Bylos Ev w30 17 Harriet Crowe Ev w30 18 Kathryn Scorza Ev w31 19 Barry H White Ev w31 20 LTCOA Ltd Ev w32 21 Russ Hodgson Ev w35 22 Councillor David Boothroyd Ev w35 23 Notomob Ev w36 24 Martin Shaw Ev w40 25 R Leskin Ev w40 26 Paul Pearson Ev w41 27 Guide Dogs Ev w53 28 Derek Dishman Ev w55 29 David Attfield Ev w59 30 Michael Gaffney Ev w60 31 Jacky Wood Ev w60 32 Neil Smith Ev w60 33 Dominic Leggett Ev w61 34 Camden Council Ev w61, Ev w64 35 Transport for London Ev w65 36 NECTAR Ev w67 37 BVRLA Ev w70 38 Clarkes of London Ev w74 39 Gary Shaw Ev w74 40 Professor John Raine and Mrs Eileen Dunstan, University of Birmingham Ev w77
41 TNT Express Services UK & Ireland Evw 79 42 Big Brother Watch Ev w81 43 Ruth Brown Ev w83 44 Sarah Ebner Ev w83 45 Jeremy Neuberger Ev w83 46 Richard Chaumeton Ev w86 47 Peter Marriage Ev w93 48 Geoffrey Stansfield Ev w98 49 Wish Travel & Transportation Solutions Limited Ev w110 50 Ian Swan Ev w113 51 Peter Ashford Ev w115 52 Mike Stokeld Ev w123 53 Clifford Martin Ev w124 54 James de la Mare Ev w124, Ev w125, Ev w126 55 Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation Ev w127 56 Barbara Wilson Ev w129 57 Ronald Bradstreet Ev 130 58 Keith Bush Ev w130 59 Ken Davies Ev w131 60 Cheryl Lee Ev w132 61 Michael Kenney Ev w132 62 Tony Wyer Ev w134 63 Mike Macey Ev w134
List of unprinted written evidence
The following memoranda have been reported to the House, but to save printing costs they have not been printed and copies have been placed in the House of Commons Library, where they may be inspected by Members. Other copies are in the Parliamentary Archives, and are available to the public for inspection. Requests for inspection should be addressed to The Parliamentary Archives, Houses of Parliament, London SW1A 0PW (tel. 020 7219 3074). Opening hours are from 9.30 am to 5.00 pm on Mondays to Fridays.
James de la Mare
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [SO] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w1
Written evidence
Written evidence from Carlton Reid, Executive Editor, BikeBiz.com (PE 01)
Pavement Parking
Parking on pavements is endemic in the UK yet highways—in the widest sense—are not just for cars.
There’s a blanket national ban on cycling on the pavement but there’s a confusing mish-mash of conflicting laws which means there’s no equivalent national blanket ban on parking a car on the pavement. This is a ludicrous situation and one that transport ministers keep failing to tackle. While the “local authority parking enforcement” inquiry is, by definition, local perhaps reference can be made to a problem that can only be effectively tackled nationally, in partnership with local authorities?
Pavements—and bike paths—are often used by cars for parking, which is dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians. Storing unused cars is a major function of British streets but in other countries this is not the case, where off-street parking is often mandated.
Motorists can’t legally drive on the pavement in the UK, but a loophole means, in many localities, they won’t be charged for driving their cars onto pavements and leaving them there. Some local authorities have enacted bylaws to stop motorists parking on pavements but these are few and far between. To park on the pavement you tend to have to drive on the pavement but pavement parking is now considered so “normal” police look the other way because to enforce the law would involve charging millions of people.
A research document in the House of Commons library. “Parking: pavement and on-street” talks of the “previous efforts to legislate,” efforts which have always come to naught. “Governments have in the past consulted on ways to combat pavement parking and have sought to alter the law. In 1974 Parliament provided for a national ban on pavement parking in urban areas in section 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (this inserted new section 36B into the Road Traffic Act 1972). If implemented, this would have prohibited all parking on verges, central reservations and footways on ‘urban roads’. The Secretary of State could have exempted certain classes of vehicles and individual local authorities could have made Orders within their own areas to exempt from the national ban certain streets at all times or during certain periods. However, full implementation required that the ban had to be brought in by Parliamentary Order and this never occurred. Successive transport ministers argued that there were difficulties for local authorities and the police in finding the resources to carry out the necessary policing and enforcement work. In 1979 the then government decided to defer implementation indefinitely. In December 1986 the Department of Transport sought comments on a discussion paper, Pavement Parking—Curbing an Abuse. The paper looked at the reasons for pavement parking and the problems it caused. It put forward four options for tackling the problem: — more private legislation by local authorities; — more TROs by individual local authorities; — implementation of the 1974 Act’s national ban; or — amendment to the 1974 Act to permit local authorities who wished to introduce the ban to do so using the TRO procedure. In July 1988 the Transport Minister, Peter Bottomley, said he had received over 450 responses to the paper and that he would be announcing the outcome of the review ‘as soon as possible’, but nothing happened. When the 1972 Act was repealed in 1988, section 36B (the ‘national ban’ mentioned above) became, without any amendment, section 19A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the matter rested there. Regulations to put into effect the national ban were not brought forward because of the potentially enormous costs to local authorities and police of securing proper policing and enforcement of such a blanket ban. It was finally repealed by section 83 and Schedule 8 of the Road Traffic Act 1991.”
Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835 is used in the current Highway Code. Rule 145 states: “You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency.”
Since January 1999 a fixed penalty notice can be issued with the offender given a ticket with fine and points attached unless they appeal in which case it goes to court.
This regulation tends not to be used, especially if a police officer doesn’t see the driver actually driving on to the pavement. A police officer may have “reasonable grounds” to believe the motorist drove on the pavement—it would be up to the courts to decide whether a driver was telling the truth should he claim his cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w2 Transport Committee: Evidence
car was placed on the pavement with the use of a crane. However, unlike for a speeding offence a police officer has no power, in relation to driving on the pavement, to insist that the keeper of a vehicle tells of who was driving at any particular time. For this and other reasons the police generally don’t enforce this particular law and tend to refer complainants to local authority parking enforcement officers, who have few mechanisms in which to tackle the problem. 18 January 2013
Written evidence from Mr Fraser Mitchell (PE 02) Response to Transport Committee Questions Q1. How should councils use their revenue from penalty charges, metered parking, car parks and residents’ parking? Should there be more local discretion over how income is used? A. There is a danger that councils will use additional freedom to relieve council tax without thinking of the affects of such actions. This can be shown by the crisis in our high streets, where it is generally accepted that draconian and rapacious parking enforcement has driven shoppers to out-of-town parking malls and retail parks. Perhaps any additional freedom should be restricted to the use of funds arising from the various parking charges only, and not allow freedom to use income from penalty charges for any purpose
Q2. What impact will new technology, such as cashless parking, parking sensors and CCTV, have on local authority parking enforcement? A. All history of technology shows that its impact comes in a reduction of costs, ie, productivity improvement means more can be done for less. Therefore, back office processing should become easier, and car parks will become more convenient to use without the necessity to have correct change. This, if correctly handled, could make a shopper return to the high street possible. Caution is needed on CCTV, because all experience since the TMA 2004, is that it has been used to enforce the most trivial of trivial offences, alienating the motorist and making councils appear rapacious and venal. If CCTV is to continue, then severe penalties need to be introduced for its misuse to raise money.
Q3. How effective are the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for England and Wales and the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service for London? (The Committee will not be considering individual cases and appeals.) A. Broadly speaking, since its inception after 1991, the adjudication service has been very effective, but much more attention needs to be taken of their annual reports. Councils and government need to be placed under a statutory duty to respond to points raised in these reports. There also needs to be a power of adjudicators, (or possibly a new office for parking regulation, OffPark?) to declare councils that are shown to be continually abusing their powers as “rapacious and venal” and have available a range of sanctions to prevent such councils from abusing their powers. This could be such as barring retention of PCN penalty charges, these would revert to the Crown for a fixed period, or in the last resort reverting to police enforcement, with the council billed for all costs.
Q4. Should parking policy in London be subject to separate provisions and guidance, given, in particular, its large parking revenue surpluses, its more integrated public transport network and the number of foreign- registered vehicles in the city? A. No. However there does need to be more powers granted to government (or an independent regulatory body), to provide a counterweight to the almost uncontrolled council (and other bodies), operation of parking management and enforcement. A new body to regulate parking is needed urgently. This is a now £1 billion+ industry and seemingly with no legal or even moral restraints, apart from the limited powers of the adjudicators.
Q5. How can local authorities strike a balance between using parking policy to manage congestion and using it to encourage people into town centres? A. This is really for councils to decide, but it is clear that the TMA 2004 places to much emphasis in councils on congestion, and ignores the economic effects that excessive enforcement can and has caused— emptying high streets, rise of internet shopping etc
Q6. How can smaller local authorities use parking provision to manage congestion? Do they need to work regionally and strategically with neighbouring councils? A. It should not be the role of small local authorities to manage congestion, this should be a regional matter, albeit there is no official forum for this, but there is nothing to stop authorities’ from co-operating with each other when formulating parking policy. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w3
Q7. What role does the Workplace Parking Levy have? Would people be more inclined to use park and ride services if there were a charge to park at work?
A. The French have had a “Versement Transport (VT)” local tax for public transport provision in operation since 1971. This seems to have been wholly beneficial in its effects as far as can be judged from a distance although it no doubt has its opponents in France. It is not, however, based on parking place provision, but merely on the payroll costs of firms with more than nine employees, therefore paid whether the empoyer provides parking or not. It is levied at a rate of 1%, but this can be increased up to 1.75% by the local transport authority if it plans to build a metro, tramway, or busway, (in the Ile de France region, it can be higher than this). It is limited by only allowing transport regions with more than 20,000 inhabitants the ability to introduce VT. Introduction of a similar levy could have advantages in the UK if formulated in the right way. This could be part of a package that allowed business rates income to be returned directly to councils instead of via central government as now. The tax can be used for both capital projects, and also to assist with running costs.
Q8. Are there steps local authorities can take, while managing congestion, to make it easier for businesses to trade and make deliveries?
A. The main steps councils can take, is to critically examine their existing Traffic Regulation Orders to ensure they are business-friendly. Some traffic restrictions are such as to make deliveries to certain premises difficult or even impossible without the imposition of a penalty charge. In London many companies are plain of opinion that PCNs are now just a cost of doing business there, and passed on to customers. There should be a mandatory business effects consideration both in such a review and also when considering future traffic regulations orders.
Q9. Are parking signs clear and comprehensible? To what extent are unclear signs and instructions the cause of breaches of parking control?
A. Most parking signs are reasonably clear and comprehensible, but they have to reflect the complexity of Traffic Regulation Orders. If these have complex restrictions then the signs will be complex and difficult to understand. Councils need to be much more circumspect when setting up and changing TROs. Many difficulties arise when signs are not positioned correctly or are missing. Poor maintenance of the essential street furniture is essential to avoid problems. Experience of persons posting on a website shows many motorists are ignorant of the meaning of well-established parking signs and lines therefore more emphasis on this in the driving test may be an answer. Notwithstanding the above, one major problem remains, that of councils establishing Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) of far larger extent than recommended in government guidance. This is a particular problem in London and the larger cities. Guidance advises that a CPZ should be restricted in extent to about 10 streets, but some council’s have set up CPZs of a massive size and then expect a motorist to remember what he saw on the entry sign a mile back. CPZs therefore need reform to legally restrict their size unless authority has been granted by the Secretary of State. Some general points are considered below, based on the author’s experience of posting advice on PCNs and other matters on a website.
ILLEGALLY ISSUED PCNS
PCN Content The government Operational Guidance (November 2010) states what a PCN must contain, based on the regulations: 8.40 A PCN served on the vehicle or to the person who appears to be in charge of the vehicle (a “regulation 9” PCN) must contain the following information: — the date on which the notice is served; — the name of the enforcement authority; — the registration mark of the vehicle involved in the alleged contravention (that is, the number plate); — the date and time at which the alleged contravention occurred; — the grounds on which the CEO serving the notice believes that a penalty charge is payable; — the amount of the penalty charge; — the manner in which the penalty charge must be paid; — that the penalty charge must be paid not later than the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the PCN was served; cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w4 Transport Committee: Evidence
— that if the penalty charge is paid not later than the last day of the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the notice is served, the penalty charge will be reduced by the amount of any applicable discount—currently 50%; — that if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the PCN was served, a notice to owner (NtO) may be served by the enforcement authority on the owner of the vehicle; — that a person on whom an NtO is served will be entitled to make representations to the enforcement authority against the penalty charge and may appeal to an adjudicator if those representations are rejected; — that, if representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified for the purposes before an NtO is served: — those representations will be considered; — but that, if an NtO is served not withstanding those representations, representations against the penalty charge must be in the form and manner and at the time specified in the NtO.
This is a legal requirement, and absence of any of the items renders the PCN illegal and therefore unenforceable. Regulation 10 PCNs, (those served by post), require broadly similar information, and the mandated content for these is also given in the Operational Guidance.
Despite clear, legally-mandated, requirements for content, councils continue to issue PCNs not containing some of the mandatory information, or have misinterpreted the requirement such that the content gives an incorrect or misleading statement to the person receiving the PCN. Adjudicators have commented many times on this, and wonder why councils seem unable to read the statutes and format their PCNs correctly. Where challenges have been made, councils have generally been reluctant to give way, and the motorist has been forced into the considerable inconvenience of appealing to the adjudicator.
PCN Circumstances
Many adjudications in allowing an appeal, have agreed with the appellant that signs advising of a traffic restriction, are not in accordance with law, or are inadequate or missing, or that a Yellow Box Junction does not meet the legal standards, thus rendering the PCNs issued at the particular location unenforceable.
The Operational Guidance states: Other points about the Penalty Charge Notice 8.35 Authorities should not issue PCNs when traffic signs or road markings are incorrect, missing or not in accordance with the TRO. These circumstances may make the Order unenforceable. If a representation against a PCN shows that a traffic sign or road marking was defective, the authority should accept the representation because the adjudicator is likely to uphold any appeal. An enforcement authority may be acting unlawfully and may damage its reputation if it continues to issue PCNs that it knows to be unenforceable.
Yet despite this, councils generally refuse to reimburse those who may have already paid the PCN to obtain the discount in ignorance of the illegality of the signs, and in many cases, continue to issue PCNs even though they are plainly illegal.
In addition to the above, despite the adjudication decision, they refuse to cancel PCNs issued after the adjudication when these are challenged, forcing motorists to adjudication again and again. They can do this, because there are no restraints or penalties in doing so. The decisions of adjudicators, whilst published, are not widely promulgated; certainly the council in losing such cases issue no statements. This is a scandalous situation needing robust action by government. Fortunately, there is now a website to give advice to motorists receiving fixed penalties that advises those strange to CPE processes and provides details of similar cases.
Statutory Guidance
Following the passage of the Traffic Management Act in 2004, the clauses related to parking were subsequently introduced. This included calling the new regime Civil Parking Enforcement, (or CPE). The previous regime established in 1991 which changed parking enforcement from criminal to civil law continued in its essentials, but various changes were made, being mostly additions to the 1991 legislation.
Motorists continue to have the right to make (1) informal challenges, and (2) formal appeals following receipt of Notice to Owner, to the council. If appeals are rejected a right of appeal to an adjudicator is available. Motorists are discouraged from appealing and going to adjudication by the offer of 50% discount to the full PCN amount for early payment, (normally within 14 days of service of the PCN. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w5
One key addition following the TMA 2004 were, regulations to permit the introduction of parking enforcement using CCTV and other camera technology. Use of this technology had already been permitted in London and other councils for bus lane enforcement in earlier Acts. The regulations opened out camera enforcement to encompass parking and waiting, yellow box junctions, (YBJs), and other moving traffic offences such as ignoring certain signed restrictions like “no right turn” and so on. Shortly after the regulations had come into operation, the Government issued two sets of guidance, Statutory Guidance as defined in the TMA, and Operational Guidance. The TMA Section 87 mandates that councils must have regard to guidance. This guidance was issued in February 2008, and advises councils on the planning, introduction, and operation of CPE. The Operational Guidance expands on CPE operation and provides much more detail on how the government expects CPE to be operated. In addition to CCTV enforcement, the TMA also introduced a new appeal case of “procedural impropriety” that could be cited by a motorist in receipt of a PCN. A definition of procedural impropriety can easily be found by a search of the internet, and is commonly stated as: A decision suffers from procedural impropriety if in the process of its making the procedures prescribed by statute have not been followed or if the “rules of natural justice” have not been adhered to. There is now considerable evidence that councils operating CCTV are committing procedural improprieties by not having regard to the Statutory Guidance, in other words have ignored the guidance when setting up and operating CCTV enforcement. The Guidance states, (inter alia): 1. This Statutory Guidance is published by the Secretary of State for Transport under section 87 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 (TMA). TMA 2004 Sect 87 Guidance to local authorities. (1) The appropriate national authority may publish guidance to local authorities about any matter relating to their functions in connection with the civil enforcement of traffic contraventions. (2) In exercising those functions a local authority must have regard to any such guidance. 4. All enforcement authorities1 in England should use this Guidance in conjunction with the Regulations that give effect to the parking provisions in Part 6 of the TMA2. 6. Where the Guidance says that something must be done, this means that it is a requirement in either primary or secondary legislation, and a footnote gives the appropriate provision. In all other instances, section 87 of the TMA stipulates that local authorities must have regard to (author underline) the information contained in this Guidance. 9. Authorities must have regard to this Statutory Guidance (as stipulated by section 87 of the TMA) when exercising their functions. These functions include developing, implementing and reviewing their CPE regimes. They should also read this Guidance in conjunction with the more detailed Operational Guidance (the replacement for Local Authority Circular 1/95). The Statutory Guidance sets out the skeleton for how CPE should be operated which is given greater depth in the Operational Guidance. 48. TMA Regulations give the power to authorities throughout England to issue PCNs for contraventions detected with a camera and associated recording equipment (approved device). The Secretary of State must certify any type of device used solely to detect contraventions (ie with no supporting CEO evidence). Once certified they may be called an “approved device”. The Secretary of State recommends that approved devices are used only where enforcement is difficult or sensitive and CEO enforcement is not practical. Approved devices should not be used where permits or exemptions (such as resident permits or Blue Badges) not visible to the equipment may apply. (author’s underline) The key words in the Guidance are “must have regard to”. This is a familiar and well used legal expression meaning that it is expected that the recommendations made in the guidance will be followed, except where the organisation has decided it has overriding reasons not to follow some or all of the guidance. Clearly, the organisation must be able to show it has “had regard to” the guidance by recording the discussions, decisions, and reasons why it has deviated from the guidance. This demonstrates that regard has been taken of it, and that it has not been ignored. If a challenge is subsequently made that the guidance has been ignored, then such records will refute such a challenge. If such records are not kept, then the organisation could be regarded as acting ultra vires. Section 48 of the Statutory Guidance is quite clear that the use of CCTV should not replace that by Civil Parking Officers on-foot. Yet time and time again, PCNs are issued for locations where it is quite clear to the motorist that CCTV is being used for council convenience, such asthe camera is already there for other purposes, or because it costs far less than CEO patrols. In addition, CCTV by its “always-on” state, can be used to detect the most trivial offences and cause the issue a PCN, (see section on de minimis) whereas CEOs cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w6 Transport Committee: Evidence
cannot be everywhere all the time, and anyway would be far more likely to request a motorist to move on for a trivial transgression. The upshot of this is that since the TMA 2004 came in, many councils have migrated from considered and measured enforcement, accepted by almost all motorists, to oppressive and robotic, enforcement disliked by everybody. The novel 1984 comes to mind, and the “Telescreen” device described in it. The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it; moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plate commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time, but at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You have to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized. It is quite clear from contested PCNs at adjudication, that councils have widely ignored the Statutory Guidance when they have introduced CCTV enforcement. There are no public-domain records of discussions, decisions, or reasons for CCTV enforcement in any of the councils operating CCTV parking enforcement. Some council’s have published a Code of Practice related to their use of CCTV, but whilst in some of these documents mention is made of the Statutory Guidance, no mention is made as to why the council considers their use of CCTV fits the criteria outlined in the Guidance. In the view of this author, demonstrating “having regard to” where CCTV is in use, requires a table listing every CCTV location within the council in use for parking and waiting enforcement, and why the use of CEOs at these locations is difficult or sensitive. There should also be a statement for each location on how Blue Badge parking, boarding/alighting and loading exemptions will be dealt with by the operators of the CCTV equipment. Without such a table of CCTV locations and the reasons for use of it, the council can be challenged that it has not had regard to the Statutory Guidance, and if a PCN has been issued using CCTV, that it is unenforceable due to a “procedural impropriety”. Adjudications have agreed with appellants on this lack of regard to guidance, but as only 1% of PCNs get to adjudication, council abuse of CCTV continues with impunity. Guidance on what an organisation must do to show it has “had regard to” any document mandating this have been issued, but none so far related to parking. However it is quite clear on what is considered the necessary action. The Better Regulation Executive has issued a presentation on this subject: — Any departure from the Code must be: — properly reasoned; — based on material (relevant) evidence; — Any factor influencing a departure
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w7
Dictionary definitions focus on interpretations such as “to consider” and “to take into account” and, perhaps taking a stronger line, “to heed”. These are consistent with a view expressed by the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, at a meeting of the Lord’s Grand Committee on 6 February 2006 to consider the Company Law Reform Bill (Column GC272 of Lords Hansard, 6 February 2006). At one point, the debate centred on the environmental impact of a company’s activities and of decisions made by company directors. An amendment was put forward which would permit directors to make a judgement as to the significance of these impacts “having regard to the size and complexity of the business”. In considering this issue, Lord Goldsmith commented “What is meant by ‘have regard to’? It means what it says. You have to have regard to the considerations. As I have indicated, however, it may be a rapid consideration in certain circumstances, leading to the conclusion that that particular factor does not change the decision at all—there is no effect on the environment, or whatever it may be. It is right, however, that such matters should be considered; regard should be had to them.” These comments provide a useful guide as to what the Section 11A(2)/17A/85 “have regard to” duty means in practice, ie: — Decisions and actions taken by relevant authorities will invariably require a wide range of factors and issues to be taken into account. — The duty requires that this process should include consideration of potential impacts on AONB/National Park purposes—with the expectation that adverse impacts will be avoided or mitigated where possible. Provided this is done, the duty has been met, irrespective of whether or not the decision ultimately taken conflicts with AONB/National Park purposes. We consider it good practice that a body: — considers the duty of regard at several points in any decision-making process or activities, including during initial thinking, at more detailed planning stages, and at implementation; and — provides written evidence that they have had regard and considered whether it is or is not relevant (author’s bold).
Statutory Guidance Guidance is produced on powers and duties arising from statute. In the case of a duty recipients must do what the statute says. The statute will tell them what their powers and duties are. Guidance is produced to tell them how those powers and duties should be exercised. Where a recipient has an obligation to “have regard to” guidance they should exercise the powers and duties which are the subject of the guidance in the way it says they should, unless they have a good reason not to. This is the case for the majority of guidance. In this author’s opinion, revised statutory guidance needs to be issued which must re-emphasise the previous CCTV guidance and extend it to advise that all CCTV locations used for parking enforcement must be listed and published, together with the reason for their use of CCTV instead of CEOs, and how the exemptions at each site, (board/alight, loading, and Blue Badge) are to be handled. The reasons must also explain why CEO enforcement is difficult or impractical. Any new guidance should also point out that use of mobile CCTV (camera cars), moving randomly over the whole network of streets within the council is disproportionate and wholly against the guidance.
De Minimis Offences Since the introduction of CCTV enforcement, the issuing of PCNs for the most trivial offences has now become an epidemic. Cases that have come before adjudicators show that commonsense is totally absent in some councils and very sparse in others. PCNs for box junction offences where the vehicle stopped for about 5 seconds have been issued as have PCNs for waiting for one minute or less. In the video of one CCTV- detected offence, where the motorist had stopped in a parking bay outside the permitted hours to use a cash machine, traffic can be seen moving past the car entirely freely without even needing to drive around the stationary car, making one wonder why there is a restriction at all. One does have to wonder how motorists can ever stop to ask for directions or change drivers ever again. Not all cars are fitted with satnav equipment!
Extract from NPT Annual Report 2008–10 In MW06157C the council produced its code of conduct but the chief adjudicator found it to be inadequate, not least because the PCN was issued for stopping for a mere 46 seconds so that the driver and passenger could change places. This was, she found, de minimis and did not amount to a contravention. She said: “The Council has produced in its evidence a full copy of it own Code of Practice for CCTV enforcement. I can find nothing in that lengthy document dealing with integrity or fairness. Had those important principles been addressed then the Council might have stopped to consider whether it was fair to impose a penalty upon [the appellant]”. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w8 Transport Committee: Evidence
The only reason that suggests itself as the cause of this epidemic of PCN issues for trivial offences is the huge increase in revenue that such PCNs can generate. When it is remembered that most people pay PCNs early to get the discount, and that adjudicators see only around 1% of PCNs, one can see the attraction of CCTV; it is cheap to operate and can generate huge additional sums for councils at a time of austerity and government grant reductions, with “no questions asked”.
Adjudicators In the main, the adjudication system has worked well over the years since its introduction, but there are a number of points to be made. 1. Every adjudication in theory stands on its own merits and no reference is theoretically made to previous similar or even identical cases. However, increasingly, appellants are appealing and quoting previous adjudications as precedent. This lack of official recognition of the role of precedent in adjudicator judgments is quite clearly nonsensical. The whole basis of English law is precedent, namely previous decisions are available to guide those judging cases coming later that have similarities, indeed, are expected to be cited in judgments. The interests of justice surely demand that identical circumstances give the same outcomes. Sometimes this absence of having regard to previous cases has been farcical where an adjudicator has decided a case one way, when he had previously decided another way on the same set of circumstances some weeks earlier. One wonders what caused the adjudicator to change his mind! 2. Most adjudications are of individual circumstances, but there have been many adjudications where a large number of PCNs have been issued in a short space of time at one location, and it is clear there is a problem “on the ground” with signs or layouts that mislead motorists. One person may take the council to adjudication and have his appeal accepted, but there is nothing in the legislation for refunding those who may have not realised the illegality of the signs or the PCNs. To be fair, one council in London, Ealing, did refund all PCNs issued for a particular box junction, but such cases are rare. 3. Annual Reports of the Adjudicators have been issued since the inception of civil enforcement. Both adjudicating bodies issue reports, and some severe criticisms have been made in recent years concerning council use of CCTV enforcement. NPT Annual Report 2008–10 While there have been examples of PCNs being correctly issued and served under Regulation 10(1)(a) and the ensuing appeals dismissed, there are also examples of successful appeals where enforcement by camera was found to be wrong in principle, ill considered in the circumstances or the evidence inadequate. In some of these cases, adjudicators have criticised quite severely the approach of councils involved. and also The Medway CCTV car operates a different way. The car is manned by an operator in addition to the driver and the occupants decide to film vehicles they spot parked in contravention. This has given rise to considerable criticism from the citizens of Medway as well from adjudicators in some cases. One of the principle difficulties is that the driver of the CCTV vehicle parks for anything up to five minutes while the operator points the camera at the offending vehicle. Appellants have questioned why the council’s CCTV car can park for five minutes on a double yellow line while they are having penalties imposed on them for the same practice. Adjudicators have noticed that in some of the correspondence the council has claimed that the TMA provides an exemption from parking restrictions for a CCTV vehicle. This is not the case—there are no provisions in the TMA or any of its regulations that create exemptions to parking restrictions in TROs for vehicles engaged in camera enforcement. And also In MW06082F the appellant parked a commercial vehicle, clearly marked as such, outside the company’s own premises. He said he was entitled to park because he was loading at the time but was unable to produce independent evidence. The adjudicator criticised the council for using the CCTV car in these circumstances and said: “It appears the Council’s CCTV car was itself, hovering around the car for five minutes and did not film any activity. It is not clear why the civil enforcement officer did not get out of the car and attach a penalty charge notice to the car in the usual manner. Had that happened [the appellant] would have been put on immediate notice of the alleged contravention and would have had evidence of the unloading to hand. However, because the Council chose to send the PCN by post eleven days later I am not surprised that [the appellant] no longer had any evidence to provide to the Council or with his appeal. Given that the [appellant] has been prejudiced by the Council taking the curious decision to issue a postal PCN for a breach of a restriction cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w9
that carries the loading/unloading exemption I accept [the appellant’s] evidence that the vehicle was engaged in that activity and therefore no contravention occurred.” There has also been comment made about councils adherence to a code of practice and to statutory guidance. In MW06157C the council produced its code of conduct but the chief adjudicator found it to be inadequate, not least because the PCN was issued for stopping for a mere 46 seconds so that the driver and passenger could change places. This was, she found, de minimis and did not amount to a contravention. She said: “The Council has produced in its evidence a full copy of it own Code of Practice for CCTV enforcement. I can find nothing in that lengthy document dealing with integrity or fairness. Had those important principles been addressed then the Council might have stopped to consider whether it was fair to impose a penalty upon [the appellant]”. In addition to the above, comment has been made about councils that refuse to give way when a PCN is challenged, forcing an appellant all the way to adjudication, then at almost the last minute, decide not to contest. The motorist will have needed to prepare his appeal and then have weeks of worry about the penalty charge, yet invariably can demand no costs or compensation from the council. It is very clear that these annual reports are completely ignored by councils and others issuing PCNs. One does wonder if councils read them at all, the main impression being that it is all “water off the duck’s back”; the words “san fairy ann” also come to mind. Action is needed by government to address the issues raised by adjudicators; at present there is no formal process for a government response to adjudicator reports. There needs to be a new process to require a government response to these reports, and to force councils to respond to criticism and outline what action is being taken to deal with the concerns of the adjudicators. Such responses must be mandated to be circulated widely and posted on the council website, and announced to the Press.
Absence of Legal Restraints Apart from the common law duty on councils to act fairly, proportionately, and with due regard to the public interest, there are virtually no real and immediate legal restraints on councils that continue to act illegally by issuing PCNs when an adjudication proves, such PCNs are illegal and unenforceable. Notwithstanding decisions against them, councils continue to issue PCNs after adverse adjudication decisions and thus can be considered guilty of “unjust enrichment”, but the only way a citizen can challenge this illegal act is to complain to the District Auditor. It has to be said that unjust enrichment is not fully developed in English law, although well recognised in other European countries. There is a clear need to reduce the ease with which councils can retain revenue derived from badly issued or illegal PCNs. This will lead to much more care being taken to ensure illegality is not being perpetuated. 28 January 2013
Written evidence from Bryn Buck (PE 03) Although I work in a local authority highways department with much input into parking schemes and the Traffic Regulation Orders that support them, I submit this written evidence as an individual and private motorist. Therefore my views do not necessarily represent those of my employers.
How should councils use their revenue from penalty charges, metered parking, car parks and residents’ parking? Should there be more local discretion over how income is used? It should be a reasonable expectation that revenues raised from parking schemes and enforcement of penalty charges are re-invested in highways maintenance as well as parking enforcement and not used to “prop-up” other local authority services. With recent reductions in funding for maintenance and upkeep of enforceable restrictions, it would be fair to expect those that utilise and/or contravene restrictions generate the revenue that enables such restrictions to remain correct and compliant with primary legislation.
What impact will new technology, such as cashless parking, parking sensors and CCTV, have on local authority parking enforcement? Cashless parking will be a positive leap forward where pay and display parking is in effect. It is not always possible to carry the correct amount of change when travelling, and also there is an added benefit that reductions in the amount of cash being stored in payment machines reduces the risk of theft and also relieves the burden on the staff resources that are otherwise required to empty and transport cash. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w10 Transport Committee: Evidence
CCTV currently serves a purpose for enforcement of moving traffic offences, such as encroachment into reserved lanes and banned turn contraventions. Remote CCTV monitoring of stringent parking controls such as Urban Clearways and loading prohibitions could prove beneficial in reducing the risk of conflict between Civil Enforcement Officers and a member of the public as the observation period could be carried out from the control room and a penalty charge if required could then be processed through the post.
How effective are the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for England and Wales and the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service for London? (The Committee will not be considering individual cases and appeals.) The Tribunal, in my experience as an Officer, is often quick to allow appeals on a number of trivialities which should realistically be subject to a common sense test. Appeals based on technicalities regarding sign positioning in relation to the Traffic Signs Manual are a particular concern as it is not always possible to erect signs at the distances recommended and given the Manual is guidance, it seems absurd that a “pick and choose” approach is even permitted in the first place. Either the Traffic Signs Manual needs to be made a legally binding document or the Tribunal needs to apply a more common sense orientated approach to appeals, many of which are lodged purely out of a desire to avoid paying a charge rather than due to a genuine complaint about the quality or legality of a restriction.
Should parking policy in London be subject to separate provisions and guidance, given, in particular, its large parking revenue surpluses, its more integrated public transport network and the number of foreign- registered vehicles in the city? I do not work in London, nor do I have experience of parking enforcement or knowledge of the revenues generated. However, I see no particular problem with tailored provisions and guidance for use within the Greater London Authority region.
How can local authorities strike a balance between using parking policy to manage congestion and using it to encourage people into town centres? This is something that my local authority has supplied me with a brief to address. My personal view is that consistency of restrictions and allowing parking where it does not bring traffic flow problems form two of the main ways to encourage people into town centres. Much urban congestion, however, is caused by want of a parking space. This needs to be addressed by providing more adequate off-street parking opportunity which is secure and reasonably priced. On-street parking in town centres should be primarily targeted at short stay visitors to the town centre whose business can be completed within, say, 2 hours. The off-street provision should generally be aimed at long stay commuters and those who are making day trips. Pay and display charges should be competitive with privately maintained car parks although there should be a slightly higher tariff than those in local authority car parks to encourage use of long stay facilities. Town centres also require ample servicing opportunity for businesses that may only have access from the front door. This needs to be controlled in such a manner to deter misuse but also to avoid discouraging businesses from setting up shop in the area. The needs of the disabled also need to be considered although provision of appropriate blue badge bays without adversely impacting on general parking is critical.
How can smaller local authorities use parking provision to manage congestion? Do they need to work regionally and strategically with neighbouring councils? I work in a small local authority that has distinct urban cores and a larger rural district. Parking provision is typically designed to maximise income potential as well as managing demand. This is sometimes a conflicting objective but with careful and rational planning it can be reconciled. There is a danger that one authority might use parking policy to attract, or discourage, visitors which can have an impact on the neighbouring authorities. Any large scale parking policy reviews should take into consideration the potential impact on the surrounding region.
What role does the Workplace Parking Levy have? Would people be more inclined to use park and ride services if there were a charge to park at work? I would argue that in many instances, being charged to park at a workplace that already has free off-street parking would be a major factor in the decision to remain in employment there. It could also encourage companies to relocate to alternative authorities that to do not charge such a levy which could impact on jobs and services. As such, Workplace Parking Levies are in my opinion a very negative thing that does nothing to resolve congestion outside of peak hours as parked vehicles off-street to not create bottlenecks or clog up major arterial roads. If anything they risk harming economic growth by stifling businesses and affecting personal budgets for commuting. With rising fuel costs, an additional and wholly unjustifiable charge will cause many people to either change jobs or in the worst case scenario stop working entirely as it becomes unaffordable to do so. This will stifle economic growth and is entirely at odds with the government’s employment policy and economic ideology. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w11
A much preferable solution would be for local authorities to work with larger workplaces that generate many individual car trips to examine the causes of this and develop smarter working opportunities such as remote working or commuting clubs that encourage car-sharing. A park and ride facility is of no benefit to anyone if the buses leaving it are still joining congested roads; a mix of bus and car-share priority measures would be far more beneficial in encouraging use of such facilities than a punitive “stealth tax” that has wider reaching economic impacts.
Are there steps local authorities can take, while managing congestion, to make it easier for businesses to trade and make deliveries? Servicing opportunities need to be carefully considered. Loading bays should be provided where there is no off-street provision; these must be enforced and kept free of other vehicles. Business owners should not expect a right to park outside their property, as this reduces opportunity for customers. Instead there could be local authority schemes where a car park season ticket is offered at a reduced rate to business owners to reduce their parking costs and encourage them to retain their business in the town.
Are parking signs clear and comprehensible? To what extent are unclear signs and instructions the cause of breaches of parking control? In many cases a wilful ignorance of parking restriction signs causes contraventions. The vast majority of signs are designed in to deliver the information in a concise format. Problems occur when a Traffic Regulation Order tries to be too clever for its own good and signs become an almost farcical essay of conflicting times, restrictions, and information. Future revisions to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions need to consider the use of Plain English on traffic signs and local authorities must be compelled to provide restrictions that are both sensible and concise. Complex regulations and poor quality design of traffic signs erode public respect for such measures and bring the designer responsible into disrepute. March 2013
Written evidence from Colin Peek (PE 07) The view of a member of the public with experience working in this industry. This report is based on knowledge in one local highways authority area, and it is hoped not repeated across the country. The examples given are able to be evidenced and can be shown not to be isolated. Having the same authorities responsible for the implementation and management and enforcement of restrictions would outwardly appear to make sense as it should provide a co-ordinated approach, however in practice it leads to the authorities holding too much power over an area that impact on residents, business and visitors. Although revenue is directed according to guidelines, the perception is that there are disproportionate benefits for the authority to implement restrictions that will provide income rather than those that can benefit traffic management. A further benefit for those authorities who manage car parks as well as enforce on street restrictions is that they are able to “encourage” increased use of car parks to their own benefit as they have more flexibility in the use of revenue. An example of this is the benefits said to come from pay and display, no doubt it eases enforcement compared to limited waiting and the increased turnover of vehicles this leads to hopefully balances out any reduction in trade for businesses because of charges. An argument put by councils that the introducing of pay and display small towns where the traffic flows through the shopping centre will improve traffic flow. It does in fact have the opposite effect; the increased turnover of vehicles resulting in increased manoeuvring of vehicles into parallel parking spaces is a significant contributor to increased exhaust fumes and congestion in these situations. Any changes to restrictions must be seen as proportionate to the problem that they are supposed to be overcoming, with the motorist and local businesses believing that the highways authorities are treating them unfairly. The use of new technology is seen as a one sided thing, the use of cameras for enforcement is cost effective, is seen as purely a way of maximising income for an area as it fails to address why a vehicle may be stopped in a certain location, Enforcement needs to be targeted more appropriately on areas where offenders are causing problems for others rather than on where the greatest non-compliance is, where an area of significant non-compliance is identified resources need to be put in place to find out why and make amendments to restrictions and/or road layout to avoid offences occurring. The lack of understanding of the process introduction of changes to restrictions and although meeting legal requirements increased publicity of proposals needs to take place, The current system can lead to inappropriate restrictions being implemented legally. An example of this is the introduction of a no loading restriction on an entire length of a shopping street. The initial suggestion for increased restrictions coming from the police whilst it was their responsibility to enforce, to allow them to manage the area better allowing loading in some areas while maintaining traffic flow. The local authority advertised the entire length as no loading, and intending to see where valid objections were made to consider the placement of loading bays. As no objections were cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w12 Transport Committee: Evidence
received, the whole restriction was imposed leading to an unmanageable restriction for businesses. This resulted in adverse publicity, CEO’s having to step away from enforcement creating increased inconsistency and further cost in designing and implementing changes. This could have been avoided by better consultation and looking to provide the required measures during the design stage. More thought needs to be given to how consultation and advertising of changes take place, and perhaps a temporary period where the new restrictions are marked (and enforced), but at the end of perhaps six months areas can be revoked before the traffic order becomes fully approved. This would allow the public to see changes in place and submit objections on these. This would allow the public to view the “proposals” on street and see that they are as advertised elsewhere, as it appears that this does not always happen, and the authority is then able to “hide” behind the law. The need to give the public a greater say in what restrictions are necessary and influence them is paramount to give greater confidence in the system. Lack of co-ordination of highways issues has led to situations where motorists are regularly committing offences without realising it, this has increased since additional offences have been given to civil enforcement officers, to deal with items that were previously not necessarily offences. Appendix A shows examples of where motorists may have previously parked with little or no fear of committing an offence, but may now be seen too often without any changes having taken place at the location. Appendix B shows poorly how lack of co-ordination between parking restrictions and engineering can mislead the motorist into committing an offence it also shows the use of an access protection type marking to discourage parking, this being against the councils own policy on such matters, although not enforceable, it raises the public’s expectations on parking management, if it was deemed necessary to “restrict” parking here it should be done through the proper process so that objections could be considered. This type of casual approach to the management of restrictions can lead to a disregard for valid restrictions Maintenance of markings and signs is a major issue, although improved since the introduction of CPE in my area (This raises the question of the neglect previously) there are still considerable issues, and given that a declaration was signed before CPE was approved that all was in order, it is worrying that so many faults existed. Some examples here have been rectified but should not have been allowed to reach this stage. Appendix C shows a section of double yellow lines that appear not to have been enforceable for a prolonged period, yet were supposedly measured for the introduction of CPE. Appendix D shows a section of line which has been neglected over a prolonged period but was supposedly measured and rectified for the introduction of CPE. Appendix E Shows a restricted Zone in place for many years, as can be seen neglect had allowed a clamping organisation employed to place signs on the highway, and other signs in place seem contradictory. Appendix F Shows another restricted zone with poorly designed signing and although generally clear, they are non-compliant and may encourage challenges to enforcement. The Pedestrian Zone was omitted during consolidation for CPE and the authority has recently made efforts to replace it, although the rather than admit its failings it stated in the advert “to simplify the signing required by the Pedestrian Zone it is proposed to shorten it at the New Street end by 26 metres” no mention being made that currently no such restriction exists. Appendix G shows the survey of a length of restriction then placed on a TRO Map but the length recorded in the schedule contradicts this, the photos show clearly that this length of restriction was marked and as the TRO was advertised as on the road. This may have been due to poor maintenance allowing a previously revoked restriction to remain in place, however, it is obvious that decisions were made on this contrary to the advertisement. Appendix H shows changes made contrary to TRO because of the failure to maintain markings, the first example the markings being unclear resulted in incomplete/reduced restrictions being included in the TRO. Subsequent corrections to the TRO and markings were improperly included. The second example shows how a no loading restriction that had previously been approved but was not present during a survey was added to the “as marked” TRO and the highway works not carried out for a considerable period after. The prolonged failure to repair and replace invalid TRO’s and signing leaves some questioning the ability of the authority to be able to correctly manage revenue from parking. Non existent TROs or invalid signs should be covered or removed as soon as identified, or an “emergency” or temporary restriction put in place to make them valid until a full TRO can be advertised. The current system leads to deceit by the authority. There are many examples where the highway authority have been aware for a considerable time that restrictions are invalid and may have been enforced, but have failed to inform the enforcing body whether it be the police or another local council. The removal of exemptions and introduction of dispensations is another area seen as a means of collecting revenue by the highways authority. Although having a benefit for contractors on larger sites makes many smaller businesses into offenders as they are not able to plan works for numerous reasons, so frequently have to take a chance on receiving a PCN when previously they would have been exempt from the restriction. This can have a considerable effect on the cost of works taking place in areas where restrictions exist. Where a dispensation scheme exists it should be readily available at short notice and should not restrict the type of vehicle, for example a plumber starting their own business may not be able to afford a van and be working cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w13
from a “private” car, or someone helping a relative carry out works from their own vehicle should not be treated differently to a big business with sign written vehicles. It is the actions that are relevant not the vehicle being used for this! Another area of perceived injustice is the enforcement of the zebra/pelican crossings and their approach areas. Previously if a vehicle parked here the driver received points on their licence and if they did not return to the vehicle it may have been towed away, this was a time consuming process but because it was considered to be such a dangerous position was necessary. I recently saw a vehicle in this position for over an hour in such a position with a PCN attached, nothing appeared to be happening to reduce the danger to pedestrians and compared to the previous enforcement this seems to be “dumbing down” and purely about the revenue from the PCN. Local Authorities need to be able to deal with these offences in a comparable manner, given the powers to do so but have to accept that this responsibility comes at a cost, as it reduce the effectiveness of CEO’s in other areas. Clear and properly marked restrictions should be easy to understand for both the motorist and CEO, but unfortunately there may still be times when improper and invalid enforcement takes place. Clear rules on how authorities should deal with this need to be introduced, numerous examples exist within my area where revenue has and continues to be collected which should not be. But the authorities are reluctant to admit that this has happened and then fail to react to the problem. In the example at Appendix I it took almost a year after the wrongful issuing of PCNs was pointed out to the enforcing authority for it to take any action, as can be seen by the photos it is highly unlikely that motorists would be aware or able to claim the refund. The PCN’s referred to here are only a small part of the wrongful enforcement that has taken place in the area. Measures that could be introduced to correct this area are, the Data Protection application be amended to allow PCN checks to be made to allow contact with owners advising them of their right to claim a refund, the removal of the clause that the motorist must have the refund or PCN (how many people keep these for two years?) and where, as was the case in this example a motorist had taken the case to a parking tribunal and lost they should be reimbursed not only the “fine” they paid but also allocated costs retrospectively. The enforcing authority would be more likely to check offences were valid before pursuing cases. Where it is not possible to refund improperly collected revenue, this should be placed into a separate fund so that it cannot be confused with that collected validly, this would increase confidence in the system, this fund could be used for specific matters which the public would appreciate more. To increase confidence in the correctness of management of parking matters and ensure authorities are managing them properly and consistently, there is a need for a “regulatory” body to oversee this area. DfT have said the function of DfT officials is to advise Ministers, local authorities and others on policy and regulatory matters, and not to ensure that an individual local authority’s operational or policy decisions comply with the law. This is first and foremost a matter for the local authority. This is obviously not working, numerous examples can be given but here is one. Appendix J shows Disabled bays not of the required dimension, yet the authority having tried to get authorisation and failed do not appear to have tried correct this, a relatively minor discrepancy, but having recognised their failing the authority then choose to ignore the DfT. Motorists committing minor transgressions have little opportunity for appeal while the authority appears to disregard rules! Below Appendix J are maps showing missing TROs in one small Town that have not been addressed in five years, not only have road markings and signs remained, deceiving motorists into believing them to be valid, but some were recently remarked following resurfacing despite my informing the elected councillors of the issue. There is little point in having restrictions that are unlikely to be enforceable, with virtually no “out of hours” service provided, the placing of no waiting at any time restrictions in some locations can lead to disregard for these and others because it is known that nothing will happen. This leads to a breakdown in confidence in the ability of the authority people see it as an injustice and may complain, this can ultimately lead to neighbourly disputes involving police resources. If restrictions are deemed necessary then the authorities have to put resources to visible patrols to discourage offences, this would not be cost effective as avoiding issuing PCN’s in this environment is preferential to educate and build confidence. This should be part of the service to support the correct approach to parking. Moving to appeals, It is obvious that authorities are pursuing PCN’s for offences that would not have stood the test of a magistrates court of guilt “beyond all reasonable doubt”, this was at times frustrating, but did ensure evidence was valid to prove an offence, just because a vehicle was seen in a certain position does not necessarily mean an offence is committed. The benfit of doubt has now swung to far the other way. Authorities can assume that in the majority of cases motorists will pay the fine rather than challenge as there is little benefit in this because they will probably be out of pocket by attending a tribunal. This injustice needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency to ensure justice can be seen to be done. The Parking Tribunal needs to have more options available to it. In many cases an offence may have been committed but circumstances if explained may show that the fine was disproportionate or unnecessary. To encourage authorities to take a more compassionate approach, The Tribunal needs to be able to give the equivalent to a courts absolute discharge, where the offence is proven but no fine is imposed, the tribunal would only use this where it is satisfied that the intention was not to offend and in fact efforts were made to avoid this. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w14 Transport Committee: Evidence
Another area that the tribunal needs to be given additional authority is the issuing of expenses, it is wrong that an alleged offender who has presented evidence to the authority in their defence is unable to claim expenses if they have to go to a tribunal, this discourages rightful appeals and is against the principle of justice. A principle of disclosure should apply, if the defendant has disclosed all evidence prior to the tribunal and the authority continues to take the case to unsuccessfully to tribunal, the tribunal should award costs to the defendant. A similar arrangement should apply where the defendant can show that the authority were aware of specific faults in the road markings, signs or TRO relevant to the offence regardless if these are seen as “technical” errors, if this evidence is disclosed and the case goes to a tribunal, and it can be proven that the authority had failed to take reasonable action to correct the fault or had permitted enforcement to continue knowing that this could be challenged, again expenses could be awarded. This would ensure that authorities look to rectify faults as quickly as possible and do not pursue fines that are suspect. This alone would build a lot more confidence in the management of restrictions and enforcement and show a co-ordinated service. The Examples below are only a small example of the discrepancies and faults in a local area and are known to be widespread. To obtain this small amount of evidence has been difficult, with the authority delaying and avoiding providing FOI responses when they are justified because without the information it is not possible to identify if measures have been implemented and managed correctly and if there is evidence of maladministration or neglect on the part of the authority.. If there is to be confidence in the management of parking services by local authorities the service must be prepared to have all records interrogated and there needs to be a regulatory body who can act against the authority as currently they appear to have a disregard for legislation and guidelines. If further examples and evidence is required this can be provided, however this may require further Freedom of information requests which the authority are currently refusing. March 2013
Written evidence from Michael Fallas (PE 09) Probably only received less than 10 parking tickets in over 38 years of driving. Received three in a matter of days when parked in Datchet administered by Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (RBWM).
Summary — PCN issued with wrong road, wrong town, wrong car colour, but sadly this makes no difference if they have a picture with your number plate. This should not be the case as it leaves one to believe a ticket has been issued incorrectly. Either the information is correct or not, if it is not needed then why have it on a PCN as it only confuses? — Twp more PCN’s issued but signs indicating new parking restrictions were not put up on the date the Council claimed (I made very sure none existed after my first parking ticket just a few roads away), but it is hard to prove otherwise when the Council and their contractor can just say they were. And unless you take a dated photograph of the signs each time you park the Council have the upper hand, and they know it and some clearly abuse that privilege. — When new parking restrictions are imposed, then as well as publishing these in the papers (which fewer and fewer people buy now as many use the internet as I do) they MUST also provide warning notices in the actual area and road where the new restrictions will apply at least one month before they come into force. Some decent Councils do this but others such as RBWM do not. It should be compulsory so no one is every surprised or taken advantage of. — I would take away any responsibility for Councils to manage parking fines, and expand the appeal system to handle all parking fines as they do at least treat you fairly. Any revenue received would be payable to the Councils as before but the incentive to lie and use parking as a revenue generator would be taken away from them and with the appeals system those who receive a ticket will at least be treated fairly if they have a problem. — Also as many people do not buy or read local papers it should be mandatory for any new parking restrictions that warning signs in the area these restrictions will apply are put up at least one month before they come into play, as indeed some Councils do but sadly not RBWM who prefer to deceive and catch out unsuspecting parkers.
My Recent Experience Went to appeal on first ticket issued on 6 October 2012 as the PCN was incorrectly completed, wrong car, colour, town and road name. Neither of these made any difference in the appeal but I won on appeal as the road signs had the incorrect times the restrictions applied compared to the order. (RBWM, have still not cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w15
changed the signs after nearly a month). Yet as you will see in the second case below they can get a new restriction signs put up in three days. Received two other parking tickets in another road in Datchet where the road had no restrictions (I made very sure having received the previous ticket) and I parked there every day and night from 7 October 2012 to 19 October. Two tickets received on 18th and 19th October as I had not used the car on those days. The Council claimed the new parking restrictions signs were up on 5th October as they had a copy of the “works order” signed by their contractor saying they were up on 5th October (because the “works order” dated 2nd October stated they have to be up by 5th October so naturally they said they were even if they were not). With many Freedom of Information requests I established the first parking ticket in this area I was parked (every day from 7th October to 19th October) was issued on 17th October 2012. I also found out parking attendants were issuing parking tickets in Datchet on most days in other roads in Datchet, but strangely not in this area until 17th October, when I believe is when the signs were first put up and not on 5th October as the Council claim (as with no signs up parking attendants could not issue tickets). My tickets were received on 18th and 19th October so I had little grounds to fight the case if the signs were put up on 17th October. However the rood marking were worn away and did not satisfy the TSRGD 2002 (not accepted by the tribunal) and no warnings were given of the changes in the area concerned (expect the Council claimed in the local paper on 24th September 2013 which I did not see as don’t buy papers). The Council and the contractor (who has a vested interest with the Council) refused to admit the signs were not up on 5th October despite the evidence, and it was difficult to prove otherwise. The Council also claimed at the appeal that they sometimes tell parking attendants not to issue tickets for a short period when new restrictions were in place. I do not believe this happened in this case but they know it is impossible for anyone to contest them. I did however win a concession from the Council for one parking ticket (at my request), as my car had not moved since the first one. It took me months of hard work just to prove what I found out and the fact remains that the Council were not interested in finding out the truth from the contractor about when the signs were actually put up despite all the evidence suggesting the date they claimed was wrong. All they were interested in was winning the case and making it as awkward as possible for me to defend myself, which took me ages and many many emails and letters just to try to get to the truth which is all I asked for. I also asked to be treated fairly which they did not do. I now don’t trust any of them and for me it is all about raising money and doing whatever they can to achieve that. There are virtually no roads to park in Datchet without paying a fee though residents parking is available but some roads have many many empty parking spaces except in the summer when people come to the river to hire boats etc, but you have to pay and now more and more shops are closing as well as pubs (only one left now). People going to work via the train now park in lay-byes some distance away as it is the only free place to park, despite the many empty spaces around the town during the day, which mean you have to pay or are for residents only. It is complete madness, but money is more important now isn’t it? I would take away any responsibility for Councils to manage parking fines, and expand the appeal system to handle all parking as they do at least treat you fairly. Any revenue received would be payable to the Councils as before but the incentive to lie and use parking as a revenue generator would be taken away from them and with the appeals system those who receive a ticket will at least be treated fairly if they have a problem. Also as many people do not buy or read local papers it should be mandatory for any new parking restrictions that warning signs in the area these restrictions will apply are put up at least one month before they come into play, as indeed some Councils do but sadly not RBWM who prefer to deceive and catch out unsuspecting parkers. Whilst parking management and tickets is clearly not the most thankful job in the world there is no reason why we cannot treat people decently and fairly and if there are circumstances where they may be doubt they should be required do all they can to find the truth. This did not happen in my case and I suspect many others. March 2013
Written evidence from Phillip Morgan (PE 10) I hereby present to the appropriate committee the serious concerns of many who have used the PATAS Tribunal in terms of its fairness, consistency, independence and its ability to put matters right when they have gone completely wrong. In my view, the organisation needs a root to branch review and overhaul since the outcome of its decisions is based on a purely lottery-based system ie it simply depends on whom you have on the day. The maxim that one decision is not binding on another’s is regularly abused, or used, and is even applicable to the same adjudicator as the attached clearly indicate. Many of my concerns simply pertain to wording issues and not the actual circumstances surrounding a particular alleged contravention. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w16 Transport Committee: Evidence
Frankly, several adjudicators should be removed, the Chief Adjudicator should be replaced with a proper and qualified Judge who has the power and authority to hire and fire adjudicators and to establish and monitor consistency amongst their decisions. April 2013
Written evidence from Traffic Penalty Tribunal Adjudicators (PE 11) 1. Introduction 1.1 This submission is sent on behalf of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (“TPT”) Adjudicators. We have read the questions posed by the TSC and considered that many of the appeals we have heard provide examples of situations that impact on the TSC’s questions. We have made some general observations at the outset and then turned our attention those question we consider it appropriate to address. We would also observe that while the TSC refers to parking enforcement, we assume they will also consider the wider civil enforcement powers for moving traffic, particularly bus lanes outside London.
2. General Observations 2.1 The entire Civil Enforcement Scheme relies on the sensitive and important relationship between regulations, enforcement and policy. 2.2 While new technology has given authorities and contractors an ever increasing ability to detect minor contraventions—even where a vehicle may have come to a halt but not necessarily been stationary—the regulations upon which the vigorous and rigorous enforcement is about, have not been brought up to date or made fit for purpose. 2.3 The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (“RTA”) was itself based on earlier legislation from the 1960s and many of the powers and terminology in relation to parking have not been amended or altered to take into account modern life. It must be remembered that in 1984 there were no mobile phones or sat-navs, and the internet had not been invented. The language that emanates from early legislation has even filtered through into the 2007 TMA regulations, which in places refers to parking as “allowing a vehicle to remain at rest”. (Imagine leaving the house saying, “Darling—where have you allowed the car to remain at rest?”.)
3. Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) 3.1 Incomprehensible drafting frequently is used in the TROs that underpin the traffic management schemes. The 2006 TSC report considered TROs and made recommendations at pages 94 and 95. These have largely remained unheeded and many authority’s traffic regulations orders are still shambolic and unwieldy. 3.2 It is fundamental to both polices and enforcement that the regulations are expressed in plain, simple English, that the public can read and understand. Fleet operators should be able to check online when delivering is banned and where there are loading bays; disabled drivers should be able to see where there are bays near their destination. Neither group should have to rely on other people at the destination to tell them what the parking rules are. 3.3 It is also the case that the existing TRO and signing regime is not necessarily flexible enough to enable authorities to achieve their objectives. An example of this problem came before the adjudicators in appeals against a city where Friday and Saturday nights became a problem for the local authority and police alike. Most of the city centre was pay and display for daytime parking but the council wished to restrict parking, indeed stopping, altogether on Friday and Saturday nights. The only mechanism that the authority could come up with was to convert the pay and display bays to loading bays on Friday and Saturday nights, although loading and unloading at night would have exacerbated the problems. This was, possibly, a device to ensure that the bays were not used. Contraventions were rigorously enforced by towing away vehicles and inevitably these cases came before adjudicators.
4. Exemptions 4.1 The long-standing standard exemptions in TROs are for loading and unloading (delivering and collecting), and setting down passengers. These have survived through from the earliest road traffic legislation. However in the modern world people pull up to the side of the road for any number of reasons not envisaged in the old exemptions. Many local authorities appear to believe there is no right to bring your car to a temporary halt where there is a waiting restriction in order to deal with one of these problems safely, whereas these modern-day occurrences call for sensible and considerate handling of representations. Adjudicators have, with some alarm, heard council officers say that Members have suggested a “zero-tolerance” policy, which cannot be appropriate. 4.2 A clue to these problems lies in the term “waiting” restriction. This is traditionally implied that the vehicle is there for more than a fleeting moment and has simply been brought to a halt and moved out of the flow of traffic (we have dealt with several appeals where the appellant has had to go through the process when it is apparent from the video that the vehicle is not stationary). cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w17
4.3 An example of how exemptions need to be realistically interpreted is the setting down exemption. It is widely recognised today that a driver can no longer just pull up and tell a small child or infant to get out of the car ring the door bell of adjacent premises—they need to be escorted to the custody of another adult. So when setting down an infant with a push-chair and baggage the driver needs to get out of the car and take the child in. This also applies to the infirm and disabled and the very elderly. However there is no formal exemption for this and traditionally setting down was confined to two minutes. Therefore the interpretation of this exemption has had to widen. 4.4 he problem of a traditional narrow interpretation of the setting-down exemption was highlighted in the High Court case of R(Makda) v The Parking Adjudicator [2010] EWHC 3392 (Admin,) where Mr Justice Burnett readily recognised that the setting down and picking up exemption nowadays allows a mini cab, having been booked to collect a fare, to wait or leave the car to find the passenger. This is not the thin edge of the wedge about relaxing parking restrictions but recognises the realities of modern life and the importance of private-hire vehicles and taxis as a public service in the traffic management.
5. Applications to the High Court 5.1 The Makda case raises another important issue—in that case it was the PHV drivers who had apply to the High Court to challenge the adjudicator’s strict interpretation of the exemption. However, an application to the High Court brings the risk of significant costs.
6. Good Vehicles 6.1 Another example is that of goods vehicles. The definition of goods vehicles—that vehicle has been made, constructed or adapted for the carriage of goods, is not thought by authorities to embrace vehicles with 5 doors such as hatch-backs and people-carriers. It is clear that a vast amount of commercial business is now conducted from these types of vehicles which are not truly goods vehicles in the old fashioned sense. And yet many authorities refuse to accept that a vehicle that has the back seat down and is being used for a commercial purpose constitutes a goods vehicle. Therefore there is an urgent need for this to be addressed preferably in legislation that otherwise in better guidance for the government.
7. The Law Commission 7.1 All in all there appears to be an urgent need for a new and fit for purpose Road Traffic Regulation Act. It has long been the view of the adjudicators that parking enforcement both public and private should be subject to the scrutiny of the Law Commission. Whenever we have raised this we have been met with the response that the Law Commission has better things to do than consider something so trivial as parking, yet they have recently produced an important and significant report on taxi and private hire vehicles, which clearly demonstrates the complexity of the area of law relating to road traffic, highways and the functions of local authority. 7.2 The problems that have recently been raised about parking on private land demonstrate clearly the legal complexity of parking enforcement. Parking on private land has always been subject to the common law of tort (trespass), and in the case of privately operated car parks, the law of contract. However the Protection of Freedoms act has endeavoured to impose the quasi-regulatory scheme on the enforcement of undesirable parking on private land. Those provisions were never truly intended to be a tool for car park operators to use but that is a consequence, intended or not. This is a complex area of law that should properly be considered by the Law Commission, in a wider reaching report. 7.3 The Law Commission could also consider whether authorities should be able to serve notices electronically on, say, registered keepers who have indicated on the registration at DVLA that they will accept service in an electronic format. While the regulations permit the tribunals to serve and accept communications from the parties in electronic format, the enforcement authorities are obliged to send all notices by first class post, notwithstanding that the vehicle owner may have submitted representations by email. Not only does this add significantly to the cost (especially with the new rates and size provisions introduced by the Royal Mail), it cannot really be said to be any more reliable than the new forms of email where service can be established by the sender.
8. Guidance 8.1 The Statutory Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under the Traffic Management Act is little more than a recitation of the regulations themselves. The more useful guidance has been issued as Operational Guidance but this does not carry the weight of statutory guidance. Adjudicators have come across numerous occasions where councils do not follow the Guidance in particular and more recently in relation to the use of camera enforcement. It bewilders, and indeed annoys, appellants when the adjudicator has found that a council has disregarded Guidance, but cannot allow the appeal. The only redress is to refer the case back to Chief Executive of the Council, thus delaying the outcome of the case with no certainty for the appellant that they will be absolved from paying the penalty. Not surprisingly, they point to the fact that a small mistake on a driver’s part will result in a penalty being imposed. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w18 Transport Committee: Evidence
8.2 If, for example, camera enforcement is used contrary to Guidance, where there is no loading ban (and we have several such cases) a vehicle that has stopped, say for the driver to consult the sat-nav, in the old days of the CEO, the CEO would see the driver of the vehicle and the driver would see the CEO, and they may have a conversation. This would not result in the CEO issuing a PCN. However if the vehicle is filmed by CCTV and the vehicle owner is sent a PCN a fortnight later, at first they may not remember the brief incident where they pulled over. They then have to make representations to which the authority, more likely than not, will simply say that there is no exemption to pull over to consult the sat-nav. The trouble is that once the PCN is issued many authorities tend to treat it as a “debt” which can only be set aside in exceptional circumstances. 8.3 Have we really come so very far from the principles laid out by Chief Constable Robert Mark (later Sir Robert Mark, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police) when he introduce traffic warded in Leicester as a pilot in 1961?
Chief Constable’s Office, Charles Street, Leicester, April, 1961.
INSTRUCTIONS TO TRAFFIC WARDENS
1. YOUR PRIMARY ROLE—PREVENTION You are clearly to understand that your primary function is to help vehicle drivers in streets in the centre of Leicester where waiting is prohibited. You are to do so by:
(i) preventing the unwitting commission of “waiting” offences; and (ii) informing vehicle drivers of the parking facilities available to them.
Your efficiency will not be determined by the number of prosecutions you initiate, or by the number of fixed penalty forms you issue, but by the freedom of your patrol area from vehicles parked in contravention of the law.
2. COURTESY You must always be polite to all vehicle drivers notwithstanding that at times you may feel that you are not accorded by them the civility and co-operation that you are entitled to expect. Remember that many of the people with whom you will deal will have little or no knowledge of the laws relating to parking and waiting. Some of them will have no knowledge at all, of their own obligation to avoid causing inconvenience to others and some may consider that their own interests should prevail over those of the public. Try to maintain a courteous attitude notwithstanding that you may be subjected to much provocation. Never invoke for any retaliatory reason the power of enforcement with which you are invested by law. If you decide that it is your duty to invoke it, do so firmly but without departing from the high standard of politeness and good manners expected of a public servant.
3. YOUR SECONDARY ROLE—IMPARTIAL ENFORCEMENT Your secondary purpose is to enforce the law in respect of waiting offences when you have not been able to prevent them; to that end you must be firm and impartial. You must remember that everyone in this country is equal before the law and that only when faced with a claim for diplomatic immunity need you be concerned about the identity of the person with whom you are dealing. You should invite the claimant to give his name and address and to specify the diplomatic mission to which he belongs. If you act firmly and politely when dealing with vehicle drivers, you are unlikely to give any serious cause for complaint.
9. The TSC’s Questions 9.1 How effective is the Traffic Penalty Tribunal? This question is principally addressed in the submission made on behalf of TPT as an organisation. In particular we are pleased that our initiative of dealing with appeals where either party wants an oral hearing, on the telephone. At first it may seem strange that they are so successful, but adjudicators particularly appreciate the participation of council officers, as do the appellants. This is especially the case where the appellant wishes to explain the full circumstances and the council officer has an opportunity to hear the evidence and ask questions. Often these cases result in suitable discretion being exercised to the satisfaction of both parties. However we are not deaf to the constant criticism of TPT, and probably PATAS, that adjudicators are inconsistent. First, there is perceived, and a certain amount of actual, inconsistency in all jurisdictions; otherwise there would not be a need for a strata of higher courts. As a first instance tribunal, adjudicators cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w19
cannot bind one another’s decisions, nor are they bound to follow the decision of a fellow adjudicator. Having said that adjudicator endeavour to apply a consistent interpretation to the fundamental legal provisions of the jurisdiction.
A particular area of concern to councils and adjudicators alike is where an authority embarks on, say, bus lane enforcement, or introduces a new scheme, or alters an existing one. The first few appeals may be dismissed because the authority produces “library” picture of the signs, which initially appear reasonably to reflect the restriction. However, in some areas “hot spots” develop where there are progressively more appeals, and it emerges from appellants’ descriptions of, for example, how they approached the restriction, that the positioning of the signs are far from adequate. Therefore later decisions about a site might appear to be inconsistent with earlier ones. This is not inconsistency, but a proper consideration of inevitably different evidence from appellants. It is of concern that there are examples of authorities ignoring the later decisions, but persisting in sending drivers copies of the earlier “dismissing” decisions.
Appellant evidence also explains other examples of apparent consistency; in one case the adjudicator might allow the appeal because the appellant is credible whereas in a similar case from the council’s point of view, the appeal is dismissed because the appellant is not believed.
9.2 Should parking policy in London be subject to separate provisions and guidance, given, in particular, its large parking revenue surpluses, its more integrated public transport network and the number of foreign- registered vehicles in the city?
The whole point of civil enforcement is that powers exist to enable each authority to devise policies, introduce regulations and enforce them to the level required to tackle the problems in their own area, whether it is Westminster or Weston-super-Mare. There are sufficient powers available to all authorities to manage traffic in ways appropriate to their locality and meet the needs of their citizens and visitors. To give London authorities additional powers not only detracts from the fundamental principle of the Traffic Management Act in creating a single enforcement regime and framework for authorities to enforce minor traffic contraventions, but serves to confuse, for example, fleet operators, who have to remind themselves of the jurisdiction that has given rise a particular penalty. The London Local Authority Private Acts of Parliament, that are not subject to consultation, can confound motorists’ understanding of what conduct is subject to a penalty in different areas of the England, of which London is still a part.
9.3 How can local authorities strike a balance between using parking policy to manage congestion and using it to encourage people into town centres?
We have received numerous appeals recently where councils have extended charging hours into the evening, and visitors, without realising, have parked as usual going off without reading the pay and display machine. Many have said that if they have to pay for parking in the evening they might as well stay at home and not go out for their affordable treat to take advantage of the “early bird” deals in restaurants and bars. A restaurant owner explained that the “early” diners effectively covered the staff wages, and if that trade dried up the restaurant would probably close. Appellants question if the extended hours are introduced for traffic management purposes. We have also had appeals where car-park charging hours have been extended in rural areas where people walk their dogs. Regular dog walkers ask why.
9.4 Are there steps local authorities can take, while managing congestion, to make it easier for businesses to trade and make deliveries?
An important measure would be to ensure that the TROs actually allow trade vehicles to deliver to business premises. For example, adjudicators encountered problems in one city where a row off licensed chain restaurants were on the side of the main road where loading was banned at all times. On the other side of the road was a church adjacent to a single yellow line with no loading ban (presumably for funerals). So deliveries to the bars could only lawfully be done by the drivers crossing the busy road with loaded trollies, or by unlawfully parking adjacent to the premises to which they were delivering. The authority, of course, had licensed the premises as well as making the TRO.
The problem may be that is it is long-winded and costly to change regulations, yet it must be right that they cannot be changed on an ad hoc basis. However, it is clear that effective and properly thought out TROs are essential to enable commercial, and indeed leisure, activities to take place in all communities.
A further problem for deliveries is that there are no clearly expressed rules as to where loading and unloading can take place, for example, it has traditionally been presumed that these activates can take place in permit bays (how else are home deliveries achieved?), yet some authorities maintain that, even though there may be very long permit bays, unloading is not allowed. In our view the Department for Transport needs to issue unequivocal guidance about these matters. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w20 Transport Committee: Evidence
9.5 Are parking signs clear and comprehensible? To what extent are unclear signs and instructions the cause of breaches of parking control?
On the whole parking signs are well known and recognised across the nation. The Highway Code and the written driving test reinforce familiarity. Increasingly schemes are introduced where there is an entry sign to, for example, a permit zone, without road markings thereafter. There are meant to be adequate repeater signs, but it is not clear what is regarded as adequate. Residents, of course, know about the permit parking arrangements and are not concerned with the signs, which are principally there for visitors. If, for whatever reason a driver misses the (small) entry sign, and there are no road markings, how can they know that all parking is for permit holders? The answer is: by sensitive enforcement that explains the restrictions to those who misunderstand them for the first time, rather than inflexible enforcement that tends to turn ordinary law- abiding folk into campaigners. Additionally, both delivery vehicles and blue badge holders can be confused as to whether they can park in these areas, so it is incumbent on the authority to make it clear what rules actually apply. March 2013
Written evidence from Cheryl Kuczynski (PE 12)
No-one likes to pay for parking, but if we (dubiously) assume that it’s a necessary evil, then it’s all the more important that residents/the parking public feel they are being dealt with fairly. Certainly in Barnet that is not always the case. 1. CPZ residents in Barnet have, at best, had a cursory consultation on the issue of parking, and have had CPZs imposed on them. It then becomes easy to be held to ransom by at-will massive increases in charges because we have no option but to pay. The council seems to use us to generate income that benefits the entire borough—most of whom don’t live in a CPZ area and therefore don’t pay the charge. 2. In some boroughs drivers who live in a CPZ can park in the whole borough, thus sweetening the pill of paying over the odds for their parking permit. It would be great if permits covered the whole of the borough the permit holder lives in; thus enabling residents to take advantage of the good things (parks etc) that they pay for through their council charge. 3. I am not a shopkeeper but my heart goes out to Barnet traders. Removing all cash pay and display ticket machines has been disastrous for them—no-one can be bothered to register unless they really have to, and if I want to shop with my car I go to Brent Cross rather than faff with mobile phone parking. But I really want to support my local shops and when I finally had to register it took me three attempts and about 45 minutes to do so—and I’m fairly computer/ mobile phone literate. I’m not alone in heading for the free parking of Brent Cross and I would suggest your committee/local councils look at systems like those in Haringey and Borehamwood which allow free parking for about 30 minutes. No surprise that these areas are buzzing with shoppers spending their money locally. On my high street in Temple Fortune there are more empty shops than I’m comfortable with and I fear it’s going the way of many deserted local shopping areas. 4. Not only has Barnet Council increased parking charges, resident’s permits and visitor vouchers to levels more suited to city centres or inner London boroughs. It is also fraudulently charging residents more money than it should for visitor vouchers, having introduced a half day voucher (£2.20 instead of £4.16) but not promoting it or highlighting it on their parking website so if you don’t know about it you inadvertently pay the higher price.
I hope that’s helpful; I’d like to add that it’s great to be asked one’s view—Barnet has never done so and I suspect would not listen to them anyway. March 2013
Written evidence from Deborah Skinner (PE 13)
My response to this consultation is based largely on my experiences as a coach operator. However, I will endeavour to also answer as a regular car driver.
As a coach operator, we are responsible for transporting groups of people be they school children or pensioners, British or Foreign. As such, we visit many towns, villages and tourist attractions and the parking facilities in the various placed differ greatly: from very good to decidedly poor.
London has some of the worst coach parking facilities in the country, with some bays only allowing a short stay, before having to move to another space, sometimes just a few hundred metres up the road. This causes many problems for operators, especially those who have travelled a considerable distance as we have to adhere to the tachograph regulations and take the required breaks. This moving from space to space is also extremely cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w21
stressful for the drivers, who don’t know if they will find somewhere else to park (and is especially stressful for drivers not familiar with the city), creates pollution and congestion and general bad feeling. Equally, some of the drop down/pick up bays are abused by drivers parking there all day and these appear to not be adequately enforced, leading to some drivers getting fined when picking up their group as the “proper bays” are full of coaches there for the duration. This is a problem particularly in London (outside the Natural History Museum is a case in point), but other towns and cities have similar problems. One of the major benefits of a group travelling by coach to a venue is that they are all together, whether in a single coach or in a convoy of several for a very large group. This reduces the risks of the group getting lost, having to cross busy roads, not all managing to get on the same tube train etc. The ease and safety of being picked up from a school, community hall or hotel and delivered direct to the chosen venues ensures that organisers have complied with the requirements of their risk assessments. Of course, the people that we take to places tend to spend money there—at the museums, shops, theatres etc. and as such it seems extremely short sighted of the Boroughs and Councils who benefit from these revenues not to give adequate thought to the operating and parking of coaches within their area. For coach operators as an industry, in order to provide a professional service we need to have a good provision of coach set down and pick up facilities at the venues and hotels frequented by visitors and tourists. At the very least there needs to be clear guidelines and understanding to ensure that visitors can receive the right experience. The “10 minute rule” is poorly understood by Enforcement Officers and all too often the Officer’s approach is at best inconsistent, and too often overzealous and ill considered. There needs to be rigorous enforcement of set down and pick up points to ensure that they are kept clear for use by those endeavouring to drop and pick up groups. (Again, see my comment re Natural History Museum). At the planning stage all sites which hope to attract groups must incorporate adequate coach bays. Tourist Coaches need both short and long term parking facilities located within reasonable travelling times of major venues. Sites and areas which are underused at particular times of day and night might be considered for use during these periods.
1. How adequate are current arrangements for parking enforcement? The current arrangements in many places seem to be inadequate. London in particular has many problems (see above), with many “traffic wardens” seeming to have limited comprehension of the regulations pertaining to PCV and other vehicles, issuing PCN’s as if they were remunerated on “piece work” rates—paid for the numbers issued with no regard to the validity or quality of these notices. There have been a number of undercover TV programmes showing (or appearing to show) that the wardens are given a target to reach each day for tickets issued—a fact denied by all those in management in the various companies, but coming across as a fact in the programme. I can remember when a warden would come along and ask how long you would be there and take a reasonable view on whether it was feasible to allow the coach to stay or not. This took very little time out of his/her day and enabled the coach driver to get on with their job. The current method is to sneak up behind the vehicle and issue a ticket with no reference to the driver (also done by camera operator) sometimes with people actually getting on or off the coach. This has happened to us as a company and on appeal the ticket has been revoked. Surely it would be better for everyone to have the discussion rather than waste hours of several people’s time trying to get a ticket reversed. Having said that, when coaches park in the short term set down/pick up bays, they should get a ticket (maybe after discussion with the driver) rather than being allowed to stay there all day (again I am referring in particular to the Natural History Museum, where several of my drivers have had to stop on the red route to collect their group (usually school children) as a few, very selfish drivers have parked on the bays all day. Apparently with no enforcement). As a car driver, I try never to go to London, but do occasionally experience parking in towns other than my home town. Some towns are better than others—with signing to car parks/parking areas varying from excellent to virtually non-existent. In some towns (Brighton for instance) if you use the on-street parking, you have to purchase vouchers to show in the windscreen. The irony being that you can’t park until you have the voucher, and can’t buy the vouchers without being parked… Also, my experience is that there are surprisingly few shops that sell the vouchers. I entered about 6 once in Brighton, getting further and further away from my car, in which I had put a note to the wardens that I had gone in search of vouchers. I was gone nearly 10 minutes in the end and I was running. A less able-bodied/fit person would really struggle.
2. How should councils use their revenue from penalty charge, metered parking, car parks and residents parking? This revenue should be used to support the needs of groups travelling to and from the Council’s area, providing and maintaining adequate and safe set down, short and long term parking facilities. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w22 Transport Committee: Evidence
Some car parks are council run and others run privately. I assume the money raised from parking revenue would only go to those council run facilities (I would be appalled if it were also given to the privately owned ones as surely the idea is that they pay their own way). Some of these car parks are in need of resurfacing, adequate lighting after dark and better signing to them. I have been in some where the lack of lighting after dark can make a person feel quite vulnerable. Many towns would also benefit from some free short term parking bays to enable people to, for instance, stop to buy a newspaper/sandwich from a local shop rather than stopping at the “out of town” supermarket with its own car park. If all bays in a town are pay for bays, passers through will be less inclined to stop, especially as they would then need to find change for the meter. This would have the benefit of increasing trade to local shops thereby keeping the town alive.
2(a). Should there be more local discretion over how income is used?
Some local discretion is to be encouraged, but I would like to see the local attractions, schools etc get some say in how the money is used. For instance, we service a local school, where the only sensible, safe place to drop off and pick up the children going on trips is on the zig-zags outside the school gates—for which we get a parking ticket. The alternative is to park some 500–600 yards up the road and walk the children (infants and juniors) back to the school, crossing some four or five side roads. Needless to say, the teachers find this extremely stressful. Generally there are three coach loads, so about 150 children doing this. If we were allowed to stop on the zig-zags, they would be off-loaded/picked up in much less time and with much less danger to the children and teachers.
As a car driver and tax payer I always like to think that councils spend their money wisely. However, sadly this is often not the case! I think there should be clear guidelines as to how money raised by a particular income stream should be spent. Parking money should therefore be used to improve parking facilities and possibly a little towards the local road network—a better one way system or more/better signs to car parks etc. would seem a sensible use of such revenue. Putting a new roof on a council house would not.
3. What impact will new technology, such as cashless parking, parking sensors and CCTV, have on local authority parking enforcement?
I suspect that these new technologies will, as we are seeing in London in particular, raise huge amounts of revenue, lead to large numbers of appeals against tickets issued (been there, done that) and ultimately, as many operators are already doing, boycotting of the area. Again, in the old days, the warden would see that the teacher was doing a head count, checking seatbelts were done up etc. before the coach moved off. I know of many operators who are reluctant to take groups to London in particular as “every time I go there I get a ??? (??? parking ticket and it costs me £80!”
As a car driver I find the use of telephone parking frustrating. I recently went to Birmingham and had to park for about 30 minutes. The meter was not accepting coins, but I had the option of registering for phone parking. 20 minutes later, I had paid for my parking (I assume it will be quicker next time as I will already be registered, but may well have a different vehicle). So my time there was extended considerably by the time it took me to register. This was compounded by the fact that the computer didn’t recognise the letters of my number plate and I had to keep repeating them. I feel that if I had the option of registering with a person rather than a computer, the whole experience would have been a lot shorter and much less frustrating.
As a coach operator, we are registered for phone parking with Westminster Council and my drivers have to use the non automated system as the automated system picks up their phone and the account is registered to my phone (and my credit card). They quite often have problems accessing the system and I myself had to call four times one day, and kept getting number out of order. A colleague who was with me ended up calling from their phone to sort out my parking.
With all these automated systems, there needs to be a “press 9 for speaking to a real person” option to avoid the extreme frustrations that dealing with a computer can generate.
4. How effective are the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service for London?
I have had mixed results with appealing parking tickets and generally apply to the council that issued the ticket, so have had little interaction with the Parking and Appeals Service and so can’t really comment, however, it seems to be a bit of a comment that such a body exists. Again, if there were properly trained wardens on the streets, I suspect that the number of appeals would greatly drop, coach operators in particular would feel more inclined to travel to towns such as London and whilst the initial revenue from tickets may drop, I suspect that overall there would be a gain in money saved in appeals processes and increased spending by tourists who aren’t hassled to get away before a ticket is issued.
I have had no experience of this system as a car driver. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w23
5. Should parking policy in London be subject to separate provision and guidance, given, in particular, its large parking revenue surpluses, its more integrated public transport network and the number of foreign registered vehicles in the city? Whatever parking policy is in place in whatever town or city, it should be monitored and enforced with care and consideration, with clear and consistent guidelines and regulations. This should enable people to carry out their jobs—be that bringing a group of school children to an attraction or the van driver trying to deliver to a shop. There are a lot of tourist attractions, hotels etc. in London and there needs to be consideration given to the needs of the groups visiting these places. The group of American (or other) tourists staying at a central hotel, will need time to be able to get their luggage on and off the coach without feeling that the driver is trying to hustle them along—they are on holiday after all and will probably spend a considerable amount of money whilst in the UK—many American, Japanese etc. tourists spend a few days in London and then visit other “tourist towns” such as Bath, Salisbury, York… It would be a shame if they stopped coming as the coach was unable to drop them at their hotel after picking them up from Heathrow. Imagine the driver having to say “sorry, but this is as close as I can get you, take your suitcase and go up the road, take the next left and your hotel is about 300 yards on the left”. This happens! Given that in the question above you refer to the “large parking revenue surpluses” in London, I again suggest that you have more wardens who are more sympathetic to the needs of those parking/trying to park and carry out their business and perhaps issue fewer tickets, but issue more to those that repeatedly park in silly places/illegally who don’t take heed of the warning and continue to park there. I believe that if a driver is with a vehicle and is approached by a warden with a reasonable request to move on and a meaningful (and polite) discussion can take place re the need to stay for a short period, then that should be taken into account. The vehicle (be it car, van, truck or coach) that is left unattended, with no note in windscreen (delivering to Bloggs newsagent round corner, back in few minutes xx:xx time) then that vehicle should get a ticket/be towed away. It would appear that foreign registered vehicles frequently ignore parking regulations (probably because they don’t understand them), which means that UK coaches are unable to set down and pick up their passengers at the designated and safe parking bays and often get parking tickets. As a car driver, I cannot see why anyone who lives in London would even consider having a car. If I lived in London I would use public transport and hire a car if I needed to go somewhere further afield, thereby saving money on tax, insurance, parking permits and congestion charge. Not to mention not having the stress of driving in London, trying to find a parking place when I got to where I was going and reducing the pollution and congestion in the city. Perhaps owning a car in London should be made more difficult to ease congestion for everyone.
6. How can local authorities strike a balance between using parking policy to manage congestion and using it to encourage people into town centres? In the absence of adequate short and long term parking facilities coaches often end up being driven around as the driver searches for a place to stop, increasing both pollution and congestion. If they have travelled a considerable distance the driver may well need to take his required 45 minute rest. Whilst there are inherent difficulties with some attractions, with access etc., much like inside the medieval buildings where facilities are being provided for the less able-bodied people, thought should be given to providing parking facilities for the coaches that bring the groups in. Sometimes that may entail limiting the number of coaches there, providing out of town parking with a permit system for picking up (like they do at Eastbourne for instance) or even pre-booking parking spaces. With a little thought and care, in most instances these problems could be overcome. Similarly, it is possible for towns to implement a “one-way” system for coaches—for instance the system that is being instigated in Stow-on-the-Wold. If this is integrated with either a town centre (or within easy walking distance) coach park, then the passengers will be relaxed and free to enjoy the attractions of the town, including pubs, restaurants, shops, markets etc. The driver will be more relaxed and have a chance to look around too and may well recommend the place to other groups. Conversely, if a driver has a bad experience in a town, he/she is quite likely to actively discourage a group from going there if it is not specified in their itinerary. Coach drivers can have quite a big influence on groups and it is as well to remember that someone who has a bad experience will tell eight people, but only tell two of their good experience. Planning policies should ensure that no attractions are built or further developed without a requirement for designated coach parking facilities. As a car driver, I again suggest that some short term, free spaces should be available in every town. I have limited experience of many towns, but I know that in Westerham, for instance, the council introduced pay parking for even a short time (I believe it is 20p). This means that even if you just want to pop into the bank you have to find the parking spot, find the money for the meter, pay, return to the car to put the ticket in the window and then queue in the bank (or of course, park illegally without paying). All in the time it would have taken to get your banking done. As a consequence of this, when I drive through, there are very often parking cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w24 Transport Committee: Evidence
places available, which there never used to be and I can only conclude that the shops are doing less business with passing trade. These free short term (I would suggest 30 mins to 1 hour) places would need to be policed properly to prevent abuse.
7. How can smaller local authorities strike a balance between using parking policy to manage congestion? Do they need to work regionally and strategically with neighbouring councils? Visitors and tourist to one particular attraction/town will frequently stay and bring their spending power to other attractions, retail outlets and restaurants within the vicinity. It is essential that neighbouring authorities work together to ensure the best experience and outcomes for these visitors. If councils have paid-for parking at peak times, with other cheaper/free parking available at other times, then people would be more inclined to visit off peak and therefore ease congestion. Market day (if applicable) would be a peak time, as would Saturday. Maybe if two towns were relatively close together, one could do cheap parking on market day in the other town and run a free/subsidised park and ride service from their car park. Thus potentially generating revenue for both towns.
8. Are there steps local authorities can take while managing congestion to make it easier to trade and make deliveries? By ensuring that coaches are able to drop their passengers in a safe place close to attractions and then find parking nearby, local authorities will reduce both the congestion and pollution that results from coach drivers having to cruise the streets looking in vain for somewhere to park while their group enjoy the attraction. It is vitally important to businesses that deliveries can be made to them. It is not always possible to have deliveries made at times that suit the local parking restrictions—eg out of hours. A delivery coming by a courier will arrive when it gets there depending on the number of deliveries that the courier has to make that day and it will of course vary from day to day. There needs to be some leniency given the local authorities to the needs of businesses and they need to work with both businesses and the courier companies to arrive at a plan which works for everybody. For instance, it may be that for one business, they have three deliveries a day at varying times, but the van is only there for a few minutes (our deliveries are typically less than 5 minutes). A traffic warden could make a judgement call that this is acceptable. The courier driver going in for a cup of tea and a chat would not. Again, it comes down to the warden on the street being able to make a judgement call. Equally, it is possible to tell a courier company that they cannot deliver between certain times, so if on a busy commuter/school route, then it may be prudent to say that deliveries can be made any time between eg 10.00 and 14.00. I think most businesses would accept those restrictions if it meant that they were able to conduct their business and still receive their deliveries and I am sure the courier companies would welcome the associated reduction in parking tickets.
9. Are parking signs clear and comprehensible? To what extent are unclear signs and instructions the cause of breaches of parking control? The clarity of parking signs can vary widely from place to place and sometimes they are “hidden” by being turned the wrong way on the post etc. This often leads to breaches of parking control due to drivers not seeing the signs. We had a case where a driver looked at the signs and thought he was OK to park, but it later transpired that there was another sign, on the other side of the street, which meant that he had contravened the parking regulations. The other problem is that, even with clear signage, without proper enforcement, it means nothing. I refer again to the coach drop off/pick up bays by the Natural History Museum. There are 3 x 20 minute bays here and in theory this should work well, however as I mentioned above, there is no enforcement of these bays and consequently less scrupulous drivers can be seen to occupy them for many hours. This means that other drivers have no option but to stop at the rear of these bays to pick up their group—immediately getting a parking ticket due to the camera enforcement of the red route. Ironically, there is no camera enforcement of these three bays and I believe that no PCNs have ever been issued to vehicles outstaying their 20 minute slot (with some well known London operators being the worst offenders). Again, with wardens on the street, these issues could be solved, with a little leniency at the busy times for dropping off/picking up (typically 10.30–11.00 and 13.45–14.30). The other issue with parking regulations are that they are quite complex. In the old days, to quote the old Irish joke, a “yellow line means no parking at all and a double yellow means no parking at all at all”. With red routes, hatchings up the kerb, parking time limits at differing times of day and all these being different from town to town and even borough to borough, it is extremely difficult to be sure that you are legal to park. The added complications of a coach in London with red routes etc. just makes it even more difficult to adhere to the regulations. The foreign drivers I am sure have little idea of our parking regulations (this works both ways as we have trouble abroad too) and I am sure this is why many foreign vehicles transgress. For example, in London on a Red Route a coach may not stop unless to set down and pick up, in which case they must stop at a bus stop. They can only then stop to set down and pick up and cannot wait. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w25
On a yellow route they must not use the bus stops but set down and pick up on the yellow lines between bus stops, where this is permitted. Some bus stops are designated for local services only and cannot be ever used by coaches offering ad hoc services. The 10 minute rule suggests that where it is safe a coach can stop for the purposes of setting down and picking up provided that they do not exceed a period of 10 minutes. In other locations the coach may stop for the purposes of setting down and picking up but, if at any time no movement of passengers onto or off the coach is seen a PCN may be issued. In my experience, it is often a failure to enforce parking controls that pushes coach drivers into a position whereby they might breach the regulations so that they can safely pick up their groups of customers. The situation is much the same for car drivers. In our local town, there is very little enforcement of the parking regulations or even common sense. Outside our yard we have single yellow lines and at 2.45–3.45 every school day we currently have so many cars parked on these lines that it is impossible to get in or out of our yard. This is on the brow of a shallow hill, with a bend in the road. In normal circumstances, this bit of road is not especially dangerous, but at this time of day it is. There have been a number of near misses between both pedestrians and cars. In the old days, the police/warden would have told people that whilst it may not be illegal to park there, it was dangerous, causing a hazard and inappropriate. Now, nothing happens and someone is going to get hurt (we have also had a case where an ambulance on an emergency call was significantly held up getting through here). I understand that we are supposed to be getting double yellow lines, but if no-one enforces it, the situation won’t improve. I am sure there are many other places around the country where similar situations occur. The “no parking within 10m of a junction” rule is another that is constantly abused. This can lead to difficulties turning into (or out of) a road in a large vehicle, leading to congestion in the immediate area. Again, a warden would be able to get people to move on. It is not just parking signs that are unclear—speed limit signs are often hidden in hedges and behind trees, leading to the possibility of breaking the speed limit. Many hedges and trees have been allowed to grow way out into the road making large vehicles take to the centre of the road. They all need cutting back considerably (try driving along the A264 from East Grinstead to Tunbridge Wells) I digress, sorry. March 2013
Written evidence from Ntina Antoniou (PE 14) As a resident of Barnet I think that the current CPZ charges are totally unacceptable and unfair to the 10% of residents charged them. In my opinion this is an additional tax on the minority of residents who live near the High Road or Station and do not have off street parking. If the Council needs to raise money it should be done so that all residents pay equally not the few that live near the High Road and underground stations. It is a disgrace that the charges are so high. They are creating great difficulties—are anti-social and anti- family. It deters me from inviting friends and family to visit me during the day. I used to have friends/family visit me almost daily—at £4 a go it is now impossible. I simply cannot afford to pay £20 a week or £80 a month on parking! The restrictions in my road are 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. In the road just round the corner they have one hour a day restrictions. 500 metres away no parking restrictions! This is totally unfair. When the parking restrictions were first introduced in North Finchley we were told the money collected would be use to administer the scheme. This is not true because as well as administering the scheme the huge residual is used to fund all Barnet’s road repairs. Therefore if extra money is needed all road users should pay not a minority. I pay my Council tax and every other levy and charge that I am asked to but as far as I am concerned this is a charge too far. It is distressing, unfair and creates difficulties. Pleas to scrap or reduce the charges fall on deaf ears. I believe because so few people are affected that it is no consequence to local councilors and MPs. They are not really affected if such a small minority do not vote for them. If the whole Borough was affected and up in arms then I believe something would change. Over and above my personal difficulties with parking. The parking charges are affecting the heart and soul of the High Streets. The charges are exorbitant and difficult to pay. One can only pay by phone. Which is very difficult if you are not technologically minded or do not have a mobile phone or as often happens it gets left at home. March 2013 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w26 Transport Committee: Evidence
Written evidence from Anthony Engel (PE 15) HOW EFFECTIVE IS TPT AND PATAS Who am I? 1. I am a Parking Adjudicator for both the TPT (Traffic Penalty Tribunal) and PATAS (Parking and Traffic Appeals Service for London).
Summary 2. I have serious concerns about the effectiveness of both the TPT and PATAS. (In my view, the TPT is not a Tribunal and is, accordingly, misnamed.) 3. My main concerns are: (i) The role of the Chief Adjudicators. (ii) Reviews. (iii) Discretion/Consistency.
Chief Adjudicators 4. Both the Joint Committees responsible for TPT and PATAS have appointed Chief Adjudicators—although the relevant legislation makes no reference to such a post. The Chief Adjudicators are employees of the respective Joint Committees—which comprise Councils which have imposed penalty charges and which are the Respondents to appeals! 5. Both Chief Adjudicators allocate the available work amongst the Adjudicators. 6. I believe that I have received an unfairly reduced allocation of work both from the Chief Adjudicator of the TPT (Caroline Sheppard) and the Chief Adjudicator of PATAS (Caroline Hamilton). 7. I have tried to contest this unfairness in the Employment Tribunal but the Employment Tribunal has held that Chief Adjudicators and the Joint Committees which employ them are protected by “Judicial Immunity” with regard to the allocation of work. My appeal against this decision is due to be heard by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in May of this year. 8. My complaint to the Employment Tribunal concerning the TPT concerned “whistle blowing” which arose out of a report I made to the Joint Committee that the Chief Adjudicator (Caroline Sheppard) had unlawfully removed me from two cases and sent me provocative e-mails. 9. One of those cases—Barreau v Northamptonshire County Council (NP05276G) is of particular concern as the Council had placed a parking sign in the wrong place (adjacent to double yellow lines) but maintained, at a hearing before me, that the sign was in another place (adjacent to a single yellow line). 10. I delivered a strong judgement in favour of the Appellant and expressed my preliminary view that the Council had acted both vexatiously and wholly unreasonably—in issuing a Notice of Rejection and opposing the appeal. 11. If a party acts vexatiously or wholly unreasonably, the Adjudicator may award costs to the other party. I, therefore, adjourned the case and gave Directions for the Appellant to send me a list of her costs and for the Council to make representations on costs. 12. The Appellant claimed £200 costs. The Council made written representations on costs but, instead of the matter being referred back to me for a decision on costs, the Chief Adjudicator (unlawfully, in my view) removed me from the case and cancelled my Directions. 13. The Appellant then took proceedings in the County Court to recover the £200 costs to which she considered she was entitled. Without reference to me, the proceedings were (successfully) defended by the TPT on the basis that the cancellation of my Directions was lawful, whereas, in my view, the cancellation of my Directions was (and remains) a nullity. 14. I have received many provocative e-mails from the Chief Adjudicator of the TPT (Caroline Sheppard). One example is an e-mail sent to me by Caroline Sheppard after I had decided that the signage in Oxford City Centre was lawful in the case of Sharp v Oxfordshire County Council (OX05062G). The second paragraph of her e-mail stated: “By the way, having looked at you decision I thought the signs were totally misleading, but you heard the evidence and it was your decision. Oxford expected to lose, and the enforcement team were hoping to because they want the engineers to change the signs. The DfT signs team, when consulted, commented that they would never get the signing past an adjudicator!” 15. With regard to PATAS, at a meeting of the Joint Committee (the Technical and Environmental Committee of London Councils) on 15 December 2011, I complained that I was being allocated an unfairly reduced cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w27
amount of the available work. I stated that I was concerned that my hours were being reduced due to age discrimination or the only other explanation was that it was thought that I was allowing too many appeals.
16. On 1 February 2012, the Chief Adjudicator (Caroline Hamilton) sent me an e-mail informing me that as a result of what I had said at the meeting of the Joint Committee on 15 December 2011, she would only offer me 3 hours work per month.
17. Some London Adjudicators are paid over £100,000 per year (at a rate of about £55 an hour).
18. Caroline Hamilton has issued an edict to the effect that she expects Adjudicators to complete a minimum of three postal cases per hour worked (“the 20 minute rule”). There is no other judicial or quasi-judicial function which is subject to such time pressure—so far as I am aware. In my view, such time pressure is inappropriate and could lead to injustice.
19. Caroline Hamilton has also issued criteria which she applies in allocating the available work among the Adjudicators. One of these criteria is: “Adjudicators should remain able to deal with cases fairly and justly in ways that were proportionate to the importance of the case and the complexity of the issues.” Having regard to the “20 minute rule”, I interpret this to mean that if an Adjudicator fails to comply with the 20 minute rule, that Adjudicator’s allocation of the available work is liable to be reduced.
Reviews
20. The Regulations provide for a review procedure. This, however, is being used as an appeal procedure whereby one Adjudicator can (and sometimes does) overrule a decision made by another Adjudicator.
In my view, this is a misuse of the review procedure and, indeed, unlawful.
Discretion/Consistency
21. By reason of a decision of the Court of Appeal, Adjudicators have no discretion to cancel or reduce penalty charges. This can lead to injustice and inconsistency.
22. Thus, in a deserving case, I will look to see whether there is a lawful means of escaping a conclusion which would clearly be an injustice.
23. By way of example, in one London case, an Appellant who was seriously disabled with muscular dystrophy (and unable work), had parked her car in a residents’ bay with a valid residents’ permit displayed. She only used her car once a week (for shopping). The bay was suspended and her car removed. She had no knowledge of the suspension or the removal until some days later she went to the location and found that her car had been removed. She had to pay a large sum in removal and storage charges to recover her car.
24. The Council refused to refund the charges and the Appellant appealed and appeared before me at a personal hearing. Unusually (but fortunately) the Council was represented at the hearing by an employee.
25. The signing of the suspension was adequate and there was no flaw in the Council’s paperwork. Thus, it seemed at first that I had no option but to dismiss the appeal.
26. Usually, the lawfulness of a bay suspension is assumed to be in order. However, in this case, I informed the Council’s Representative that I would require the lawfulness of the suspension to be established by the Council and I asked him if he wished to apply for an adjournment for that purpose.
27. Had the Council’s Representative applied for an adjournment (or had there been no Council Representative present), I would have granted an adjournment. However, the Council Representative (to his credit—in my view) said he was not applying for an adjournment and, thus, I was able to allow the appeal on the ground that I was not satisfied that the suspension was lawful.
28. I am very proud of my action (and that of the Council Representative) which enabled justice to be done—but if I had had discretion, this difficult situation would not have arisen.
29. It may be of interest that I quoted this case as an example of my “Judicial Independence” when I applied for a salaried Tribunal post. However, I was marked down for acting in a way which was not “Judicial”! March 2013 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w28 Transport Committee: Evidence
Written evidence from Daniel Wrightson (PE 16)
Notes on Barnet Parking Policies for Transport Select Committee. (1) Notes on High Street Parking: (a) Ease of use. (b) Free parking periods. (c) Phone Parking and Pensioners. (2) Notes on CPZs: (a) Pricing. (b) Use of funds. (c) Policing the CPZ.
1(a) Ease of Use
Barnet Council recently took the decision to remove all the Pay and Display payment columns from the high streets and replace with a Pay By Phone system. The system is not error free but is easy enough to use if you are 20, have a smart phone and are happy jumping through the hoops of online or telephone payment systems. Many people aren’t, or don’t want to invest the time becoming familiar with the system, or haven’t got phones, or credit cards, so proceed to the next easiest place to park—usually Brent Cross, or Haringey where the pay and display machines still exist.
The decision hit Barnet high streets hard and I believe that Barnet council’s decision to implement the system was based on a conceptual error, ie that, if the systems were easy to use, people would gradually make the effort to use them, and the system would eventually be adopted by all. But the fact is that other councils, with easier, more familiar systems, surround Barnet. People migrated to these other areas for their shopping and left Barnet high streets empty, to the fury of local shopkeepers.
This reminds me of the man who, when faced with a charging lion starts to tie his running shoes, and when questioned by his companion as to his ability to out-run a lion, responds that he doesn’t have to outrun the lion, he only has to outrun his companion. Any council is surrounded by other areas, and must remember that if they implement difficult systems their high streets will be outrun by neighbouring councils. Ease of use of any parking policy is paramount.
1(b) Free Parking Periods
A council is not a money-collecting machine, and must help and aid the futures of its local businesses. To have parking attendants roaming the high streets discourages the occasional passer by, the impulse stop. A free period, of say 20 or 30 minutes, would greatly help local businesses, and the livelihood of many, as well as make for more vibrant high streets. The responsibility of a parking policy is to prevent abuse, to keep a flow of traffic—ie prevent people leaving their car on the high street while they commute to work, and to make the public spaces as livable as possible. A free period would encourage stopping, revitalize the high streets and ultimately lead to an increase in revenues.
1(c) Phone Parking and Pensioners
A brief supplementary note of phone parking: asking OAPs or generally the less fit of us to stop by our car, perhaps in the rain, get out a phone and our wallet and then try to make sense of the phone parking menus is unwise, to put it mildly. I’m a technophile but even I have recently had occasion to roundly curse phone parking systems when the signal is not great, or I was in a different car from the one the system remembered, and I’m standing in the rain, with 10 minutes to run an errand and have spent 7 minutes wrestling with a demented iPhone app that won’t play ball. Coins would have taken me 30 seconds to use. (The scratch cards are a pain for local shopkeepers and take just as long to use).
2(a) CPZ Pricing
CPZs should be designed to thwart commuters using residential streets as giant parking lots, and it that sense the timing of the Barnet CPzs works well. In out street it runs from 2 ‘til 3. But it isn’t a cash cow. We all pay Council Tax so the CPZ charges should really be fairly nominal. One might argue that they should merely cover the cost of badging and of enforcement—they shouldn’t be punitive, and they certainly shouldn’t increase by 400% from one year to the next. Barnet has done this, and strangely enough their CPZ revenue has dropped—people find other ways to manage their car parking, including shifting into neighbouring, unregulated areas—which will eventually cause enough pressure to make that area also subject to a CPZ. David Attfield is pursuing Barnet in the High Court about the CPZ increases, and I wish him the best of luck. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w29
2(b) Use of Funds
The use of funds from CPZs and Parking policies should be very strictly policed. There is a strong temptation for Councils to use these extra mechanisms as sources of further revenue. This must be resisted most strongly as it is already a form of extra taxation that is unwelcome but can be tolerated for the benefits it brings— control in parking, avoidance of commuter parking lots etc.
2(c) Policing the CPZ
Parking attendants must never be on commission. They are carrying out a socially useful job and the revenue collected must never figure in their final salary. They must be made aware of their priorities and avoid dubious tactics such as waiting around for the clock to strike in order to start ticketing CPZ offenders. If they really are offenders (ie have left their car there for the day) 5 minutes won’t make a difference. If they are there for 10 minutes they are causing neither harm nor hindrance and shouldn’t be fined. Barnet council has a “no observation” policy for parking offences and this is outrageous as one can’t stop for 2 minutes in a CPZ without a privatised enforcement officer leaping out from his hiding place to fine you.
Final Statement
Parking restrictions are socially useful. Used correctly they aid businesses and residents, and make the streets flow better and the high streets more enjoyable. Barnet council has lost this basic concept and is using the inhabitants and the visitors as cash cows, as a medieval fiefdom might—and a short-sighted one at that: think more Alaric the one-eyed, rather than Lorenzo the Magnificent in Florence. March 2013
Written evidence from Yossi Potash (PE 17)
Just to let you know a few points about parking in Barnet. (1) They recently took the pay and display machines away. How should I pay if I don’t have a phone? I also had some visitors from outside the UK and they found it crazy that they could only pay by phone. (2) The cost of parking is way to expensive, if I want to run to the shop to get a few items, it cost me £1 for 30 min, why can’t I pay 0.50p for 15 min. (3) Personally I stay away for the high street and buy online. If you scare people from the High St the council loose out as many shops close and thus the council loose on rates. (4) I lived in Melbourne Australia, there they let you park for first 15 minutes FREE. March 2013
Written evidence from Antony Jones (PE 18)
As a resident of Barnet, I am held to ransom to pay £4.12 CPZ charges for visitor vouchers. This is enforced from Monday to Sat (8am–6.30pm). As a family we are unable to have visitors as we cannot afford to give out visitor’s vouchers anymore. At a cost of £4.12 each it is inconceivable to have a group of friends or family to visit. My children are discouraged from having friends to visit as they cannot be collected by parents without a voucher being issued to their car. On many occasions our friends and relatives have been ticketed while visiting for 10 minutes!! These charges are having a huge impact on our family life. The yearly permits have also risen to a total cost of £220 per year for two cars for two working parents. I call on the government to look into these insane charges and convince Barnet council to reduce them. March 2013
Written evidence from Dino Burbidge (PE 19)
Just saw this invitation to give my views.
We live (just) in Barnet. In fact, our back gate and garage are in Haringey.
Before I get onto Barnet, I am constantly hassled by parking attendants while I wash my car or work on it as it is outside my garage ... and therefore in Haringey. I am technically a Barnet resident and have bee refused any form of parking permit from Haringey too. Not even residents visitors vouchers. That’s crazy. I would love to see some form of acceptance that people live on boundaries between boroughs. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w30 Transport Committee: Evidence
So to Barnet. What a Shambles Firstly, we are an outer borough. Not central London yet we are being charged comparable rates with Westminster or Camden. We have had no say, no consultation and the feeling among all residents in our street is that the parking ISN’T working for us, it’s just for Barnet to make money. This is really unhealthy and leads to a huge mistrust feeling. — We only have one car and live in a cul-se-sac. The price of a permit is absolutely crazy. As much as the car tax is! So it cost just as much to put the roads in place and maintain them as it does to pay for a person to check it has a permit? — We now have all day, six days-a-week restrictions. We used to have (and have campaigned for) a simple 2 hour slot during the day to avoid commuter parking. We have also campaigned to have Saturdays included in this. This has been ignored at each stage by Barnet. — The visitor’s permits are £4.19 EACH! I wouldn’t even spend that on myself each day, let alone on a visitor parking. — We had a kids party on a Saturday. Three of the mums received tickets. All they did was turn up at the end, pick up their kids and grab a party bag. £80 fine? Really? And if we’d have given each of the 15 parents a ticket, that party would have had a £62 bill added to it for 10 minutes of picking up. Why is there no consideration of the basic needs of residents? So Barnet are NOT a great example of parking for the community. The hate it. It’s one of the things that has cast a shadow (and a big financial drain) on our everyday lives.
Hope this helps other’s to avoid Barnet’s example. March 2013
Written evidence from CA Bylos (PE 20)
You note that you would like to hear views on the adequacy of current arrangements for parking enforcement in our local areas. Here are my views: 1. I live on a residential road in East Finchley, London. Some five to eight years back (I now cannot recall the exact year) controlled parking was introduced on my road and other surrounding roads to stop people living further out from using these roads as parking to do their local shopping and to catch the underground. We were told that fees would be charged in order to administer the controlled parking. This was not “sold” to the residents as a means of raising revenue for the Barnet Council but rather to make life better for the residents on these roads. 2. I believe that only 10–15% of the people in the Borough of Barnet have controlled parking. 3. Over the years the parking fees and charges have increased and the zones extended and now have become way disproportionately expensive—they suit high congestion areas in zones 1 of London, rather than a struggling high street in one of the outer boroughs in zone 3. For example no matter how long you stay within a half day period, your visitors will be charged a flat rate of £2.20 (this was reduced from a shocking £4.16 after public outcries). Local residents’ annual parking permits increased some 300% two years ago. 4. High parking fees in my view are not acceptable. Controlled parking fees in residential areas should be used primarily for the administration of the controlled parking. A modest amount of surplus could be allowed but that should be tied to a percentage of the actual cost of administering the controlled parking. 5. Creating huge financial surpluses as a means of plugging gaps in the councils’ budget should not be permitted. If such gaps exist then it is more fair and proper that a more evenly distributed “tax” burden should be placed on all residents of the borough and not on just the few who happen to live in controlled parking zones. March 2013
Written evidence from Harriett Crowe (PE 21)
Please can you take the following into consideration regarding Barnets CPZ policy.
I would like to raise a complaint that I have in regard to Barnets CPZ policy. As a resident in Barnet I am disgusted by the huge increases in permit charges. Only a very small number of Barnet’s residents are being forced to pay for road resurfacing, travel passes etc by money from the resident parking charges. This is ENTIRELY unfair. £4.00 is an absurd amount to pay for a residents parking voucher and seriously affects our quality of life living in the Borough. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w31
In addition I am most concerned about the level of charges for parking in the High Street—this will destroy the local shops and local community because people cannot afford to park there. Also the requirement to have a mobile phone to park is very restrictive and inconvenient for people, especially the elderly who may not be able to read the signs or work out how to use the system particularly if they do not own a mobile phone. March 2013
Written evidence from Kathryn Scorza (PE 22)
I am pleased that residents are being asked for their views on what has been happening with parking enforcement in their area. Mine is East Finchley.
I am however surprised and disturbed to find that the list of questions in the consultation does not include the issue of fair charging of residents and of people coming to use our shops and the fact that our CPZ charges were recently hiked disproportionately to levels which would be considered expensive in a wealthy inner London borough. The topic of price paid does not stand on its own: the question of what residents feel the parking revenue should be spent on is directly linked. The aim of the huge price hike appeared to be to raise as much money as possible from residents who have no choice but to pay (whether CPZ permits or visitor vouchers) and shoppers from outside the borough (who can choose to support our high street or shop elsewhere). Removing all the cash parking ticket machines was also an unwelcome surprise and makes trying to park for a short time complicated, especially for those without smart phones and older people who are still comfortable with paying cash.
I feel that the money raised from parking enforcement should only cover the costs of running parking enforcement as was clearly promised when the CPZ was first brought in. As things stand, residents who already pay their Council Tax are being hit with what amounts to another tax because they have a car. Because of the enormous increase in the cost of visitor vouchers, people who do not own cars but live in a CPZ are also penalised. This feels very unfair, as only a part of the money raised from us directly is being spent on us.
I am not in a position to comment on some of the questions asked about wider traffic management and the role of parking enforcement within it. But I do feel that just at the point where our local high street needs all the support it can get, the double whammy of expensive meter parking and the fact that one cannot simply pull in and put money into a pay and display ticket machine will mean that shoppers will be put off using our local shops. There are not even any more free parking spaces within the CPZ—those which were included from the start appear to have been quietly turned into CPZ bays, so there is nowhere within range of the High Road where a non-resident can park for free, even for a short period. This single move could help attract shoppers from further away to use our very good high street shops.
I hope my views will be taken into account, even though you don’t appear to have included the things which really bother me about local parking in the consultation. I accept that costs to residents for parking will have to rise. But the scale of the rises we have recently faced is unfair and disproportionate for a neighbourhood like ours. March 2013
Written evidence from Barry H White (PE 23)
My views are summed up perfectly by the Barnet Campaign as follows:
1. The unfairness of CPZ residents being held to ransom by huge increases in permit charges, knowing that the council is deliberately creating a huge financial surplus in order to help pay for travel passes and road resurfacing for the whole borough.
A small group of roads eg Summerlee Avenue N2 were some years ago designated (with no consultation) as likely to fill up with cars parked from a new local college, the Institute.
So the Barnet Council made it a special zone (unlike the next roads which have a sensible 1 hour restriction) where no parking without permit was allowed, even on Saturdays, and the prices hike to now £4.0 for a visitor and extortionate rates for residents. All the residents protested and there is now a Court Case pending. Meanwhile, the street is largely empty and no problem exists, and the Institute is not causing congestion. It is an outrage, and Barnet Council had now a disgraced leader who seemed to enjoy his notoriety and ignored all attempts to have the situation normalized. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w32 Transport Committee: Evidence
2. The folly of removing all cash pay and display ticket machines, making the simple act of parking to pop into a shop inconvenient and confusing for many people. The local high street shops are all losing trade, especially since the need to use complicated mobile phone access to park—people (especially passing trade) just do not stop. The high street bays remain largely empty. There needs at minimum to be 15 or 30 mins free. 3. Hiking high street parking charges to levels more suited to city centres or inner London boroughs. This has been done at a time when other councils (such as Haringey) are introducing free parking for short periods in order to support their high streets. More and more locals go to Tesco where you can park. It is as if Barnet are deliberately ignoring residents, shopholders and common sense in order to increase revenue (partly to pay for their own exorbitant expense allowance rises). March 2013
Written evidence from the London Tourist Coach Operators’ Association (LTCOA Ltd) (PE 24)
RESPONSE TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS’ TRANSPORT SELECT COMMITTEE CONSULTATION ON PARKING ENFORCEMENT
LTCOA Ltd is a trade association for coach operators who provide coach and minicoach transport service in and around London. We currently represent 30 Coach Operators who collectively operate some 900 PSV vehicles. While our Association specifically considers the needs for operating in London many of the problems are the same in towns and cities across the UK.
Tourist coaches provide safe environmentally friendly services for groups of UK and Foreign visitors to tour and to visit many attractions. These visitors will include British school children, children and young people visiting the UK as part of a language study programme, teams of athletes and sports people, their supporters, social groups and societies, delegate attending corporate meetings and events, and so many more. Of particular importance to our customers is the fact that their groups can be kept together thereby reducing the risks associated with marshalling large numbers of people through crowded streets, along complex routes or having to cross busy roads. The ease and safety of being picked up from a school, community hall or hotel and delivered direct to the chosen venues ensures that organisers have complied with the requirements of their risk assessments.
The value of tourist coaches was clearly demonstrated during the summer of 2012. Coaches provided an efficient, effective and environmentally friendly mode of mass transportation for sports teams, supporters, sponsors, Games Makers, school parties and other visitors
There are many groups for whom the transport options offered by trains and stage carriage bus services are not appropriate. The fact that they chose to use a coach rather than utilising a larger number of cars should be encouraged and supported. Coach drivers bringing groups to venues are finding inadequate set down and pick up facilities (even at some of our most popular destinations) and a limited provision of short and long term parking spaces. These problems are particularly acute in London.
It is essential that Boroughs and Councils who benefit from the revenues generated by visitors to their areas be required to have responsibility for coaches operating and parking within their areas.
Coach Operators bringing visitors and tourists to London have to balance the needs of their customers to be collected from and delivered to specific venues with an acute shortage of designated set down and pick up facilities at these venues. Operators are daily receiving PCN’s just for trying to go about their daily business in picking up passengers from visitor attractions, conference facilities, schools and hotels; for trying to give London’s visitors a decent standard of service. A notable aspect of the success of the 2012 Olympics was that every visitor was treated as a VIP; we believe that the Olympic Legacy should ensure procedures and priorities are in place to treat every UK Visitor as a VIP. Additional burdens for coach operators arise from a hotchpotch of ill-defined and poorly understood regulations, and a considerable shortfall in the availability of both short and long term parking spaces for PCV vehicles.
Coach Operators—Our Legal Responsibilities
To run a coach business a Company needs an Operator’s Licence, these are issued by the Traffic Commissioners. To obtain and maintain an Operator’s Licence every Operator must agree to adhere to a list of undertakings, including: (i) To observe all laws and legislation relating to the driving and operation of vehicles. (ii) To observe and comply with all the rules on Drivers’ hours and tachographs and to keep proper records. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w33
Any failure to adhere to these undertakings can result in action being taken against the Operator’s Licence. Similarly, we have strict obligations with regard to safeguarding the health and wellbeing of our staff. To comply with employment legislation we are obliged to ensure that our staff are properly rested and have access to the various necessary facilities. An Operator’s Licence can and will be revoked if we fail to comply with these undertakings, all too often operating in London and other parts of the country puts us at serious risk of being in breach of these undertakings and our legal obligations.
London and other UK cities cause great problems: it is frequently the case that Drivers of tourist coaches have to spend considerable periods of time driving around the streets looking for a place where they can park to take a legal rest break. It is often the case that the coaches have travelled some distance to reach the destination; therefore the driver will need a legal break shortly after dropping off their passengers. Drivers having to travel longer distances cannot afford to use up their driving hours searching for places to stop, nor can they afford to travel long distances to and from the group’s venue to find a parking space.
In addition it should be stressed that when drivers are spending these long periods of time searching for places to park they are also unnecessarily adding to both congestion and pollution.
Summary
To be able to provide a professional service there needs to be a good provision of coach set down and pick up facilities at the venues and hotels frequented by visitors and tourists. At the very least there needs to be clear guidelines and understanding to ensure that visitors can receive the right experience. The “10 minute rule” is poorly understood by Enforcement Officers and all too often the Officer’s approach is at best inconsistent, and too often overzealous and ill considered.
There needs to be rigorous enforcement of set down and pick up points to ensure that they are kept clear for use by those endeavouring to drop and pick up groups.
At the planning stage all sites which hope to attract groups must incorporate adequate coach bays.
Tourist Coaches need both short and long term parking facilities located within reasonable travelling times of the major venues. Sites and areas which are underused at particular times of day and night might be considered for use during these periods.
There is a need for legislation to ensure that Boroughs and Councils make provision to support coach operations and coach parking within their areas.
1. How adequate are current arrangements for parking enforcement
The current arrangements in London appear to be worse than inadequate: Many CEO’s are poorly trained and have limited comprehension of the regulations pertaining to PCV vehicles, they treat them as if they were governed by the same regulations as cars. CEO’s are frequently overzealous; they issue PCN’s as if they were remunerated on “piece work” rates—paid for the numbers issued with no regard to the validity or quality of these notices.
Currently the job of parking enforcement is subcontracted to organisations of whom it would not be unreasonable to question whether their objective was more revenue raising that having any concern to ensure the smooth and safe operation of our roads.
Too often where an Operator writes to challenge a PCN the reply from the enforcement contractor, on Council headed paper, appears to have been computer generated as a standard “No”. Where Operators persevere and take their challenges to an appeal hearing the most likely result is that the council will not even attend and the PCN is quashed. To the Operator the costs of repeatedly challenging and attending appeal hearings far exceed the initial charge of just paying the PCN, and they have neither comeback nor opportunity to demand refund or compensation for their unnecessary costs.
2. How should councils use their revenue from penalty charge, metered parking, car parks and residents parking?
This revenue should be used to support the needs of groups travelling to and from the Council’s area. Particularly to provide and maintain adequate and safe set down, short term and long term parking facilities.
Should there be more local discretion over how income is used?
While we would encourage Councils to take advice from group attractions and from those venues where groups are formed (schools, hotels, community centres etc) there is a danger that nimby-ism will take over in the absence of properly researched and structured legislation. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w34 Transport Committee: Evidence
3. What impact will new technology, such as cashless parking, parking sensors and CCTV, have on local authority parking enforcement? New Technologies such as these are undoubtedly very good at raising revenue, but they are detached from the roadside activity and therefore make no contribution to understanding or solving problems at the scene. For example where a group of young children have just boarded a coach there needs to be a short period before the vehicle pulls away during which teachers or group leaders check the register and ensure that all seatbelts are secured. During this time a CCTV Operative will simply record a parked vehicle. On the ground it should be obvious to a CEO what is going on.
4. How effective are the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service for London? The Parking and Appeals Service does an excellent job, it is particularly effective. It is a shameful waste of public money that in many cases the Parking and Appeals Service offers the first point in a long and expensive system where a human being looks in an intelligent manner at the evidence surrounding an alleged parking infringement.
5. Should parking policy in London be subject to separate provision and guidance, given, in particular, its large parking revenue surpluses, its more integrated public transport network and the number of foreign registered vehicles in the city? While we consider that well written legislation should serve all situations there are aspects of London that might lead to its being considered as a “special case”. The very high density of attractions and the large numbers of schools, hotels and hostels serving groups means that there is a requirement for clear and consistent guidelines and regulations pertaining to the transportation needs of groups. Tourism, in all its guises, accounts for a very substantial share of London’s economy. It seems that foreign registered vehicles frequently ignore parking regulations the result of which is that UK coaches are unable to set down and pick up their passengers at the designated and safe parking bays.
6 How can local authorities strike a balance between using parking policy to manage congestion and using it to encourage people into town centres? Local Authorities need to consider the fact that in the absence of adequate short and long term parking facilities coaches are being driven round and around searching or a place to stop or simply filling in time until the group needs to be picked up. This results in increased congestion and atmospheric pollution. These problems would be overcome by the provision of parking facilities at or close to attractions. Planning policies should ensure that no attractions are built or further developed without a requirement for designated coach parking facilities. A more flexible approach to viewing parking provisions could make more kerb space and land available for coach parking during times when it is currently underused.
7. How can smaller local authorities strike a balance between using parking policy to manage congestion? Do they need to work regionally and strategically with neighbouring councils? See note 6. Visitors and tourist to one particular attraction will frequently stay and bring their spending power to other attractions, retail outlets and restaurants within the vicinity, it is essential that neighbouring authorities work together to ensure the best experience and outcomes for these visitors.
8. Are there steps local authorities can take while managing congestion to make it easier to trade and make deliveries By ensuring that coaches are able to drop their passengers in a safe place close to attractions and then find parking nearby local authorities will reduce both the congestion and pollution that results from coach drivers having to cruise the streets looking in vain for somewhere to park while their group enjoy the attraction.
9. Are parking signs clear and comprehensible? To what extent are unclear signs and instructions the cause of breaches of parking control? Parking signs are usually clear but, the wide range of regulations that affect PCV vehicles in relation to setting down and parking tend to make the life of a coach driver very difficult. For example, in London on a Red Route the coach may not stop unless to set down and pick up, in which case they must stop at a bus stop. They can only then stop to set down and pick up and cannot wait. On a yellow route they must not use the bus stops but can set down and pick up on the yellow lines between bus stops, where this is permitted and within strict time limitations. Some bus stops are designated for local services only and cannot be used by coaches offering ad hoc services. The 10 minute rule suggests that where it is safe a coach can stop for the purposes of setting down and picking up provided that they do not exceed a period of 10 minutes in other locations the coach may stop for the purposes of setting down and picking up but, if at any time no movement of passengers onto or off the coach is seen a PCN may be issued. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w35
See note 5 above: experience shows that it is often a failure to enforce parking controls that pushes coach drivers into a position whereby they might breach the regulations so that they can safely pick up their groups of customers. For example: we currently suffer from a scandalous situation involving 3 x 20 minute bays situated outside the Natural History Museum. In theory this is a good facility. Sadly there is no enforcement of these bays and consequently less scrupulous drivers can be seen to occupy them for many hours. So, drivers endeavouring to pick up are not able to use these bays and are put in the invidious position of having to either stop illegally to load their group or ask them to walk to some other place. Oddly traffic camera have been installed to monitor the roadway immediately behind these bays (a red route), PCN’s are very frequently issued to drivers who pull up to load groups that have been waiting for a space to become available on the legal bays. The cameras do not monitor the activity on the 20 minute bays. It is a matter of considerable concern that TfL report that no PCN’s have ever been issued on the 3 x 20 minute bays. Thank you for your consideration. March 2013
Written evidence from Russ Hodgson (PE 25) As a Barnet resident current subject to Barnet Council’s unfair and completely indefensible 250% hike in resident permit charges and its reasons for doing so (currently subject to a private legal action questioning its legitimacy, funded by a group of Barnet residents, due in court on 2 July 2013), I have these points to raise about Barnet Council’s current activity in relation to your enquiry topic: — The unfairness of CPZ residents being held to ransom by huge increases in permit charges, knowing that the council is deliberately creating a huge financial surplus in order to help pay for travel passes and road resurfacing for the whole borough. — The folly of removing all cash pay and display ticket machines, making the simple act of parking to pop into a shop inconvenient and confusing for many people. — Hiking high street parking charges to levels more suited to city centres or inner London boroughs. This has been done at a time when other councils (such as Haringey) are introducing free parking for short periods in order to support their high streets. More information on the local Barnet residents’ campaign here: http://barnetcpz.blogspot.co.uk/ March 2013
Written evidence from Councillor David Boothroyd (PE 26) 1. I have been a member of Westminster City Council since 2002 and have taken a particular interest in the council’s budgeting as a member of the opposition Labour group. This submission is made as an individual councillor. I want to give evidence on two subjects. 2. The first is the effect on Westminster City Council’s finances of the parking income being such a large amount. The council has to set a budget for each year including a projection of income from parking enforcement. In the 1990s parking income became a considerable moneyspinner for the council. 3. When the financial crisis of 2007–08 struck the response of London motorists seems to have been to become much more cautious and to make sure that they parked in the correct places. As a result the number of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) fell and in several recent years the budget has been substantially higher than the actual income. 4. A minor shortfall in PCN income was detected towards the end of the financial year 2008–09, but was masked by improved enforcement. The full effect came in the financial year 2009–10, when the parking department came in £19 million below budget. 5. In 2010–11, despite revising the budget for parking income down, the total shortfall was £9 million. A report to the Audit and Performance Committee on 28 June stated clearly “For 2011–12, we remain highly dependent on Parking income: there are no unallocated savings targets: there are no contingencies.” (Source: http://transact.westminster.gov.uk/CSU/Audit%20and%20Performance%20Committee/2011/ 28%20June%202011/Item%207%20- %202010–11%20End%20of%20Year%20Finance%20and%20Performance%20Report.pdf) 6. Having to make up for the unexpected shortfalls in parking income required a great deal of council officers to mitigate the effect, and also required the council to call on its reserves to cover the gap. As a result the council reserves were not available to cushion the effect of the reductions in formula grant after 2010, as they were below the minimum level. 7. In January 2010, at a time when the serious shortfall in the 2009–10 financial year had suddenly become apparent, the council cabinet considered a report which proposed a public consultation on extending the hours cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w36 Transport Committee: Evidence
of parking control, and increasing the tariffs to park in street bays. The report noted that it would be unlawful for the council to make these changes “with the motive of generating income, though the generation of income is legitimate if it is merely incidental to the setting of charges for other reasons such as traffic restraint”. 8. After consultation the cabinet decided in May 2011 to extend parking controls in the West End to Saturdays and Sundays. This change proved to be highly controversial with several groups, including churches and night workers, vigorously opposing them. The Evening Standard newspaper supported the campaign. 9. At the height of the campaign, in January 2012 the then leader of the council, Colin Barrow, suddenly resigned. It is fair to say that he denied that his resignation was a result of the unpopularity of the weekend parking proposals. However he immediately announced that the changes were being abandoned (http://www.westminster.gov.uk/press-releases/2012–01/westminster-announces-west-end-commission-and-an- e/). 10. The second subject is that I also know of a particular instance of a confusing sign, raised with me by a constituent who was given a PCN as a result. My constituent has a residents’ parking permit for the appropriate zone, and came on a paid parking bay with a sign saying “Vehicles displaying a valid residents’ permit for this zone may park free of charge for the first and last hours of control”. The sign above gives the “Chargeable hours” as 8.30am–6.30pm on Monday to Friday, and 8.30am–1.30pm on Saturday. 11. My constituent therefore assumed that he could park there from 12.30pm on Saturday, as this was in the last hour. He was issued with a PCN with Contravention Code 11u: “Parked without payment of the parking charge”. He challenged the PCN but the reply from Westminster City Council said: “Your challenge against this PCN has been rejected because resident permit holders are only permitted to park for free from 08:30 to 09:30 and 17:30 to 18:30. Where controls on Saturday end at 13:30, concession applies 08:30 to 09:30 only.” 12. Nowhere was this exception mentioned on the sign. Nor was it mentioned on a leaflet explaining the operation of paid parking bays. In fact there seems to be no mention of it at all, save for the letter sent to people who get a PCN and challenge it. 13. I have attached an image of the sign. I can send a scan of the letter if the committee would like to see it. March 2013
Written evidence from the Campaign Against Revenue Driven Enforcement (Notomob) (PE 27) 1. The Notomob (www.notomob.co.uk) was formed in July 2010 in response to the Prime Minister’s speech of May 2010 in which he invited the public to become armchair auditors to make local and central government accountable and to take part in his “Big Society” vision. The Secretary of State for Local Government Eric Pickles repeated the invitation in October 2010 and extended the remit, stating he wanted the public to use the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Audit Commission Act 1998 to make local government accountable. The Notomob has accepted these invitations and continues to do so. Since mid-2010 its members have had extensive contact with the members of the public, Enforcement Authorities and enforcement company personnel. The following reflect the views of the Notomob, based upon contact with these groups. “The Committee would like to hear views on the adequacy of current arrangements for parking enforcement and the likely consequences of Government policy in this area.” 2. The current arrangements for parking enforcement are inadequate and the consequences of Government policy in this area are that the reputations of both Government and Local Authorities involved are being severely damaged. Public confidence in Local Authority integrity has already been undermined in the area of parking and for many authorities their reputation has been irreparably damaged. When parking was de- criminalised under the provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1991, the authors of the Act would have done well to heed the warning to beware of unintended consequences. The greed of both Local Authorities and the companies that mushroomed following the Act were perfectly foreseeable. 3. In 2010 the Transport Secretary, Mr Hammond promised: “We will end the war on motorists”. In March 2013, the Director of Policy and Public Affairs at British Parking Association Ltd, Mr Kelvin Reynolds called for a: “war on the non-compliant motorists”. The public perception is very much that a war is still being waged against motorists. Not so much by Government, but by Local Authorities and certainly by their sub-contractors, the enforcement companies. The companies in particular seem to take singular pride in developing ever more devious ways of separating motorists from their money. 4. Motorists are also increasingly irritated by the disproportionate penalties imposed for parking infringements compared with other motoring offences. An example of disproportionality is that a relatively minor parking offence in London can incur a penalty charge of £130 whereas a speeding offence can cost less than half that amount. Yet which of the two offences carries the greater potential risk to other road users? There should be national set rates for civil parking enforcement as there are for criminal traffic enforcement. Regional variations are unjust and disproportionate. A civil parking offence in Manchester is either £50 or £70 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w37
depending on the offence yet the same offence in London is £80 or £130. This is completely unjust and an offence should result in the same penalty regardless of where it occurred. We ask the Select Committee, in the interests of justice, to consider this. A speeding offence, dealt with by means of a fixed penalty, in London or Manchester attracts an identical penalty. The same should apply to parking penalties. The argument deployed by local authorities that it costs more for enforcement in London could equally apply to speeding but these offences attract the same penalty regardless of the offence location. This disparity is unjust and it is suggested that a fair and proportional national rate, be set for each of lesser and more serious offences. 5. Furthermore, Local Authorities encourage their contractors to issue PCNs by setting targets and including performance bonus payments in their contracts. This has been seen in contracts obtained by Freedom of Information requests and by inspection of accounts under section 15 of the Audit Commission Act 1998. Contractors also encourage their enforcement officers to issue penalty charge notices—even when they know that they are unenforceable—because both the company and the Council know that many will be paid without challenge by the unaware motorist. 6. There are two measures that Government can take that will help to redress the balance. — The first is to outlaw the practice of allowing Enforcement Authorities to offer an “early payment discount”. This practice is tantamount to bullying the motorist into admitting an offence that might well not have occurred. There have been innumerable cases where people have admitted to paying a reduced sum because they could not afford the “doubled” penalty. This is denying justice to such people and is morally wrong. — The second is to ensure that all receipts from PCNs are paid to the Treasury in exactly the same way as fines for speeding offences. This will disincentivise Authorities from seeking to profit from their enforcement activities in order to subsidise other services. This will create a more fair and proportionate parking enforcement regime. Traffic management will become a non- revenue service much like other services that authorities have a duty to provide such as refuse collection or education. This will enable authorities to concentrate their objectives on congestion and safety without the distraction (or temptation) of revenue generation.
How should councils use their revenue from penalty charges, metered parking, car parks and residents’ parking? 7. Councils should be permitted to spend revenue from metered parking, car parks and residents’ parking on maintenance of roads and car parks only. Revenue from penalty charges should be remitted to the Treasury (see above).
Should there be more local discretion over how income is used? 8. Absolutely not. There is strong anecdotal evidence that a number of Local Authorities already view income from parking charges and penalties as an easy way to supplement their budgets and to allow them to use these income streams for other purposes would only serve to incentivise them further into adopting ever more draconian enforcement regimes.
What impact will new technology, such as cashless parking, parking sensors and CCTV, have on local authority parking enforcement? 9. Cashless parking already discriminates against certain parts of society because it relies upon the flawed assumption that every user of a parking space holds or has access to a debit or credit card and a mobile telephone. The architects of cashless parking schemes appear to be unaware that it is unlawful for a person under the age of 18 years to hold a debit or credit card. Furthermore there is no requirement in law for any road user to own or have access to a mobile telephone. 10. Mobile CCTV equipment has one purpose and one purpose only. That is revenue generation for both the Enforcement Authority and its sub-contractors. The equipment is indiscriminate, open to abuse by its operators and makes no contribution whatsoever to road safety or to congestion reduction. A vehicle photographed on, eg zig-zag lines outside a school will remain there creating a hazard until the keeper chooses to remove it; the issue of a penalty does nothing to remove the hazard. Similarly a vehicle stopped on double yellow lines in a busy narrow high-street will continue to be an obstruction until the keeper chooses to remove it. In each of these cases the presence of a Civil Enforcement Officer is likely to effect the removal of the hazard or obstruction much more quickly thereby creating a far safer environment. 11. The aggressive marketing of mobile CCTV units has led to their widespread use by local authorities. How long will it be before a mobile CCTV operator sitting in an air-conditioned vehicle actually films a child being run over outside a school when they could have got out and moved on an obstructing vehicle? There is strong evidence that these vehicles offer poor value for money and are less efficient than foot or moped mounted CEOs. 12. There is also an environmental penalty in the use of these vehicles. In order to power the on-board equipment the engines have been seen to run continually, pumping out large volumes of pollutants during each shift. This is a particular concern in London which is already under the threat of sanction by the EU cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w38 Transport Committee: Evidence
Commission over pollution levels. Furthermore there are 30 of these vehicles in local authority use within four miles of the Houses of Parliament. Legislation should be enacted to ban the use of these mobile enforcement vehicles. Failing that, statutory guidance on their use should be issued under Section 87 of the Traffic Management Act 2004.
13. The Notomob has observed a significant increase in the number of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) equipped mobile enforcement vehicles in use by local authorities in pursuit of their objective to issue ever more PCNs. The use of ANPR in the pursuit of crime and disorder is legitimate but its use for parking enforcement is not and it raises disturbing civil liberties issues. Motorists generally accept that if they park where they should not they risk being issued with a PCN by a CEO. However, in recent years there has been an explosion in the number of parking PCNs issued by means of both fixed and mobile CCTV in contravention of the guidance published by the Government under section 87 of the TMA 2004. The delay in issuing PCNs by post has resulted in many motorists receiving multiple penalties for contraventions at a single location. The first indication of the offences the motorist has is often multiple PCNs arriving at the same time. Local authorities defend the practice by stating that the motorist can appeal all but the first offence. But the authorities are acting unlawfully to issue the subsequent PCNs and again the motorist, frequently ignorant about this, simply pays up. There is evidence that the increasing reliance on fixed and mobile CCTV has resulted in the indiscriminate issue of unlawful PCNs. Frequently these are disabled badge holders whose badges, despite being correctly displayed, are not identified by the CCTV equipment. Here too the authorities claim that they will allow an appeal (though some have adopted a policy of rejecting all appeals). The onus should not be on an innocent person to appeal a PCN that has been issued unlawfully. Sadly this practice continues on a daily basis.
How effective are the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for England and Wales and the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service for London?
14. The Traffic Penalties Tribunal appears to provide an effective arena in which an individual may challenge a penalty notice. The adjudicators seem to be genuinely impartial and to apply the law even-handedly.
15. There are, however, serious doubts about the impartiality of the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (and its associated body, Parking on Private Land Appeals). PATAS adjudicators have also been spectacularly inconsistent in their determinations—it is not unknown for the same adjudicator to deliver opposing decisions in identical cases.
Should parking policy in London be subject to separate provisions and guidance, given, in particular, its large parking revenue surpluses, its more integrated public transport network and the number of foreign- registered vehicles in the city?
16. London should not be subjected to separate provisions and guidance. London is neither an independent state nor a principality. There is a potentially valuable saving to be made by merging TPT and PATAS. This would also lead to greater consistency in the adjudication of parking appeals across the whole of England and Wales. The current arrangements have already created the ridiculous situation whereby a motorist in England and Wales might commit a criminal offence (leading to a fine, points on his driving license and a criminal record) for a moving traffic violation whereas in London the exact same offence is treated as a civil matter (which incurs a financial penalty only). Consistency across the board should be the objective in the interests of justice. If, as reported, the Government is considering extending the power to enforce moving traffic violations to authorities outside London then there is an even stronger case for a single adjudication service.
17. We have seen little integration of the transport network in London. An example of this lack of integration is the use of Bus Lanes by motorcyclists. At present they are permitted to use Transport for London’s Red Route Bus Lanes; they are also permitted to use Bus Lanes in some Boroughs but are prohibited in others. The result of this is that a rider travelling across London may find themselves dodging into and out of Bus Lanes depending on which Borough they happen to be in and continually having to study carefully every single Bus Lane sign—hardly a contribution to road safety given the plethora of such signs. This is further evidence of the need for a unified national policy on transport and parking not one policy for London Boroughs and another for elsewhere. (London Boroughs on their own already have inconsistent policies.)
18. Furthermore London Councils, after the introduction of the Freedoms Bill 2012, has taken upon itself to set up a contract with the British Parking Association Limited for the provision of an appeals service for Parking On Private Land (POPLA) for England and Wales. Local authorities should not be involved with setting up services for the private parking industry. It is ironic that London Councils have set up a service for the whole of England and Wales but not a separate one for London.
19. With reference to the large parking revenue surpluses from enforcement, these should not be retained by local authorities and should, as mentioned before, go to the Treasury. The fact that there may be more foreign registered vehicles in London is irrelevant to parking policy; agreements need to be put in place with foreign governments to be able to enforce these vehicles. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w39
How can local authorities strike a balance between using parking policy to manage congestion and using it to encourage people into town centres?
20. Parking policy on its own can only ever be one strand in the management of congestion since it only deals with obstruction by stationary vehicles. A more holistic approach needs to be adopted to ensure the smooth flow of traffic through an urban environment. If authorities adopted a policy of using more foot CEOs or moped CEOs rather than relying on the indiscriminate use of mobile CCTV, discretionary enforcement could be used to encourage more people into town centres. The overall cost of foot patrols or moped CEOs is far less than running a mobile CCTV operation and creates employment.
How can smaller local authorities use parking provision to manage congestion? Do they need to work regionally and strategically with neighbouring councils?
21. All authorities can use parking provision to manage congestion by creating more spaces for less congesting forms of transport such as bicycles and powered two wheelers.
22. In order to achieve greater consistency, parking should be considered as part of an overall traffic management provision and this should be developed at County or regional level.
What role does the Workplace Parking Levy have?
23. None whatsoever. This is merely another way of enabling an Enforcement Authority to raise revenue by taxing motorists. The Levy takes no account of the needs of individual businesses and the way they work. Shift workers who need to travel when no other transport is available can be unfairly penalised.
Would people be more inclined to use park and ride services if there were a charge to park at work?
24. Possibly, but great care needs to be taken in designing a Parking Levy scheme to ensure that Park and Ride services are available at all times when workers need to travel. The needs and working practices of every business to be affected must be taken into consideration. The park and ride facilities must also be designed in such a way that they are available at all times. The pedestrian routes to and from transport terminals and the terminals themselves must be safe for potentially vulnerable users.
Are parking signs clear and comprehensible? To what extent are unclear signs and instructions the cause of breaches of parking control?
25. The parking signs defined in the TSRDG are clear and comprehensible but the way they are deployed by local authorities frequently render them useless. There is strong anecdotal evidence that Enforcement Authorities and their sub-contractors exploit unclear signage in order to maximise revenue.
26. One example of a local authority getting it wrong is the case of the bus lane at Moor End Road in Hemel Hempstead. Concerns regarding the signage and traffic management order (TMO) were expressed by the NoToMob to the enforcement authority some five weeks after enforcement commenced. These concerns were dismissed out of hand by Hertfordshire County Council (HCC). Nine months later an appeal case brought at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal resulted in HCC ceasing enforcement and only after the council was notified by the Notomob that an objection to the accounts under the Audit Commission Act 1998 would be brought did the local authority offer to pay back all the unlawfully derived £1.3 million income from this enforcement.
27. One way to get local authorities to address the issue of poor signage is for the Department of Transport to set up a body to oversee complaints about non-compliant local authority signs and TMOs and that it be given powers in legislation to fine local authorities if their signage and TMOs are non-compliant just as a local authority does to a motorist that is non-compliant. Or is it one rule for local authorities and another for the motorist?
28. The Notomob has purposely kept its submission short so as not to overburden the Committee with excessive volumes of data. However, anecdotal or hard-copy evidence are available to support all assertions made above. This evidence will be supplied in the event that the Committee requests elaboration on any of these points. March 2013 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w40 Transport Committee: Evidence
Written evidence from Martin Shaw (PE 29)
My three points are: 1. Adjudicator should have authority to allow mitigation. 2. Local Authorities should be liable to pay a motorist if they have refused his/her submission and then lose at adjudication 3. Councillors should not be exempt from meter charges.
It is contrary to all juridical rights, ie in all courts, that mitigation cannot be considered. To have mitigation only allowed by the Local Authority is the same as only the prosecution to consider mitigation, not the judge.
Local Authorities in many cases reject submissions from motorists as a matter of course and I am aware of numerous cases in which the Council has backed down when the motorist has gone to the adjudicator. The majority of motorists have neither the time nor the motivation to take their case to the adjudicator and councils should not be able to benefit from that.
Justice requires that where the Council loses at adjudication after refusing representations made by the motorist they are obliged to pay the motorist the same sum as the motorist would have had to pay had the Council won the case. This would prevent the practise of rejecting representation as a matter of course.
Some Councils exclude themselves (the Councillors) from parking charges when on council business. What is it that makes their business so much more important than others. Valuable time is wasted by any number of business folk on parking and unknown number of shops have had to close at least partially due to the damage done to their business by the parking restrictions. March 2013
Written evidence from R Leskin (PE 30)
TO THE TRANSPORT SELECT COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS RE YOUR CONSULTATION ASKING WHAT PEOPLE THINK ABOUT LOCAL AUTHORITY PARKING POLICIES
I am a Resident of East Finchley ward of the London Borough of Barnet and and wish to raise my concerns about: — The unfairness of CPZ residents being held to ransom by huge increases in permit charges, knowing that the council is deliberately creating a huge financial surplus in order to help pay for travel passes and road resurfacing for the whole borough. — The folly of removing all cash pay and display ticket machines, making the simple act of parking to pop into a shop inconvenient and confusing for many people. — The effect on the turnover of local shops has been devasting at a time when the local economy needs help and not financial hurdles and penalties such as Barnets chaotic and punititive parking control scheme. — The CPZ Scheme has just displaced the problem of commuter parking to 100 yds further away and not solved it. — I have had to stop using the shops at East Finchley as I have limited mobility but do not qualify for a blue badge. I cannot afford to park nearby due to the cost CPZ and the impracticality of the controlled time combined with the physical difficulty to me. — I will not give my credit card details over the mobile phone due to security issues, and would caution anyone from giving their details to the company contracted by Barnet to take parking payments as their position regarding data confidentiality is unclear and questionable. At least parking metres remove the risk of compromise to local residents and visitors data security. Please return them. The use of local shops to purchase parking vouchers does not work as they are not easily identifiable or near enough so that drivers are often ticketed whilst looking for the nearest nearest high street outlet. — Hiking high street parking charges to levels more suited to city centres or inner London boroughs. This has been done at a time when other councils (such as Haringey) are introducing free parking for short periods in order to support their high streets. March 2013 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w41
Written evidence from Paul Pearson (PE 31) Much of my submission uses Westminster council as an example. However, this is mainly because they are the largest parking authority and usually the first to try new methods of enforcement; I also live and work in Westminster. However, my website assists motorists all over the country and my expertise is nationwide. As an example, on Monday this week I was interviewed on BBC London TV, Radio 5 Live (national), BBC Radio Merseyside and Radio London. I would be more than happy to attend before your committee in person. I have a substantial amount of knowledge, evidence and case studies which demonstrate what is wrong with the current system as well has suggestions to make it fairer. By way of an introduction I have campaigned against unfair and sometimes illegal parking enforcement (and more recently moving traffic enforcement) for 15 years. I am very experienced in knowing what is wrong with parking enforcement and what needs to be done. I have evidence of illegal enforcement. I am often on the television, radio and in the local and national press. My website www.penaltychargenotice.co.uk currently receives around 15,000 new visitors each month and I assist motorists who have been incorrectly ticketed. I hear of and deal with cases all over the country. I speak at various scrutiny panels, and attended parking forum meetings at Westminster City Council and quite often correspond with people at the Department of Transport. I attended the monthly meetings of the London motorist’s action group hosted by Lord Lucas at the House of Lords. If you Google “Paul Pearson, parking campaigner” you will see some of the things that I have been involved in. I would firstly say that I am not against parking enforcement which is essential. However, the way that it is currently conducted, often with more of a focus on revenue is wrong. In many instances enforcement is carried out for enforcement sake where no obstruction is being caused and often where motorists have little choice. An example of this would be the mass ticketing of pre booked mini cabs and taxis. They are only allowed a few minutes if that so if their fare is a couple of minutes late they will often receive a penalty charge notice in the post a couple of weeks later. The fact that your committee has been set up is excellent news for me. I cannot tell you how many times I have come up against a brick wall when trying to get the government to intervene. You may be astonished but there is actually no department or person within government or any statutory body that someone like me, with evidence of wrongdoing and often illegal acts can approach. Successive Transport Ministers and Secretaries have responded to me using exactly the same language; they must have it in a standard format! “As explained in previous correspondence to you from Ministers and officials, the issues raised in your e-mail are matters which the Department believes should be dealt with at a local level and should be raised directly with the relevant Council Leader, the Mayor or the Local Government Ombudsman. Local authorities have a duty to comply with the relevant legislation, they are responsible for their actions and accountable to their electorates, auditor and the courts.” Very few individuals have the resources or desire to fund a judicial review and it should not be the responsibility of any private individual to undertake such action which should be the responsibility of competent authority. See Appendix 2 for copies of letters including one from the current Transport Minister Norman Baker who even confirms to me that the government: “would not intervene to ensure that an individual Local Authority’s operational or policy decisions comply with the law.” You will note that earlier that year Norman Baker accepted that there were real issues when he said in his letter of 28 June 2010: “Can I recommend that Mr Pearson might like to set out in a letter his suggestions to restore fairness and hold local authorities to account.” I have been to the police, met with Tony Redmond the Local Government Ombudsman, approached the Audit Commission who agreed that money taken amounted to an unlawful item of account but said it would not be in the public interest to pursue the council (Appendix 3). Mr Redmond met with Lord Lucas and me, looked at the evidence that I had and certainly looked concerned, but said that the previous Government took away his powers to look at anything parking related. The Government has given powers to local authorities to fine motorists but washes its hands of it now that things are going wrong. Local authorities should be held to account and the LGO (or a new body within the DFT) should be empowered to investigate and take action where examples of wrongdoing on a large scale are highlighted and backed up with evidence. This may be one recommendation that your committee can look at. I am not talking about an individual upset at a single parking ticket. At the moment the absolute worst thing that can happen to a council who are issuing PCNs incorrectly, illegally or contrary to the guidance is that an adjudicator will cancel an individual ticket. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w42 Transport Committee: Evidence
Of course raising the issues with local authorities who have a financial interest or need to raise money from parking is rarely going change anything although I have tried on more occasions than I can remember. For example, when I wrote to Sir Simon Milton, leader of Westminster Council a few years ago I was told that it was perfectly acceptable for Westminster Council to pay their wardens cash bonuses, give them plasma TVs and even a free car based on the number of tickets issued. Surprisingly the council still give commissions based on tickets issued even though most people believe the practice has been outlawed. Recently I was passed an internal document that clearly showed that CEOs consistently performing above the beat average in terms of tickets would receive Argos points. I also attach at Appendix 4 email correspondence with Kensington and Chelsea and a letter from a Civil Enforcement Officer employed in Westminster to Paul Dimoldenberg the leader of the labour group at Westminster. The email clearly confirms that CEOs issuing less than 0.9 parking tickets per hour will face disciplinary action. It seems to be irrelevant that motorists may well have been parked compliantly. The pressure placed on CEOs to maximise tickets is inescapable. These practices show the consequences when private companies take over parking enforcement and are given targets or KPIs, or whatever they decide to call them now, based partly on the number of tickets issued. This must be stopped. The government does now need to intervene. High streets are being destroyed, people’s lives are being affected, businesses are clearly being affected (some evidence at Appendix 5). In London alone last year over four million parking tickets were issued plus bus lane, congestion charging and moving traffic penalty charge notices. You cannot take hundreds of millions of pounds out of motorists’ pockets each year and not expect there to be a knock-on effect on the economy. Yes, there needs to be enforcement but not the type that many see as petty and revenue orientated. The cost of parking in central London is approaching £5 an hour. Councils are raking in hundreds of millions of pounds in parking fees. Barnet doubled some of its charges recently and appointed outside contractors who are issuing many more PCNs. As the government reduces the money it gives to local authorities, they close their libraries, cut back on other services and put up their parking fees even though it is illegal to increase charges or issue PCNs to raise revenue (Cran v Camden). One thing that I say time and time again at meetings and which I hope you will agree with is: “If a civil enforcement officer walks along several streets and every car is parked in compliance with the rules is this a good or a bad thing?” I hope your committee will share my view that this is a good thing, however, the first question that a CEO is asked when returning to base is quite often, “How many did you do?” If he says, “only a couple as everyone was parked compliantly” that does not go down well. In Westminster Council’s area such a CEO could be denied valuable overtime or face disciplinary action. I have a letter from a CEO (Appendix 4) and also speak with them regularly. Plus of course there have been many reports in the press including a tribunal hearing in Bournemouth which confirm this. In fact it is quite obvious why this happens. Councils employ private parking companies to act on their behalf. These private companies are paid tens of millions of pounds each year. If they do not issue the tickets where does the money come from to pay them? So tickets are issued in circumstances where previously they would not have, parking restrictions are extended, new controlled zones introduced, signage is rarely inspected and in fact enforcement authorities continue to issue tickets at locations where the signage is confusing and sometimes even non-compliant. Often local authorities are imposing new Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) against the will of local residents. An example of this is Barnet Council and of course Westminster Council who were going to introduce the West End Parking Tax (see below). Surely local residents should have the final say if their area is to be made a CPZ. Often there can be advantages to residents in having a CPZ, but they should be consulted and their views should rarely be overruled. I hope the committee agrees.
West End Parking Tax You may well have heard of Westminster Council’s plan to introduce extended hours of control in the West End a couple of years ago. Their plans were to charge until midnight six days a week and also introduce charging on Sundays. In all my years of campaigning I have never seen such incredible opposition mobilised. We had Peter Stringfellow unite with the Salvation Army and casino operators, residents, businesses, the musicians union, the theatres, visitors, owners of restaurants, clubs, shops, churches etc, etc. Yes, Westminster did hold a substantial consultation exercise but, no, they didn’t listen to anyone. They were warned of catastrophic consequences for businesses and residents who could no longer have family over for Sunday lunch without paying £17 to Westminster and being limited to a 4 hour stay etc, etc. At one meeting in Hanover Square a show of hands was requested. All 250 of those present voted against the proposals and not one for. But still the council was resolute in its determination to proceed. They said it was for the benefit of the West End and firmly denied that the proposals were to fill an identified financial deficit in parking revenues. In fact the various reports produced by the council clearly stated that they knew it would be illegal to use the controls for the purposes of raising revenue (Appendix 9). They vowed to proceed with the plans which would have effectively removed over 8,000 parking spaces from the West End on single yellow lines and introduced charges of up to £4.80 an hour on Pay and Display bays until midnight and on Sundays. They admitted that the new controls would raise around £7 million a year. Luckily Richard Caring, owner of some well known restaurants, commenced a high court action and at an initial hearing was permitted to proceed to a judicial review. The council relented and the leader resigned. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w43
However, what was the real reason for the proposals? Was it really to assist the West End or was it to raise revenue which, as the council confirmed, would be illegal? The proposals were initially introduced in a report to cabinet of 18 January 2010 (Appendix 9). I attach a minority party budget briefing dated 12 January 2010 confirming that: “At the December Cabinet meeting, officers were asked to go away and look more closely at Parking and Community Safety to find further reductions (or additional income). The January meetings are scheduled for the week commencing the 18th January where the position reported to Cabinet in December will be updated.” And “The areas of Parking and Community Safety have been earmarked to contribute the majority of the additional £14 million highlighted in the Further Commissioning Savings”. And “Given the present overspending position in respect of parking, it is key that a sustainable ongoing position here is budgeted for. As this is service has circa £100 million turnover, changes in this area affect all other areas”. So the officers did as instructed and came up with a grand plan to charge until midnight in central London and double charges in their largest zone for “harmonisation” reasons. The report was submitted to 18 January 2010 meeting as instructed and was branded a 10 yearly review of parking controls and confirmed that it would be illegal to use the charges for the purposed of raising revenue! Even though the report itself seems to be a result of officers being asked to go away and find additional revenue. This point was omitted from the report! Until the Government deals with the underlying issue of parking enforcement used to raise revenue then the situation is not going to improve.
Dropped Kerbs I wish to share with the committee an example of how a local authority is so blinded by parking enforcement revenue that they put this above the safety of pedestrians. The problem concerns dropped kerbs in Westminster (and I suspect also other councils across the country as we have heard many reports of similar issues).
Please see picture above taken on a Sunday showing a car blocking a dropped kerb with a single yellow line and a clear dropped kerb opposite with double yellow lines. As your committee will be aware, a single yellow line means that waiting is enforced during controlled hours. Outside of controlled hours you can park. In Westminster, many dropped kerbs have double yellow lines cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w44 Transport Committee: Evidence
painted across them so motorists simply do not park across them. However, many dropped kerbs have single yellow lines across them. Motorists assume that as they are single yellow lines they can park outside of controlled hours. Westminster City Council are fully aware of the confusion as in the attached Common Sense report dated 29 April 2010 at appendix 15 they state: 1.1 “some unsuspecting and otherwise compliant motorists are parking in contravention of the dropped footway regulations and unwittingly incurring code 27 PCNs. As the dropped footways exist to improve accessibility for pedestrians crossing the road, it would be better for all concerned if parking restrictions at such areas were more clearly marked.” In fact tens of thousands of PCNs have been issued over the past few years resulting in a net income of £441,000 P.A. for Westminster (Appendix 15). You will see that the council also acknowledges in the attached report that: 1.2 An assumption has been made that the PCNs issued for dropped footway contraventions in the first year of enforcement would reduce by 90% with the presence of double yellow lines. The report was dated 29 April 2010 and many of the dropped kerbs with single yellow lines remain. It is only in part of the West End that , immediately after the City Council was forced to drop that proposals to charge until midnight and on Sundays, they converted many single yellow lines to doubles including dropped kerbs. I am convinced that this was a vindictive move against the many West End businesses that objected to the proposals. In other areas the single yellow lines across dropped kerbs remain and motorists are constantly ticketed. The council knows that blocked dropped kerbs cause problems for pedestrians, especially the elderly, disabled and mothers with prams but they have refused to paint double yellow lines across them. Put simply it seems that they will not paint double yellow lines on dropped kerbs to assist pedestrians as the money they are raking in fines from confused motorists is simply too much to lose. This is a scandal.
Signage Local authorities have no incentive to install correct or additional signage where motorists are obviously confused. Take one small loading bay in Finchley Road London NW3 where Transport for London issue over 13,000 tickets each year.(around £1.5 million) I have met them twice on site but their signs are still very confusing and seem non compliant with traffic signs regulations. Rather than install correct and additional inexpensive signage to make the restriction easier to understand they simply upgraded an enforcement camera at a cost of £15,000! (Appendix 16). Grace period—There should be a mandatory grace period of 5 minutes on all paid for parking bays after the expiry of paid for time. Most motorists, I am sure, insert more money than required just in case or return early on occasion. It is wrong that CEOs hang around waiting for the time to expire. Some councils already have a 5 minute grace period. This should be made universal. Fines—The fixed penalty for shoplifting is £80. The fixed penalty for a parking offence is between £70 and a massive and grossly disproportionate £130 in London. Around 70% of London parking fines are at the £130 rate and 30% at the lower £80 penalty. Why should motorists in London pay almost twice that elsewhere in the country? Surely an £80 fine is a large enough deterrent. Is a motorist more likely to be deterred from knowingly parking illegally by a £130 as opposed to an £80 fine? Statutory guidance—Make it mandatory instruction or enshrine it into law. As Danny Chalkley, Councillor at Westminster replied when I told him at a conference that he shouldn’t be using CCTV on Westminster’s streets, “It’s just guidance.” Councils frequently argue at appeals that the Guidance is merely guidance and no more. Section 10 VDA tickets—(Vehicle drive off) one crazy thing that Labour introduced was Section 10 VDA tickets. Thousands are being issued in one local authority alone. It is ridiculous that a CEO can quickly enter your registration number as you drive off and send the ticket in the post a couple of weeks later. One of the first boroughs to introduce these tickets was Enfield where over 50% of such tickets issued are challenged and less than 50% are paid (Appendix 13). Select Committee questions—In response to the specific questions of the select committee please see above and also my comments below.
The Committee would like to hear views on the adequacy of current arrangements for parking enforcement and the likely consequences of Government policy in this area. In particular: How should councils use their revenue from penalty charges, metered parking, car parks and residents’ parking? Should there be more local discretion over how income is used? No, there should not be more local discretion as it will encourage even more ruthless enforcement and the introduction of even more restrictions. Councils refer to the revenue raised as being ring fenced which technically it is. However, in my opinion, it basically goes into the general council pot as prior to the arrangement where councils could keep all this revenue, repairs to roads and other transport projects would be cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w45
paid for via the general fund. So this type of expenditure no longer comes from the general fund thus the general fund available for other council projects is much larger than it otherwise would be. I suggest that, in fact, money raised via Penalty Charge Notices (not casual parking bay income) is sent to central government much the same as speed camera income now is. Local authorities can then apply to the central fund for a particular transport project where they have insufficient income from paid for parking bays, residents permits, etc. This arrangement would have massive advantages as the current system unfairly rewards the most ruthless and overzealous enforcers. It rewards authorities who have the worst signage, who impose new parking controls on residents who do not want them, who harm businesses by enforcing for longer hours and on Sundays, who hide cameras on lampposts and refuse to remove them when businesses complain they are suffering, and who do not consider motorists representations properly. Why should local authorities who have fair and honest enforcement, who do not set ticket targets, who do not reward their wardens based on the number of tickets issued, who do not enforce silly minor transgressions of the rules in the name of revenue, who abide by the statutory guidance and who consider representations correctly and fairly be penalised with less revenue for their transport projects? Surely a fairer way would be for all surplus Penalty Charge Notice income (after paying their contractors or parking staff) to be sent to central Government and held in a fund. Individual authorities could then apply to the fund for their transport projects. This is similar to what the Government introduced on speed cameras where since the fine income is sent to central Government the explosion of speed cameras ceased. Local authorities would still keep the income raised from Pay and display bays, residents parking permits etc so authorities with larger areas of roadway would on average receive more in casual parking income. The new rules on speed cameras have led to a fairer system with fewer complaints (my experience via my website).
What impact will new technology, such as cashless parking, parking sensors and CCTV, have on local authority parking enforcement? CCTV Enforcement Local authorities use CCTV enforcement to enforce parking restrictions contrary to the DfT’s and against Government Statutory Guidance and Westminster council would seem to use it solely to raise revenue (Appendix 7). This year I suspect Westminster council alone will have issued over 50,000 tickets by CCTV (Appendix 7 for historic figures). The Government guidance on CCTV enforcement needs to be enshrined into law requiring mandatory compliance.
You can see the small black camera about a metre down from the top of the lamppost. Local authorities use CCTV enforcement to enforce parking restrictions contrary to the DfT’s and against Government Statutory Guidance and Westminster council would seem to use it solely to raise revenue (Appendix 7). This year I suspect Westminster council alone will have issued over 50,000 tickets by CCTV cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w46 Transport Committee: Evidence
(Appendix 7 for historic figures). The Government guidance on CCTV enforcement needs to be enshrined into law requiring mandatory compliance. I attach the relevant sections from the guidance at Appendix 7. You will see that it is clear in that: 8.78 Motorists may regard enforcement by cameras as over-zealous and authorities should use them sparingly. The Secretary of State recommends that approved devices are used only where enforcement is difficult or sensitive AND CEO enforcement is not practical. 8.79 The primary objective of any camera enforcement system is to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the road network by deterring motorists from breaking road traffic restrictions and detecting those that do. To do this, the system needs to be well publicised and indicated with lawful traffic signs. At the time that the guidance was introduced the then Transport Minister, Rosie Winterton, gave an example of when CCTV enforcement could be used.—On dual Carriageways with no pavements where it would be dangerous for a CEO to patrol. In fact the guidance reconfirms this: Enforcement on trunk roads and other high speed roads 13.17 It has, in the past, been considered inappropriate for local authorities to use their enforcement powers on high speed roads (including trunk roads) because of the dangers to CEOs. However, the power given in the TMA to use approved devices, which are best suited for use in situations such as on high speed roads where stopping and parking are banned, makes local authority enforcement of parking on these roads more practical. Some authorities may now wish to include some high speed roads in their designation orders. Councils Nationwide are now using CCTV cameras to enforce parking restrictions on the very same streets where their CEO’s are patrolling so they are clearly not in danger. Take Westminster and Camden and perhaps most councils in London. The maximum speed limit on their council controlled roads is 30 MPH, there are no sections of road that do not have pavements, there are very few areas indeed which are physically dangerous for CEO’s to patrol and all their roads are patrolled by their own CEO’s in any event. So how can they justify issuing hundreds of thousands of penalty charge notices by CCTV each year? We have a Westminster council Committee report from 2009 (appendix 7) that clearly states the revenue generation objective of “modifying the parking enforcement cameras as income levels will be significantly impacted by the loss of the camera network”. It refers to “ticket targets” of 736,000 PCNs, business plans, loss of revenue of £0.5 million for every 10,000 fewer tickets issued. There is another report from a Westminster council scrutiny panel confirming: Revenue 2.12 The only council department which uses CCTV directly for revenue generation is “Parking”. The Task Group therefore investigated the original business plan underpinning the use of wireless cameras for issuing Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs). Nowhere in either report does it mention that CCTV is used for parking enforcement in order to deal with problems of congestion and traffic management. These words are absent. It is illegal to use CCTV for parking enforcement solely to generate revenue. I have many examples of enforcement being carried out at locations where no obstruction is being caused but where businesses have complained of a substantial loss of business due to the hidden CCTV parking cameras being used (Appendix 5). Despite these protests the council have steadfastly refused to move the cameras. A local authority’s parking policies should take into account the fact that some motorists will need to stop for very short periods of time and also take into the account the detrimental effects on businesses that their parking policies cause. Not so long ago a motorist was entitled to stop on a single yellow line for 5 minutes. And only this week Eric Pickles announced that a 10 minute free period should be given to boost the economy. Pay by Phone parking—It can be very convenient and it usually works. But it discriminates against the elderly and people without mobile phones and also motorists have to wait up to 20 minutes to pay sometimes. Pay by phone is an option but it must remain an option. Westminster council have removed the majority of their pay and display machines and all of their parking metres. They gave me the last one! It should never be the only means of parking and there should therefore always be an alternative.
Sensor Technology This is the latest way to issue yet more tickets. Only Westminster Council in London is currently using them in England and this is on a trial basis. They are about to spend £15 million on installing them everywhere. However in typical Westminster council style they have dressed the scheme up as being of great assistance to the motorist when really I believe they are introducing it to be able to issue more parking tickets. For example below is the sign placed next to the bays. It mentions nothing about the sensors being used to increase the number of penalty charge notices or the data cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w47
being used to increase parking charges or to convert residents bays to pay and display bays which is surely the real reason why the council wants to proceed (see appendix 10 for evidence). Some motorists may be forgiven for thinking that Westminster city council is about to spend £15 million on assisting motorists to find a parking space.
In fact the “Parking App” scheme is flawed. I hear that it is not updated quickly enough and that Westminster advises motorists to check before they set off from home. This is silly as the situation when arriving at a parking bay would usually have changed in the interim. If the app does ever get to proper real time it encourages motorists to be constantly looking at their phones whilst driving, which is against the law and obviously dangerous. The sensors also protrude quite a bit and are a trip hazard right next to the roadway. It is quite easy for a pedestrian to walk into the road and trip over a sensor into the path of an oncoming vehicle. See the picture below.
PARKING BAY SENSOR
How effective are the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for England and Wales and the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service for London? (The Committee will not be considering individual cases and appeals.) The current appeals system needs an overhaul. Only around 1% of PCN’s issued result in an appeal to the adjudicator. This gives the impression that things are working, but they are not. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w48 Transport Committee: Evidence
A much higher percentage of motorists appeal in the first instance to the enforcing authority. Hopefully the committee will have data on initial appeals to an authority, but when I last heard it was over 20%. So if 1% go to formal adjudication what happens to the rest? Well some are cancelled by local authorities but of those that are not the vast majority of motorists pay at this stage. I cannot tell you how many emails I receive to my website or people who tell me about a parking ticket which should not have been issued and when I ask if they appealed to the adjudicator they say no as they can’t afford the risk of the loss of the 50% discount. Councils re-offer the discount when they reject an initial challenge and it is made very clear to a motorist that if they go to adjudication and lose they will lose the 50% discount. So motorists simply pay up. This is wrong as citizens who believe they have been treated unfairly should have the option of adjudication without a financial penalty. A few years ago when I met Robert Goodwill the then shadow roads minister he said one thing he would do if he became Roads Minister was to extend the discount period all the way to adjudication. See Mr Goodwill’s letter of 23 June 2008 in which he also refers to controlled parking zones (Appendix 8). It is wrong that councils should “play the system” in this way. It is absolutely disgraceful that local authorities are rejecting appeals they know would be successful at adjudication as they know that usually a motorist will cave in and pay up. However, when a motorist does take up the challenge and goes to the trouble of submitting an appeal often the council doesn’t even bother to contest it. THIS MUST CHANGE. See Non Contests below.
Non Contests When an appeal is not contested by a local authority no adjudication takes place. Therefore the motorist doesn’t know if he is right and the council does not get an unfavourable decision against them. This is not so in a court case. The matter is simply heard on the evidence presented and a ruling is made. Local authorities who would already have rejected an appeal that subsequently goes to an adjudicator should be made to contest the appeal or pay a penalty as surely if the motorist goes to the trouble of preparing an appeal the council should be prepared to submit its own evidence. At the moment an adjudicator can only award costs if the local authority has acted frivolously, vexatiously or wholly unreasonably, which in effect means almost never. The committee may well consider that not contesting an appeal is, in fact, “wholly unreasonable” but the adjudicators do not award costs on this basis. It is an absolute scandal how some councils do not consider motorists representations properly knowing that most will accept their rejection and pay up so as not to risk the loss of the 50% discount. Take the City Of London Corporation. They lost 99% of appeals at adjudication in the year ending 2011 and over 98% in the year ended 2012. In 86% and 77% of cases respectively the corporation did not even bother to contest the very same appeals that they themselves had already rejected (Appendix 6). How can an enforcement authority, who has already rejected a motorist’s appeal, not even submit evidence to the adjudicator? Councils like Westminster and the City of London do not contest appeals that they know they will lose. For example, neither of these councils had the correct controlled zone signage. Obviously if an adjudicator were to rule that their enforcement of single yellow lines within an incorrectly signed controlled zone was unlawful, as in the case of Westminster council (see section on CPZs), then other motorists could use the decision as evidence. So it is strategically but wrongly better not to contest the appeal. Councils must be compelled to defend cases that they have rejected unless substantial and material new evidence comes to light which would be very rare indeed. They should be forced to compensate motorists for their time and trouble in appealing and there is no good reason why they should not. Adjudicators should be allowed to award costs in these circumstances.
Should parking policy in London be subject to separate provisions and guidance, given, in particular, its large parking revenue surpluses, its more integrated public transport network and the number of foreign- registered vehicles in the city? Much of my experience is in London although I see a lot of cases outside London as well. As you will be aware, parking fines in London rose again last year to a whopping £130 which is around double that of parking fines elsewhere in the UK. In London there is a two tier system where lesser penalties which account for around 30% of all fines are £80. In fact very few contraventions attract the lower penalty. There is no reason why fines in London should be any higher than in other cities. £130 is double the fine for speeding and substantially more than the fine for shoplifting £80 and other civil offences. It is also almost double the maximum fine levied elsewhere in the country (£70). I have been told by Nick Lester at London Councils that fines are set at the minimum level to ensure compliance. However, when compliance actually improved London councils also increased the penalty! (Bus lanes) I have not seen any evidence that a £130 penalty is any more of a deterrent than say an £80 penalty, which is still £10 more than anywhere else in the country. Whilst I accept that some foreign registered vehicles do not pay their fines, it is also the case that when motorists from abroad holidaying here who are caught by a CCTV camera are put at an even greater cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w49
disadvantage than motorists living in London, as they have no real opportunity to return to the parking place to check the signage after receiving the PCN in the post several weeks later.
How can local authorities strike a balance between using parking policy to manage congestion and using it to encourage people into town centres?
Kensington and Chelsea council offered free parking for 2 hours on Saturday when Westfield opened in Shepherds Bush, which I understand was effective. However, the offer was withdrawn and in fact last year they increased parking charges from £3 to £4 in response to a challenge on the budget deficit! Raising charges to increase income is illegal (Cran vs Camden).
Unfortunately, as confirmed in the Mary Portas report, parking charges and restrictions discourage motorists from using town centres. Often councils are only concerned with the revenue that they can generate from parking fees and fines and have little regard for the businesses which are adversely affected.
This is apparent from the almost weekly press reports. Take Westminster Council in London. In 2009 in the worst recession for decades they increased parking charges north of Oxford Street by 33% from £3 to £4 and they have since increased them again to £4.40. At the same time they proposed a “harmonisation” of parking charges in St John’s Wood which would have meant a 100% increase in parking fines. If they wanted to “harmonise” the charges across 2 separate zones why not reduce the charges in the other zone or even set an average charge across the 2 zones. This was not even in the report. Businesses and residents should have a much greater say in parking policies that directly affect them.
In the last year, according to The Standard, around half of the London boroughs have increased parking charges significantly—some by 100%. Across the country local authorities have been putting up charges by substantial amounts some even saying so in order to raise additional revenue.
Until you stop local authorities from increasing charges as they wish, the problem of deteriorating high streets will not be addressed. Out of town centres have a massive advantage over high streets.
It was pleasing to hear Eric Pickles’ idea of free parking for 10 minutes outside shops. This will make a real difference as rigorous enforcement drives shoppers away. Take Elgin Avenue in Maida Vale. It is not a really busy road. If cars stop on a single yellow line they are not causing an obstruction and the yellow lines are situated between paid for bays. Yet Westminster Council installed two hidden cameras to catch out motorists. This has been in the press and on the BBC, but the council just carries on enforcing (Appendix 5). Several of these businesses have seen a very substantial decrease in their trade since the cameras were installed. The cameras should not be there according to the government guidance, as the area is well patrolled by Civil Enforcement Officers and yet Westminster Council refuses to remove them. They are raking in tens of thousands in fines but the local shops are suffering (Appendix 5). This is one example. The press has also reported on a similar circumstance in Abbey Road outside a local shopping parade and also in Harrow Road. Camden Council is just as bad.
How can smaller local authorities use parking provision to manage congestion? Do they need to work regionally and strategically with neighbouring councils?
See my response to question 1 above regarding the income raised from fines which should be sent to central Government so all councils can apply for funding for transport projects (casual parking bay income should remain with local authorities).
What role does the Workplace Parking Levy have? Would people be more inclined to use park and ride services if there were a charge to park at work?
It is simply another tax on businesses as businesses would pick up a large proportion of the bill.
Are there steps local authorities can take, while managing congestion, to make it easier for businesses to trade and make deliveries?
Yes, they can start introducing policies that assist business rather than penalise them. Please see my general submission for all my suggestions and comments.
The Committee would welcome images of incomprehensible or poorly worded parking signs from the public. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w50 Transport Committee: Evidence
Acacia Road St John’s Wood (now replaced) but they haven’t been replaced in Carlton Vale!
In Brent the council forgot to write “No Loading” at the top of the white section. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w51
Are parking signs clear and comprehensible? To what extent are unclear signs and instructions the cause of breaches of parking control? CONTROLLED PARKING ZONES (CPZS)
Above a CPZ sign Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) are a prime example of how motorists are confused leading to many tickets being issued unnecessarily. They should be abolished and clear roadside signage installed on single yellow lines at the point of parking. The idea of a CPZ is to negate the need to place roadside signage on single yellow lines within the zone as long as the controlled hours on the single yellow lines are the same as the CPZ. Motorists are expected to remember what restrictions apply on single yellow lines having passed an entry point to a CPZ and a CPZ sign. This is often impossible. Quite often a motorist can easily be parking 15 minutes after passing a sign or at the other extreme in some areas such as Hampstead there are so many different zones that it is incredibly confusing. Motorists expect, and I believe are entitled, to clear roadside signage at the point of parking. Put simply, CPZs do not work in most situations and millions of tickets have been issued on single yellow lines. There are CPZs operating pretty much throughout London and towns and cities nationwide. Westminster Council alone in London issued up to one million tickets on single yellow lines in a 6 year period. There are so many zones in Camden and in Westminster the zones contain many times the maximum number of streets of 12 recommended by the DFT in their statutory guidance. In slow moving traffic one could easily be parking 15 minutes after passing a CPZ sign. So Westminster Council’s main zone in the West End includes all of zones E, F and G and therefore extends from Piccadilly to Marylebone Road with no signs in between (except when leaving a red route). None of their subzones for example E1, F3 etc. have signage. In London there are 33 local authorities, most enforcing different hours on single yellow lines in different parts of their boroughs! How is a motorist supposed to know when he can safely park with no roadside signage? If there was clear roadside signage at the point of parking on single yellow lines the number of tickets issued would plummet. Some councils cite street clutter as a reason for not erecting the small yellow signs on yellow lines. However these signs are a fraction of the size of the legally required signs on parking bays and often can be put on existing poles or lampposts. Don’t take my word for it that CPZs are incredibly confusing for motorists. The DoT commissioned a survey a couple of years back and the conclusion was that CPZs were confusing for motorists. I attach a copy of the survey at appendix 11. And attach extracts from it below: “30% of motorists surveyed, did not know they were in a Controlled parking Zone. Approximately 30% of motorists did not notice any parking (CPZ) signs when entering the CPZ. Of those who did notice signs relatively few people noticed the CPZ entry sign (between 23% and 37% at each site). The important point being that yellow line repeater plates should be used along all stretches of single yellow lines so that motorists are not expected to remember the times displayed on the entry signs. CPZ signs and markings are often hard to spot. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w52 Transport Committee: Evidence
It can be said that of the responses received, CPZ and RZ signing and lining are not a popular way to exercise parking control. In Norwich and Peterborough the councils reported that motorists have particular problems with signing and lining of CPZ’s and RZ’s. Norwich also stated that ‘motorists often do not remember the information on CPZ entry signs’. A key feature of any CPZ is that motorists must pass an entry sign which displays the waiting and loading restrictions in the zone they are entering. Motorists are expected to retain this information while they are driving around the zone possibly looking for a place to park on street. An expectation that motorists should retain some of the information displayed on a CPZ entry sign may be placing an unnecessary burden on them. There is a strong case for providing regulatory information close to where parking will occur or for providing the information in other forms. Using these arguments there would appear to be a case for replacing the concept of CPZ’s as they are currently established. Based on the findings of this research study, TRL recommend that controlled parking zones should not relate specifically to waiting and loading restrictions and that motorists should not be expected to remember the restrictions while they drive around a zone.”
Attached at Appendix 12 are 3 emails received by me in the past few weeks specifically in relation to single yellow lines and CPZs. You can see how confusing CPZs are first hand. Please do not publish these.
The other real issue with controlled parking zones is that quite often the signs at the point of entry are missing, obstructed and incorrectly orientated. Motorists therefore may have absolutely no way of knowing the hours of enforcement on single yellow lines.
Illegal Enforcement Finally, in my submission I would like to share with the committee one of the worst examples I have seen of what I believe to be illegal enforcement concerning Westminster City Council, which I believe issued up to £80 million of parking fines on single yellow lines in full knowledge that none of their CPZs were signposted correctly and that it was illegal to issue the Penalty Charge Notices. The law is clear in that clear roadside signage must be installed on all single yellow lines unless the council relies on the exemption to sign if the yellow lines are situated in a correctly signposted CPZ. Westminster Council were not entitled to this exemption as they did not signpost their CPZ’s correctly. I discovered this in 2003 and wrote to the City Council which replied to say that they did not have the resources to check their signage! (Appendix 12)
So I complained to the Department of Transport who took the matter up with the City council and wrote to them on at least two occasions (Appendix 12). However, Westminster Council took no action to correct their CPZ signage generally and instead continued to issue hundreds of thousands of tickets. I cannot tell you how many tickets they issued illegally as there is no distinction between single yellow lines and double yellow lines which carry the same contravention code. However, I can tell you that the council issued over one million tickets on yellow lines in just a five year period, and I know that they were issuing tickets on single yellow lines for many years before 2003. It is a fact that many more PCNs are issued on single yellow lines than double yellow lines.
Now you may ask what the adjudicators said when motorists took their cases to appeal. The committee will no doubt be shocked to hear that such cases did not usually get to appeal because Westminster Council either conceded and cancelled the ticket or simply did not even contest such cases. Again your committee may be shocked to learn that in the year ending 2010 Westminster City Council did not contest 77% of all appeals to the adjudicator (Appendix 6). A colleague of mine used the CPZ argument to have a very large number of tickets cancelled by the council. They simply did not contest them. However, in November 2008 a recognised industry expert acting for a motorist who was ticketed on a single yellow line within a CPZ managed to get a case before an adjudicator. I believe he did this by putting forward a very weak diversionary argument that Westminster knew they would win but when he got to the adjudication hearing he added the CPZ defence. The adjudicator had to adjourn the hearing to give the council time to comment. The council delayed and delayed. Eventually the adjudicator went out and had a look at the zone himself and couldn’t find one CPZ sign!! He ruled that the signage was “unlawful” (Keystone distribution UK VS Westminster—Appendix 12) and the council was in trouble. The council carried out a survey and found that around 236 essential signs were missing and they ordered the correct signs (Appendix 12 in relation to one small subzone alone). However, it was a further four months before the signs were erected during which time they issued a further 15–20,000 PCNs in their full knowledge that the issuing of such tickets was unlawful. Shortly afterwards it was reported that Westminster’s wardens were issuing single yellow line tickets and the bosses were writing on them “cancel if challenged!”
Interestingly on 17 March 2012 another adjudicator again found that the “signage” did not clearly communicate to the motorist the CPZ restrictions that were in force (Appendix 12—Dr Isidore Margaronis v Westminster). cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w53
Conclusion I apologise that the above submission is longer than you would have liked but it does include pictures and extracts which I thought would be helpful as well as providing a lot of information. It is also in a large font with generous formatting to allow for easy reading.The appendices referred to are in the attached ring binder. As aforementioned I am prepared to attend before your committee if you think it would be helpful. March 2013
Written evidence from Guide Dogs (PE 32)
1.0 About Guide Dogs 1.1 Guide Dogs provides mobility and rehabilitation services to increase the independence, well-being and dignity of blind and partially sighted people in the UK. Services are delivered through 20 local Mobility Teams. Our core service is the guide dog service which involves the training and provision of assistance dogs to blind and partially sighted people, working with both guide dog and owner to create a successful partnership through which the individual can become as independently mobile as possible, getting out and about safely and with confidence. 1.2 Alongside our mobility work we campaign to break down physical and legal barriers to enable blind and partially sight people to get around on their own. A major issue of concern reported to us by blind and partially sighted people is obstacles on pavements such as bins, street furniture, overhanging branches and, most relevantly, cars parked on pavements.
2.0 The Problem of Pavement Parking 2.1 The practice of pavement parking is widespread. A recent YouGov survey carried out for Guide Dogs found that 54% of drivers admit to parking on the pavement, of which 17% are doing it once a week or more.1 A key reason for pavement parking is due to roads being too narrow to accommodate parking on both sides. As congestion increases this problem will be aggravated. 2.2 Pavement parking creates an obstacle for pedestrians, making it especially difficult for mothers with pushchairs, wheelchair users and people with limited mobility to use the pavement safely. Blind and partially sighted people are particularly affected as they may not be able to detect and avoid a parked car. Alternatively they may be forced into the road, particularly dangerous if they are unable to perceive oncoming traffic or the return to the kerb is obstructed by a line of cars. Most dangerous is parking over dropped kerbs and at raised crossing points, therefore blocking access to crossings. These crossing areas are usually placed within routes that guide dogs are able to learn and are therefore relied upon by blind and partially sighted people. In the worst cases, pavements obstructed by poorly parked cars can stop blind and partially sighted people from being able to leave their homes. 2.3 An additional problem is the damage caused to pavements, which are not designed to take the weight of vehicles. A vehicle’s weight can cause paving to crack and the tarmac surface to subside. This presents a hazard to pedestrians who may trip on broken pavements—again particularly dangerous for blind and partially sighted people who cannot detect the damage. 2.4 Broken pavements caused by pavement parking are not only dangerous but expensive. A Guide Dogs’ report found that local authorities paid over £1 billion on repairing kerbs, pavements and walkways between 2006 and 2010. £106 million was paid in compensation claims due to people tripping and falling on broken pavements during the same five year period.2 2.5 Guide Dogs wrote to local authorities in January 2013 and received a large number of responses outlining how serious an issue pavement parking can be for local authorities. An illustrative sample of anonymised comments is included here: 2.5.1 “Pavement parking is a problem for the Council as it costs us a great deal of money to repair broken pavements, in addition to the obvious problems not only for blind people but also those in wheelchairs, mobility scooters and with double buggies and prams.” 2.5.2 “The inconsiderate and dangerous practice of motorists blocking the free passage of pedestrians on the footway is totally unacceptable and should be dealt with in such a manner that it becomes as inappropriate as drink driving, or using a mobile telephone whilst driving.” 2.5.3 “I worry all the time about the amount of cars that pretty well block the pavements leaving little room for even able bodied pedestrians to get by, and more particularly, that drivers park so that the blind or poor sighted pedestrians cannot avoid walking into these parked cars.” 1 The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, Parking Attitudes Survey, 2013 2 The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, Cracking Under Pressure Report, 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w54 Transport Committee: Evidence
2.5.4 “I share your concerns over illegally parked cars on the pavement. This makes it difficult and dangerous for pedestrians—both sighted and blind—who have to step into the road. It also damages the pavements.”
3.0 Existing Legislation 3.1 The current legal situation is complex. Since 1991, parking on pavements has been a decriminalised offence in many parts of the UK and is essentially the responsibility of individual local authorities. In England, outside of London, local authorities have some limited powers to address pavement parking under a number of Acts: — The Town Police Clauses Act 1847 can give police the authority to prosecute for driving on the pavement and obstruction of the pavement. However it has been reported to Guide Dogs that due to various legal technicalities and resource implications police are reluctant to use these powers. — The Highways Act 1980 gives local authorities power to prosecute over damage to the pavements. However, this damage has to be witnessed by local authority enforcement officers at the time the damage first occurs. Somebody driving onto an already damaged pavement would therefore successfully claim that they had not caused the original damage. — The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 allows prosecution by local authority parking attendants at locations where waiting restrictions are in place adjacent to the pavement or where a Traffic Regulation Order has been issued banning pavement parking in a specific area. In 2011 the Transport Minister wrote to English local authorities giving them the freedom to implement TRO powers without specifically seeking the permission of the Department for Transport. — The Road Traffic Act 1988 prohibits heavy goods vehicles from parking on pavements, and can be enforced by local authority parking attendants. However, the majority of pavement parking is carried out by cars and vans, which are not covered by the Act. 3.2 The powers available to local authorities in Wales are broadly similar to those in England. Seven Welsh local authorities employ civil enforcement officers, with another two starting in April 2013. In the remaining local authority areas enforcement is the responsibility of the police. It has been reported to Guide Dogs that the situation of pavement parking in Wales has worsened since decriminalisation in 1991. 3.3 In Northern Ireland the enforcement of parking restrictions is the responsibility of the Department for Regional Development’s Roads Service. Pavement parking is not permitted on urban clearways and where parking restrictions are marked on the road these also apply to the pavement. In these instances penalty charge notices can be issued but otherwise there is no general ban on pavement parking and penalty charge notices cannot be issued to vehicles on a pavement. In the most serious instances of obstruction the Police Service of Northern Ireland are able to take action. The Departments for Regional Development and Environment have agreed the need for penalty notices and are currently drafting proposed legislation to empower the police to issue penalty notices to cars parked on pavements. 3.4 In Scotland driving on pavements or obstructing access to a pavement are both illegal. However there is a lack of clarity, which was demonstrated in February 2012 when a motorist won a legal challenge against Edinburgh City Council on pavement parking. Pavement parking is rarely prosecuted. Sandra White MSP is attempting to bring a Private Member’s Bill, the Responsible Parking (Scotland) Bill which would enable local authorities to take action against inconsiderate parking. 3.5 The lack of a cohesive national approach may well explain why there is considerable regional disparity in pavement parking practices. In Scotland 60% of drivers have said they never parked on pavements, more than double the figure in the North West of England which was 28%.3
4.0 The Limitations of Local Measures 4.1 Following discussions with local authorities Guide Dogs understands they are reluctant to use the measures available to them to prevent pavement parking. The limited geographical scope of available measures means that they are often ineffective—for example the imposition of a Traffic Regulation Order in one road may simply displace parking problems to surrounding roads. Physical barrier schemes similarly may just transfer the location of a parking problem meaning that, in order to be effective, they need to cover large areas and so can become high in cost for local authorities.
5.0 Incomprehensible Signage—“Shared Space” 5.1 Guide Dogs is concerned with the lack of driver comprehension of “Shared Space” signage and the safety implications for blind and partially sighted pedestrians. “Shared space” areas are especially difficult for blind and partially sighted people to navigate due to the absence of the kerb which usually allows people to differentiate between road and footpath. Guide Dogs is concerned that in recent research conducted by YouGov,4 33% of drivers admitted to not knowing what a sign reading “Shared Space” meant, and 62% of 3 The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, Parking Attitudes Survey, 2013 4 YouGov survey January 2013, please see note 1.1 at end of document. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w55
drivers didn’t select the correct answer. If drivers are not aware that they do not have immediate priority on such schemes, this poses a real threat to the safety of blind and partially sighted pedestrians.
6.0 Guide Dogs Recommendations 6.1 To reduce regional disparity, improve clarity under the law, and properly tackle the growing problem of pavement parking Guide Dogs recommends a nationwide ban similar to that in place in London. Parking on pavements throughout London is prohibited, unless signs specifically permit it, under the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974. If caught, drivers can face up to a £100 fine, discouraging traffic in the most congested parts of the city. 6.2 A nationwide ban of the type we advocate was recommended by the Transport Select Committee in 2006. The Committee’s Report recognises the benefits of a ban, stating “a ban on pavement parking would benefit many people, including people with disabilities” and going on to recommend: “The Government must grip the problem of pavement parking once and for all and ensure that it is outlawed throughout the country, and not just in London. Councils should have the option of an ‘opt-out’ of a national pavement parking ban where this is vital, rather than relying on the use of individual Traffic Regulation Orders on specific street and local Acts to impose a ban. That such an initiatives will initial require additional resources to enforce is no excuse for allowing some pavements to continue to be swamped by cars and made inaccessible to large numbers of pedestrians.”5 6.3 Communications with councillors has indicated that this type of measure would be supported by local authorities. As one local councillor put it in a letter to us: “In London, there is a blanket ban on pavement parking and I would welcome this legislation being extended to all the country”. 6.4 Guide Dogs recommends that signage in relation to shared space schemes clearly indicates the correct priority usage for the scheme.
Notes 1.1 In a survey commissioned by Guide Dogs and conducted by YouGov in January 2013, 1655 people who identified themselves as drivers were asked: “Please imagine you were driving and saw a sign that said ‘Shared Space’”… Entering an area where vehicles and people have equal 38% priority (ie no traffic lights, pedestrian crossings etc) Don’t know 33% Entering an area where shared parking spaces are 14% available (ie disabled bays or mother and child bays) Entering a pedestrian priority area 6% Entering an area where you can park anywhere 4% Entering an area where you can drive anywhere on the 3% street as there are no kerbs None of these 2% March 2013
Written evidence from Derek Dishman (PE 33) 1. Introduction My name is Derek Dishman. I write the Mr Mustard blog about Barnet Council which includes many examples of unjust parking tickets (penalty charge notices or PCN). I help friends to appeal their parking tickets with 10 cancelled so far and another 30 currently being appealed.
2. Hypocrisy If we were to believe local authorities who say that parking tickets are intended to educate the public to park within the rules and that they would be happy if they didn’t issue a single ticket in a year then we have to conclude that they are, at best, failing in their aim and at worst, liars. Taking the London Borough of Barnet (“Barnet Council”) as an example they issue 150,000 parking tickets in a year.
3. Education If councils don’t want to issue parking tickets then they should be educating the public about lawful and considerate parking practice which may have been forgotten since their driving test. There is plenty of money available and it could be spent on educating people in order to improve their parking for the benefit of all although that would lead to less revenue for the council and could be why it doesn’t happen. 5 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmtran/748/74815.htm#a33 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w56 Transport Committee: Evidence
Having asked Barnet Council about education I was told: Tomorrow we will be leafleting the new Event Day (Saracens) Controlled Parking Zone, advising motorists of the new restrictions in place and how to avoid parking in contravention, and I am sure we have done similar when Controlled Parking Zones have been introduced in the past. We do publicise what restrictions we enforce on our website however, I would advise that motorists are expected to understand and abide by the Highway Code (this is a condition in which their drivers (sic) licence is issued). I do believe that when a Penalty Charge Notice has been issued must check the signage, ask themselves why they received said notice, consult the Highway Code and alter their parking habits from there. So leaflets were only being issued on the very day that new unusual restrictions came into force and many residents ended up being ticketed as they didn’t know about the new rules coming into force that day. Not many drivers from Barnet, let alone from the rest of the country, will consult the council website before their journey. The Highway Code is a quick guide to the main parking problems but is not comprehensive by any means. I don’t think that being issued with a parking ticket is the best way of teaching people to comply as they may still not understand what they have done wrong. We need the parking ticket equivalent of Driver Improvement Courses that speeding drivers are offered.
4. Cash Cow The current enforcement system is based upon expediency but once that is paired with a zero tolerance attitude in a council then it simply becomes a cash cow. The Barnet Council website says “We simply require that our officers, when on duty, issues penalties to vehicles observed in contravention.” Note that traffic wardens are required to issue a parking ticket, they have no discretion. This leads to the maximum number of parking tickets being issued and more money into the council’s coffers.
5. Guilty until Proven Innocent Parking tickets are an area where you are guilty until proven innocent, and if the council are guilty of an error they don’t have to pay a penalty. I looked at a parking ticket where the sign was blacked out by a vandal which means that the pay parking bay cannot be enforced as the instructions on how to pay are obliterated and thus you can park for free. One lady did. She received a parking ticket and the photograph of the parking sign was taken on the other side of the road. This was described by Barnet Council when challenged by me as “an error” and “an oversight”. I suggested compensation of £60 (£30 if paid within 14 days) would be in order and the response from the parking process manager was “I have noted the request for compensation, and I would advise that an appropriate remedy has been applied in that the Penalty Charge Notice has now been cancelled as in line with our statutory obligation.” so the remedy offered by Barnet Council for being put at risk of having to pay £60 by an error, or as I suspect a bit of cheating, was that the lady who got the parking ticket did not have to pay it, which is no remedy at all. The lady did have to waste her time on the matter though. I think that parking tickets which are issued and then cancelled on grounds of mistake should lead to the innocent party being paid the same sum as the council demanded. This might make councils generally more careful in how they issue them.
6. All about the Money What parking is really about is money. I refer you to Barnet’s Final v2.5 Business Case for the Future of the Parking service produced in November 11, just prior to the award of the contract for enforcement to a private company. This shows you (p124) that the budgeted income was £13.6 million and costs were £6 million leaving an expected surplus of £7.6 million, an appreciable sum.
7. Parking Subsidises Council Tax Why this surplus is important to Barnet Council is that it is being relied on to keep Council Tax down. If you look at the budget figures for the year to 31 March 2013 then the Council Tax requirement (ie the amount to be collected from council tax payers) is £203,301,306 but this was after reducing it by the expected surplus on the Special Parking Account (“SPA”—excludes off street car parks) of £6,895,970 which is 3.4% of the Council Tax requirement. So were it not for parking tickets (the largest element of the SPA) a one-off Council Tax rise of 3.4% would be needed.
8. Parking Income is Targeted Proof that parking ticket income is being relied upon is found in the attitude of Barnet Council to a drop in the forecast level of income. On 18 October 2012 Cabinet Resources Committee were presented with the 1st qtr 2012–13 figures (ie to 30 June 2012). There was a projected shortfall of £1.22 million in the SPA and rather than simply accepting that as a fact because the SPA is not meant to be a target or used to subsidise cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w57
services, it was noted in the report that Parking Recovery Plans were being developed. I have been unable to get hold of a copy of the Parking Recovery Plan with my Freedom of Information Request having been deemed to be vexatious. A councillor who is not in the Cabinet has told me he isn’t being allowed to see it either as it is “commercially sensitive”. I therefore have to surmise that given that in the year ended 31 March 2012 the Special Parking Account income was made up of 10% from permits, 31% from paying to park on the street and 59% from parking tickets that there is going to be pressure on the enforcement contractor to issue more parking tickets and to collect a greater proportion of them.
9. Explosion of Income Over a Decade Further demonstration of the way that the public is being abused is by comparing 2002 with 2012 and seeing what has happened in a decade. Allowing 48% for inflation in that decade the above inflation increase in revenue was 85% for parking tickets (are drivers almost twice as bad at parking now than they were 10 years ago or has enforcement been ramped up?) permits by 293% (the rise in car permits from £40 to £100 is mostly to blame—we were sold the CPZ scheme in Chipping Barnet in 1987 on the basis of it merely covering its costs) and paid for parking by 151% (mostly caused by a massive hike in March 2011 which is now slowly being partially reversed one town centre at a time as it turned out to have killed the golden goose).
10. Rationing to Help the High Street How should parking be rationed? Currently the blunt instrument of price is being used. If a High Street has a shortage of parking then it could be rationed by the use of a variety of time limited bays. The bays which are right in the middle of the town centre could be for 15, 30 and 60 minutes and parking tickets could be issued for over-staying. As you get further away from the centre of town the bays could be for 2 hours or 4 hours up to all day and that would encourage shop-workers to park on the edge and walk in, thus leaving more space for shoppers. Barnet Council don’t want the expense of collecting cash and don’t now have a single coin operated parking meter and doing away with using money as a rationing medium avoids the perceived problem of the cost of cash collection.
11. Killing the High St & Pay by Phone The council by their policy of extracting huge sums from car drivers are putting them off from visiting the High St, they go instead to shopping centres which have ample free parking or other high streets where free parking is still available.
12. Council Hinder Instead of Helping If High Streets are to survive councils need to take positive steps to help them. The wholesale removal of cash parking meters was a killer blow which led to turnover falls of 30% to 40% for many traders at a time of recession. Barnet Council is rather unusual as a council in having decided to remove all of its coin operated parking meters in early 2012 and replace them with a pay by phone system (you could also pay at a paypoint shop if you knew where they were although you could easily get a parking ticket whilst you were doing that. You could buy a voucher at a library although they are not open at 8am when some parking restrictions start. You could find a business which sells Parking Vouchers although when I asked the council to give me a list of businesses selling these vouchers in East Finchley they were unable to tell me of a single business that did so). Pay-by-phone discriminates against the elderly who are less likely to have a mobile phone, the poor, the disabled, people with poor hearing who find using a phone in the street difficult, and the up to two million people who don’t have a bank account and thus can’t get a debit card or probably a credit card. They are simply told to pay by another method or park elsewhere. Welcome to Barnet!
13. The Return of Meters Parking meters are now returning slowly to car parks in Barnet but they will only accept debit and credit cards. So this is an improvement as you will not have to have your valuable mobile phone on display in a public place against police advice. You can insert your payment card there and then into a slot and receive a ticket showing that you have paid which you place on the dashboard in time-honoured fashion. This is an improvement on recent poor provision of payment methods but still discriminates against the unbanked and the elderly many of whom much prefer cash for small transactions such as these. It also prevents coding error where you find that the vehicle registration number has been entered incorrectly on the pay-by-phone computer or that you have paid for the wrong bay and both of these events lead to parking tickets being needlessly issued and once issued the council are very reluctant to cancel them.
14. Money Talks Further proof that parking is about revenue raising is that Barnet Council ran a pilot scheme in May 2012 to use a CCTV equipped car for enforcement. Notes from the regular meetings between the outsourced provider of parking enforcement for the council, NSL Ltd, and officers of the council include that they needed to find the most feasible location for the car to visit and that having monitored four to five schools (presumably for cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w58 Transport Committee: Evidence
breaching parking on zigzags) they observed only 1 contravention. The conclusion was “Cost does not justify means” which tells us most emphatically that it is all about the money.
15. CCTV The statutory guidance on parking enforcement from the Secretary of State for Transport issued on 28 February 2008 states in respect of approved devices, which are ones used without a Civil Enforcement Officer (“CEO”) being present at the scene, “the Sec of State recommends that approved devices are used only where enforcement is difficult or sensitive and CEO enforcement is not practical.” How that allows Haringey Council to enforce parking by cctv in a parking bay in the perfectly safe and easily patrolled Hornsey High Street is hard to see. The same question arises in Turner St, Tower Hamlets, London E1 where a lady asked a passing traffic warden if she was OK to park there using her blue badge (the London hospital is adjacent) and he said yes. She then received eight parking tickets across 10 days (she had been visiting her terminally ill brother) and she did not know about the earliest ticket until after the last one was issued. Seven tickets were issued by camera and the eighth by a traffic warden on foot which rather ruins their argument that the location cannot be enforced on foot because it is “busy”. If the traffic warden was issuing the tickets she would have known she was in the wrong on day 1. People regard parking tickets issued by CCTV as very big brother and this turns the citizen against the state.
16. If the Council makes an Error... In 2008 the legislation about Penalty Charge Notices changed and the wording on them should have changed. On six occasions in the last 12 months the independent adjudicator (PATAS—Parking and Traffic Appeals Service) has cancelled Barnet PCN for this very reason. Given that the wrong wording renders the PCN invalid I cannot see any reason why the council do not cancel every currently outstanding wrongly worded parking ticket and refund all the ones that were paid when the wording was incorrect (many people pay up for a quiet life and don’t have the time, the knowledge or the inclination to argue). The only reason I can think of is that the council is desperate to hang on to its ill-gotten gains. It rather sticks in the craw when the public are expected to stick to the rules and get a parking ticket if they are a single minute beyond the paid for time, or an inch outside of the parking bay, and yet the council blithely ignore their own wrong-doings.
17. Judge and Jury There are three possible chances of appeal regarding a parking ticket affixed to your windscreen. The first is an informal one within 28 days of receiving the parking ticket. This is decided upon by the council. The problem is that if they exercise discretion in favour of the motorist the council then has less money in its coffers. The temptation is to reject the informal approach, I have seen the identical argument then used at the formal stage (once the Notice to Owner has been issued) and be accepted. The only way to ensure that the council are impartial is to remove the financial incentive from councils to issue tickets. I know Localism is paramount but the revenue needs to go to a central pot to stop the council using motorists as a cash cow. Of course bad parking needs to be discouraged, or even better encourage good parking by educating motorists, but I cannot think of a time in my 25 years in Barnet, and I have travelled extensively for business, that I was prevented from proceeding by a badly parked car. You might say this means that parking enforcement is working but the stick isn’t leading to a solution if there are 150,000 parking tickets a year in Barnet alone.
18. Clamping and Vehicle Removal Luckily we don’t have these in Barnet (except removal of abandoned vehicles) and it strikes me that these are disproportionate remedies for minor contraventions. Clamping has been outlawed on private land and the same should now follow for local authorities. Removal should be allowed only where there is real physical obstruction of traffic flow and should be a rare event.
19. CPZ Entry Signs Controlled parking zones were only ever expected to be an area of a few streets but have exploded in size. From my house in Chipping Barnet to one edge of the zone, where the times of operation are on a pair of large signs, is over a mile. If someone misses the signs on the way to my road there is no way of knowing the times of operation of single yellow lines which do not have to be time plated if the entire zone has signs at the entry points. It may be that the traffic was very heavy at the edge of the zone and the driver was concentrating, as they should, on the road and not trying to read a sign which said, say, “Mon–Fri 8am–6.30pm, Sat 9am–6pm, Sun 9am–5pm”. The option of CPZ entry signs to remove the necessity to time plate every location should be removed in the interests of absolute clarity at the point of parking and on road safety grounds.
20. The Appeal Process The current process takes to long and has too many stages. A penalty of £110 for a higher-level contravention (1 minute on a single yellow is enough) is an excessive penalty for the contravention and is 17 hours pay at the minimum wage. The option to pay 50% within 14 days discriminates against the poor who might have to cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w59
wait until at least the next pay day to try and pay. The blanket refusal of payment by instalments is also unfair. A motorist admits their error and wants to pay £10 a week. They are refused and then the £110 goes up to £165, which I regard as an excessive penalty for non-payment, and then they are sent to the County Court to be registered as a debtor and then bailiffs are instructed and can clamp the motorist’s car or take goods from the home. The amount owed, with bailiff’s charges, will soon be up to £500 which is patently unreasonable. Here is a possible timetable as things stand now: Day 1—Receive PCN by day 29 sent in informal appeal by day 43 (in theory) get rejected by day 180 receive Notice to Owner by day 208 send in formal appeal by day 266 get rejected by day 294 appeal to PATAS by about 330 have PATAS hearing So that is nearly a year of anxiety over an alleged parking contravention. Is this really the way people should be treated? I think that there should be only one charge level and it should be much more modest. There shouldn’t be the 50% discount for paying within 14 days as that tempts people to pay even when they are innocent of any error. There should only be two appeals, the first one to the council and the second one to PATAS all on a vastly speeded up timetable. This could mainly be achieved by the Notice to Owner having to be issued within 60 days rather than 180.
21. What the Motorist has to put up with I attach a list of eight sample cases showing unhelpful or pedantic behaviour by councils which needs to be curbed in some way. March 2013
Written evidence from David Attfield (PE 35) I wish to make three broad points in response to your call for evidence. Broadly, the three points have a common theme: That parking enforcement policy has ceased to be run for the benefit of residents and business. It has become a hindrance when it should of course be a help.
Unfair Residents’ Parking Charges Residential CPZs should not be run for profit. CPZ are often misrepresented as conferring on residents a right to park. I don’t think this is quite correct. The service provided by residential CPZs is to exclude road users who do not have an interest in being able to park. Before the CPZ was introduced in my road, I had the right to park. The introduction of the CPZ did not confer on me the right to park. The service I pay for therefore is the exclusion of others. That service should not be run at a profit. Owning a car is a necessity for most people and the cost of parking it at one’s home should the minimum necessary to operate the CPZ effectively. Of even more concern is how Barnet Council charges for visitor parking. At one point, the flat charge for a visitor voucher was £4.16 even if tat visitor stated just 10 minutes! Many of my neighbours use many vouchers, for example an elderly lady who is largely dependant on visits form her daughter. Absurdly, the luxury of that lady having her daughter visit cost around £800 a year! Inviting friends over for coffee could cost a resident £20 and a children’s party £40 or more. Excessive visitor parking charges really impact of people’s ability to enjoy their own homes. It is a tax on sociability and on caring for relatives.
Inconvenient and Expensive Town Centre Parking Barnet committed the folly of removing all cash pay and display ticket machines, forcing people to pay by phone. Many couldn’t use the system or just couldn’t be bothered. How absurd to struggle for several minutes with “pay by phone” parking when you just want to pop into a shop. And charges need to be reasonable. £2 + an hour in outer London is simply too much (particularly with a £1 minimum charge). Parking policy of course needs to control parking demand in the interests of all road users but charges must be set at a level that does not discourage using local high streets. In Barnet, there certainly was not excessive parking demand when the council decided to increase charges by 40 to 100%. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w60 Transport Committee: Evidence
Enforcement must be Operated Sensibly The number of PCNs being overturned on appeal is enormous and increasingly we hear of PCNs being issued in ridiculous circumstances. Let’s not make a sub-industry of advisers helping people overturn PCNs. Enforcement companies need to apply common sense and avoid penalising over things like a ticket which is poorly displayed or where a vehicle has paid but is parked in an incorrect bay. March 2013
Written evidence from Michael Gaffney (PE 36) Parking policies in the borough of Barnet are a disgrace. Residents in this small section of the borough population are having to pay crazy fees for parking outside their own houses. It’s worth noting that none of the Barnet councillors are living in the CPZ. Imagine having to pay £60 a day parking fees for a skip on top of the license and hire fee. This is called a parking bay suspension charge. The important point to note is that the road in question is not a pay and display bay road. It’s a residents only road! There are no bays to suspend. March 2013
Written evidence from Jacky Wood (PE 37) Barnet Council has increased resident CVZ charges from £1 per day to £4 per day (£2 per half day). Their rationale for this draconian increase is to pay for travel passes and road surfaces through the whole borough. This is manifestly unfair as some zones have been designated all day, Monday to Saturday, without prior consultation, but with a promise of subsequent consultation which did not materialise. The few should not have to pay for the benefit of the entire borough. All cash pay and display ticket machines have been replaced with telephone credit card machines, impacting severely on local shops since casual shoppers do not want the hassle of mobile phones and credit cards for a simple transaction. High Street parking charges have been hiked to a level that no longer makes local shopping viable. Other councils (such as Haringey) are introducing short-period free parking to support their High Streets. March 2013
Written evidence from Neil Smith (PE 38) Below is a short outline of a body of work that has been undertaken over the last three years for your consideration.
Fresh thinking for Parking—Projects and Partnerships at Northumbria University 1. This short submission is made on the suggestion of Caroline Sheppard of the Traffic Penalties Tribunal (TPT). The aim is to flag to the Committee the credentials of Northumbria University design professionals as ideas drivers in the parking debate. Evidence is the partnership between Sheppard and the University through a series of “Fresh Thinking projects” started in 2010 and continuing today. The process for these projects is to engage the University’s pan-faculty “Multi Disciplinary Innovation” masters programme (MDI) which brings together young engineers, business professionals, designers with leadership and continuity provided by University academic staff who are senior design and research practitioners. The programme works through live projects of value to the community that develop radical ideas around a topic. A particular strength of the programme is to develop playful, engaging ways of communicating serious issues. 2. Project 1 addressed parking signage and street clutter. Research was in Durham (small city), Wylam large (village), Gateshead west End (relatively low average income suburb). Outcomes took a playful approach to using new technology that would get the parking message across while reducing clutter. TPT used the project to stimulate discussions with DfT senior engineer Graham Hanson on a human-centred approach to the hardware of parking enforcement. 3. Project 2 built on the signage theme driving outcomes that might enhance fairness in the community and personal empowerment. A key connections to Fresh Thinking for Parking made through this project were with the Durham Transport L?? , and one of the student cohort was recruited to a TPT think tank as part of a direct approach by Sheppard to bring young minds into the parking debate. 4. Project 3, “Bursting the Bubble: Parking Etiquette” is addressing (work in progress) personal behaviour and the fault line between public and authority so vividly demonstrated and articulated by Sheppard in the recent BBC film “Parking Mad”. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w61
5. In conclusion, the team at Northumbria, encouraged by Sheppard, are showing how fresh thinking can be brought into the parking debate. The method also shows a way for young voices to be heard on key community issues, voices that we find lack the baggage of state/citizen disfunction. We are ready and willing to help the Committee in any ways possible. Please feel free to contact me for a fuller disclosure of this work, I would be most pleased to discuss this at your convenience. March 2013
Written evidence from Dominic Leggett (PE 39) Evidence for Transport Committee enquiry into local authority parking enforcement. 1. Residents parking acts as a significant subsidy to car-owning households, because it gives them use of a guaranteed space to store their car on the street for far below market rates. 2. For example, in Camden, the average price of a resident’s permit for a year is about £100. In contrast, the market price for a parking space for a year varies from £700 to £2,500 or more. 3. This subsidy is very difficult to justify, either on equity or policy grounds. Households that own cars tend to be richer than household that don’t—so a transfer to these households is regressive. Furthermore, car use in the crowded city locations where residents’ parking is used has significant negative externalities, in terms of pollution, traffic incidents, and public health. Space that is taken up by underpriced subsidised parking cannot be used for facilities for pedestrians or cyclists. 4. By choosing to subsidise parking in this way, councils are foregoing income that could be used to improve roads for pedestrians and cyclists. 5. Therefore, councils should be instructed to supply on-street parking at a fair market price. There are advantages to residents having first option on parking places in their street, but no advantages to subsidising the price of these spaces. 6. By controlling availability and charging a fair price, ending this regressive subsidy, local authorities will both be able to realise significant income gains which can be invested in the road network, and find space to improve pedestrian and cycling facilities. March 2013
Written evidence from Camden Council (PE 40) How should councils use their revenue from penalty charges, metered parking, car parks and residents’ parking? Should there be more local discretion over how income is used? 1. Whilst removing the current ring fencing (under RTA 84, section 55), would allow for greater discretion on a local level, the current system does ensure that the surplus is directed at projects and schemes which are necessary to achieving the Council’s transport strategy objectives. 2. Parking enforcement not only has the effect of encouraging people to reconsider using a private vehicle for journeys, it also creates a surplus which is then used by the Council to fund projects that create an alternative to private vehicles (eg cycle parking). This helps the process of achieving the overall transport strategy objective of “modal shift”. 3. On a political level, having ring fencing in place also provides the necessary justification for reinvestment in transport projects. Were it to be removed there could be increased political pressure to redirect spending to other service areas. 4. Contextually it is worth noting that our expenditure on transport related projects outweighs the parking account surplus year on year. 5. The application of any parking surplus is published annually in the Councils Annual Parking Report. 6. Camden aside, there may be more of an incentive to pursue greater levels of surplus in the parking account if there were more scope to spend this on non-transport related areas, notwithstanding the fact that raising revenue should not be an objective of a Civil Parking Enforcement (CPE) regime.
What impact will new technology, such as cashless parking, parking sensors and CCTV, have on local authority parking enforcement? 7. We will seek to utilise emerging technologies within the industry to improve the ways in which enforcement is carried out and users are able to access our services. For example, we are currently trialling Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) via mobile vehicles to explore how best to harness the technology and deliver more efficient and cost-effective enforcement practices. One aspect of this project is the cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w62 Transport Committee: Evidence
roll out of e-permits or “virtual” permits, which will help to minimise the number of paper-based exemptions in use so that ANPR is as effective as possible. 8. In Camden, CCTV enforcement has been used for enforcement purposes for some years but we will shortly be trialling unattended CCTV enforcement. The use of ANPR and unattended CCTV software for enforcement purposes is forecast to ultimately reduce the level of CEO deployment on our enforcement contract which would represent significant savings and help us to achieve our overriding objective of driver compliance. 9. Cashless parking is already available borough wide in addition to the cash option, providing more flexible payment choices for users while reducing the requirement for cash machine collections and associated vehicle journeys. We are investigating the use of parking bay sensors, among other things, for: parking enforcement, occupancy monitoring, compliance monitoring, improved information to motorists (ie providing real-time data re: available spaces via Mobile Apps etc), as well as improved information for Council policy decisions and tariff prices.
How effective are the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for England and Wales and the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service for London? (The Committee will not be considering individual cases and appeals.) 10. From an administration perspective, there are service improvements which would potentially increase the effectiveness of the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS): (a) An electronic data interchange between the boroughs and PATAS to reduce paperwork (and associated costs), while improving the swiftness of data exchanges. (b) Conference calls via telephone and/or video to reduce the requirement for an officer to physically attend a hearing. This would also benefit users who may otherwise be unable to attend a hearing. (c) Flexible locations for hearings to help reduce overheads and the cost per appeal rate as well as assist motorists who may otherwise be unable to attend a hearing at the current tribunal base in Angel, Islington. 11. In terms of the performance of the parking adjudicators, we closely monitor their decisions and take into account any feedback to ensure we continue to undertake enforcement in a fair, proportionate and legally compliant manner. 12. Having an independent appeals tribunal for motorists to challenge the enforcement action taken is considered essential for the integrity of a CPE regime as it scrutinises the procedures of the Council and its contractors, making them accountable in the process.
Should parking policy in London be subject to separate provisions and guidance, given, in particular, its large parking revenue surpluses, its more integrated public transport network and the number of foreign- registered vehicles in the city? 13. The fundamental policy objectives of a CPE regime should be broadly similar regardless of the geographical location, as reflected in the Traffic Management Act 2004 (part 6), which harmonises parking legislation across the U.K. 14. It is important to make the distinction that the larger parking revenue surpluses in Camden are a direct result of the circumstances specific to central London, such as higher traffic levels. This inevitably results in proportionally higher levels of non-compliance, more enforcement and therefore a higher surplus. As such this should not be taken into consideration as a reason for separate parking policy provisions and guidance in London. 15. That aside, there should always be sufficient scope for separate provisions and guidance where required. It is considered that this is already the case within the existing provisions and guidance for example, the Blue Badge scheme, which does not apply fully in the southern part of Camden, City of Westminster, City of London or the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea due to specific traffic management concerns. A further example is the fact that enforcement can be taken in respect of footway parking throughout London without the need for any signage. 16. However, there could be opportunities to develop this flexibility to respond to specific issues such as the approach to foreign registered vehicles.
How can local authorities strike a balance between using parking policy to manage congestion and using it to encourage people into town centres? 17. Parking policy should be used in different ways alongside other policies included in a council’s transport strategy to make visiting a town centre easier and more appealing. For example, in the case of Camden having the necessary enforcement on streets such as Kentish Town Road and Kilburn High Road is required to ensure compliance and therefore the free flow of traffic, which in turn makes an area more attractive to visit. There are other strategies, such as ensuring adequate loading and unloading provisions for the convenience of local cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w63
businesses and imposing maximum stays at pay and display bays to ensure a regular turnover of visitors to an area. 18. However, where there is good access to public transport, parking policy can also be used to discourage car journeys to make an area more attractive, healthier and safer to visitors. Removing parking bays for example and replacing them with cycle parking and cycle facilities might work to reduce congestion whilst encouraging visitors. 19. This is supported by research carried out by London Councils last year, which suggests that other factors may be much more influential in the choice of shopping location such as simply creating a better atmosphere in which to shop. Congestion is cited as making an urban centre location unattractive, therefore well managed parking that reduces the need for searching for space could be one way to improve the attractiveness of town centre. At the same time, reducing congestion makes it easier and safer for those on foot to access town centres. 20. Furthermore, the reduction in car ownership in London combined with evidence that walking is now the most popular mode for getting to district town centres in London would suggest that parking policy could be used to greater effect to enhance town centre vitality and accessibility. The study by London Councils also highlighted that there has been a steady decrease in the proportion of trips made by car over time and a corresponding increase in walking across all town centre categories. 21. Data from the Transport for London 2011 Town Centre Study, found that parking was very unlikely to be mentioned as the main priority for improvements. The results varied by the location of the town centre, but a “better range of shops”, “cleaner streets”, or in Central London “less traffic” were the top scoring factors. Therefore providing more parking could be seen as encouraging more traffic and therefore causing more traffic, the very thing that makes town centres less attractive to main potential shoppers.
How can smaller local authorities use parking provision to manage congestion? Do they need to work regionally and strategically with neighbouring councils? 22. Smaller local authorities will need to assess the need for parking provision according to the specific congestion in their area. So for example, there might be a particular issue regarding commuter parking, the night time economy or school run traffic, and the authority will need to consider the use of controlled parking zones and increased enforcement to ensure that this isn’t to the detriment of resident parking (or other use). In the case of Camden, public engagement exercises are used to find out what problems exist in different areas which will allow the council to reconsider provisions such as permit application criteria and prices, and the controlled hours. 23. Again, consideration should also be given to accessibility to public transport and what the actual requirement is for parking provision in some areas. It goes without saying that working on a regional and strategic level is necessary since key traffic routes will overlap across borough boundaries, and a joint approach will help to relieve the problems caused by commuter and visitor parking, as well as providing adequate business parking provision which will be important to the economy of a region.
What role does the Workplace Parking Levy have? Would people be more inclined to use park and ride services if there were a charge to park at work? 24. We have no plans to consider the Workplace Parking Levy. Camden does not operate any park and ride schemes, instead we work with businesses to encourage more sustainable travel modes such as walking and cycling. Through the planning process, Camden restricts workplace parking and opts for car free developments wherever possible. In addition businesses are required to complete a workplace travel plan as part of their planning application. The plan will include actions that encourage sustainable travel, and these actions are now monitored over a five year period. In addition voluntary travel planning is targeted to businesses in high density areas.
Are there steps local authorities can take, while managing congestion, to make it easier for businesses to trade and make deliveries? 25. In Camden, we offer a range of options to businesses in the borough to facilitate loading/unloading to their premises. Where there are no loading restrictions in place, loading/unloading can take place on single or double yellow lines, for an unlimited amount of time from the end of controlled hours or 6:30pm, (whichever comes earlier) through to 11:00am the next day, provided loading and unloading is continuous. 26. After 11:00am and until the end of controlled hours or 6:30pm (whichever comes earlier) and where no restrictions apply, heavy goods vehicles (3.5 tonnes and above) can load or unload on single and double yellow lines for up to 40 minutes provided loading and/or unloading is continuous. 27. The loading/unloading time for cars and light goods vehicles such as small vans, will be restricted to 20 minutes from 11:00am until the end of controlled hours or 6:30pm (whichever comes earlier). 28. Vehicles can also park in loading bays, resident’s bays, permit holder bays, shared use bays and pay and display bays for 20 minutes for loading/unloading purposes. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w64 Transport Committee: Evidence
29. Business scheme B permits are available for businesses based in the north of the borough that have an essential operational need for a vehicle for the viability of the business. The permit cannot be issued to simply facilitate the journey to and from work, nor are they issued in circumstances where public transport offers a reasonable alternative to car use. 30. We also have a business scheme A permit which provides businesses with a designated parking bay(s), situated as close as possible to the business, whilst taking into account traffic movement and road safety.
Are parking signs clear and comprehensible? To what extent are unclear signs and instructions the cause of breaches of parking control? 31. In general, parking signs are considered to be relatively clear and comprehensible but it is acknowledged that there is a need for further driver education on this issue. For example, in Camden we are working on a programme of education throughout 2013–14 to help motorists understand the restrictions and signage in our borough. 32. Although the council conforms to the Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions (TSRGD) there is a need to combine signage that requires DfT authorisation. For example, although many boroughs (including Camden) have independent DfT authorisation for their respective suspension signs, there should undoubtedly be a uniform approved sign to ensure consistency and clarity for motorists across the country. Therefore, regular reviews of the legislation to accommodate variations would be preferable as the volume of signage required can cause confusion and clutter the street environment for all users. 33. Camden supports the DfT’s policy paper “Signing the Way” and the intention to reduce unnecessary street clutter while maintaining clarity for the motorist. It is hoped that the new TSRGD, scheduled for 2014, will be less prescriptive in general, particularly in light of the Court of Appeal decision in Herron v. MB Sunderland, which focused on the clarity of signage above all else. March 2013
Further written evidence from Camden Council (PE 40a) 1. Is this the latest contract between Camden and NSL? If not, can you send us a copy of the latest contract? Yes, our current enforcement contract with NSL runs from 1 April 2010 to 2016.
2. Is this contract published online and in the public domain? The enforcement contract is not currently published online but it is intended to be published on our web pages in the near future. It has been released on occasion under the FOI Act. Details relating to our contract, ie KPI information, is contained in our Annual Parking report (page 17 of 2012 report) which is published on our website: http://camden.gov.uk/ccm/content/transport-and-streets/transport-strategies/interim-parking-and- enforcement-plan.en
3. Schedule 4 of the contract shows that the KPI for “CEO activity level” is measured by “PCN issue rate by deployed hour” which is set at a target of 1.3 per hour on street and 2.5 per hour using CCTV. This appears to suggest that the number of PCNs issued per hour is a measure of performance—can you clarify whether this is indeed the case? The Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) Activity Level KPI is a measure that analyses the relationship between deployed hours, and the patterns and frequencies with regard to trends in compliance. This KPI does not set a target for increasing Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) numbers, or achieving a set target of a number of PCNs. Rather it is about ensuring that we have the right levels of deployment to match the levels of compliance. The activity level KPI is calculated by dividing the number of PCN’s issued by the number of deployed hours in the same period. It is an important measure to establish whether the way in which the contract is being managed by the contractor is delivering value for money. The London Borough of Camden is guided by the Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance to Local Authorities on the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions issued by DfT, which includes Civil Parking Enforcement Policy Objectives and Financial Objectives. The Guidance sets out the policy framework for Civil Parking Enforcement. The contractor is paid for the provision of deployed hours by a CEO, up to the number of planned deployed hours in the contract. As a result of this, it is essential that there is efficiency in the deployed resources to achieve value for money from the contract. As PCN volumes decrease and compliance levels increase, we need to ensure that we are not paying for redundant enforcement capacity, and are able to reduce costs by monitoring this KPI. This is evidenced by the 40% reduction of CCTV CEO’s in June 2011, demonstrating that Camden has not required or expected the contractor to deliver more PCNs, rather we responded by reducing unnecessary costs in terms of deployment. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w65
4. Schedule 3 of the contract shows that “Bits” of performance related pay depend on performance against KPIs (both critical and non-critical). This appears to suggest that performance related pay is incentivised by contractors achieving KPI targets such as those relating to CEO activity level (amongst others)—can you clarify whether this is indeed the case? Specifically, Camden does not pay any bonus payments to its enforcement contractor in relation to CEO targets. The payments made to our contractor that have been wrongly identified as being “bonus payments” are in fact part of the tendered contract price and form part of the contractors schedule of rates (SoR). As per schedule 3 of the contract, the contractors SoR is multiplied by the deployment levels requested by the Authority, this is to ascertain the total annual financial value of the contract (known as the target cost) for three specific areas of the service, On-Street, CCTV and Clamp & Removal. 10% of the target cost for each of these areas is divided into smaller monthly payments (known as bit payments) and affectively become at risk should the contractor fail to achieve any critical KPI’s, the KPI in question (CEO Activity Level) is a non-critical KPI. Non-critical KPI’s only affect the bit payment once the contractor has previously failed to achieve critical KPI’s and as a result has lost some of the 10% target costs. In these circumstances the contractor must achieve all critical KPI’s and half of the non-critical KPI’s to be eligible for this bit payment in future months. At no point is it stipulated to our contractor what non-critical KPI’s need to be achieved to make up the half required including CEO Activity Level.
5. We would also welcome any further comments you have on the issue of incentives in parking enforcement contracts On a general level, it is undoubtedly worth noting that we have seen a significant fall in the number of PCN’s issued in Camden over the last few years, which is testimony to our fair-minded approach towards parking and moving traffic enforcement. The table below shows that since the existing enforcement contract has been in place we have seen PCN issue levels fall by some 90,000 per annum, underlying the fact that it is not about PCN targets, but simply about ensuring that the right levels of staff are deployed to achieve driver compliance. On-street Volume CCTV Volume Total Volume Financial Year (PCNs) (PCNs) (PCNs) 2010–11 246,232 104,255 350,487 2011–12 229,611 101,153 330,764 2012–13 176,723 83,390 260,113
July 2013
Written evidence from Transport for London (TfL) (PE 41) 1. Introduction 1.1 Transport for London (TfL) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Committee’s inquiry into the adequacy of current arrangements for parking enforcement and the likely consequences of Government policy. 1.2 This response comments on the specific areas of interest set out in the inquiry’s terms of reference as follows.
2. How should councils use their revenue from penalty charges, metered parking, car parks and residents’ parking? Should there be more local discretion over how income is used? 2.1 The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (RTRA 1984) prescribes the way that TfL spends the income it generates from Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs). Any discretion TfL has must currently be exercised within the strict confines of section 55(4) of the Act.
3. What impact will new technology, such as cashless parking, parking sensors and CCTV, have on local authority parking enforcement? 3.1 CCTV has had a big impact on local authority parking enforcement. It gives a local authority the ability to monitor compliance on its road network. New technologies such as Automatic Number Plate Recognition CCTV, in combination with On Street Officers, also offers a local authority a flexible approach to monitoring and identifying parking and moving traffic contraventions and increasing compliance on its road network. 3.2 TfL does not charge for parking on the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) so cannot comment on the impact of cashless parking. 3.3 Technology changes that allow increased automation of processes, for example the need to have continuous viewing by people, could be changed to allow the greater use of smart technology. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w66 Transport Committee: Evidence
4. How effective are the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for England and Wales and the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service for London? 4.1 The efficiency of the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service for London (PATAS) and the service delivered to both the Enforcement Authority and the motorist may benefit from being measured against an agreed performance regime to ensure timeliness, quality and consistency. Any such regime should be agreed with the Enforcement Authorities and other interested parties. 4.2 All decisions made by Traffic Adjudicators, are assessed by the Enforcement Authority to understand the decision made. It is useful for the Enforcement Authority to receive timely feedback so as not to provide a disservice to motorists if we concur with the adjudicator’s decision. 4.3 The service cost for cases that the Enforcement Authority do not wish to contest, and therefore do not require input from a Parking and Traffic Adjudicator, are still charged at the same fee as ones that do require input from a Parking and Traffic Adjudicator. In cases where the Enforcement Authority is not contesting an appeal, a smaller registration fee should be charged. 4.4 Greater use of technology could also be allowed here with Local Authorities being allowed to provide evidence on-line so as to remove the administrative burden. 4.5 Consistency in decision-making is also a concern, as this causes confusion for the public and enforcement authority. More time should be spent by adjudicators on training and peer reviews to ensure the correct decision is made.
5. Should parking policy in London be subject to separate provisions and guidance, given, in particular, its large parking revenue surpluses, its more integrated public transport network and the number of foreign- registered vehicles in the city? 5.1 It is difficult to see how separate provisions, or guidance, will remedy the issues encountered by local authorities in London regarding foreign registered vehicles without new National and European legislation being implemented that enables better cross-border enforcement. 5.2 The Traffic Management Act 2004 provides statutory guidance to local authorities who undertake parking enforcement under the Act. Parking policy is set by local authorities in response to local conditions. This is also true across London and the introduction of separate provisions risks limited borough discretion to manage road and kerb space. 5.3 Recovering unpaid penalties incurred by vehicles registered outside the UK can be problematic and is a well-known problem. TfL does everything possible to ensure a consistent level of enforcement for all road users by using a dedicated European Debt Recovery Agency.
6. How can local authorities strike a balance between using parking policy to manage congestion and using it to encourage people into town centres? 6.1 TfL recommends that authorities integrate parking policy with broader transport planning. This aims to ensure any controls on car parking do not adversely affect people coming into town centres. 6.2 The Mayor of London’s Transport Strategy (MTS) contains a number of proposals around parking in London. The MTS calls for more consistent regulations and enforcement practices. In his Manifesto, the Mayor called on each borough to review parking in non-residential, strategic shopping areas, to see if it can be managed in a way that reduces any negative impact on business. He has encouraged the length of time motorists can park at “Stop and Shop” bays to be extended. 6.3 Parking regulation is an effective method in encouraging the use of public transport, walking and cycling, which in turn can mitigate the negative impacts of road traffic and car dependency.
7. How can smaller local authorities use parking provision to manage congestion? Do they need to work regionally and strategically with neighbouring councils? 7.1 Yes, a joined up strategic approach will ultimately be more successful. A piecemeal approach risks simply moving the congestion problem. A whole area approach will be able to use multiple transport and area planning approaches to balance managing congestion and access. 7.2 The MTS contains a number of policies which promote both regional and strategic approaches using parking provision to manage congestion.
8. What role does the Workplace Parking Levy have? Would people be more inclined to use park and ride services if there were a charge to park at work? 8.1 Financial incentives/disincentives are usually successful in instigating behavioural change. 8.2 An example of this was the introduction of the Congestion Charging Scheme. This resulted in a 44% modal shift away from cars from 2002 (pre-Congestion Charging) to 2009. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w67
9. Are there steps local authorities can take, while managing congestion, to make it easier for businesses to trade and make deliveries? 9.1 Sensibly located and well-managed loading bays are essential for ensuring effective local collection and delivery services. It is critical to ensure that delivery vehicles, that can be a major cause of congestion, can make their deliveries in a sensible and well planned manner. 9.2 Some town centres may consider local consolidation centres and other consolidation activity to help manage down the volume of delivery vehicles on the road. 9.3 Local authorities can pro-actively engage with both businesses and logistics companies who operate on their road network. This will enable the local authority to see what problems the businesses and logistics companies face and how best to resolve them. It also enables businesses and logistics companies to see what impact their behaviour is having on other users of the network. 9.4 Engaging with the freight industry can help set up the following two initiatives: 9.4.1 A Delivery Servicing Plan (DSP) provides a framework to ensure that freight vehicle activity to and from a building is working effectively. A DSP will help manage deliveries to reduce the number of trips, particularly during peak hours, and identifies where safe and legal loading can take place. Further details can be found at: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/microsites/freight/ construction_logistics_plans.aspx 9.4.2 Construction Logistic Plans (CLPs) help operators manage all types of freight vehicle movement to and from construction sites. They improve the safety and reliability of deliveries to a site, reduce congestion and minimise the environmental impact. Further details can be found at: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/microsites/freight/delivery_servicing_plans.aspx
10. Are parking signs clear and comprehensible? To what extent are unclear signs and instructions the cause of breaches of parking control? 10.1 From time to time, TfL receives mitigating claims from recipients of PCNs that the signs or road markings were not clear or understandable. It is difficult to be certain how much credence there is in individual claims but there are certain locations that appear to generate more non-compliance than others. Some of this will be due to the localised demand for parking exceeding supply, but it is recognised that there are some locations or layouts where drivers may have to be slightly more alert to assimilate the messages being conveyed and so mistakes can be made. 10.2 The restrictions on the Transport for London Road Network are typically quite simple in comparison with some Local Authority controls, and according to DfT research, understanding of double red lines, for example, is very good. 10.3 Distinction between adjacent bays has been raised as an area of confusion by drivers (since with a cursory check, it is often easy to mistake the signing in one bay as applying to the adjacent bay). TfL is investigating ways of tackling this. For example, one option being considered is providing carriageway markings at some bay types and locations to give a secondary confirmation of the restriction. March 2013
Written evidence from NECTAR (PE 44) Introductory Remarks A. NECTAR is an open, voluntary, umbrella body, established to provide a forum in which the many organisations with an interest in sustainable transport in all its forms can develop a co-ordinated view on contemporary transport issues. NECTAR is one of a national network of Transport Activists’ Roundtables, each of which provides opportunity for the exchange of news, studies, and information. B. We are pleased to send this reply to the HoC Inquiry [SCA 65/2012–2013], including answers to as many of its questions as we may reasonably offer, but we also feel that the scope of the Inquiry, as it stands, is dangerously limited. This is not least because local authorities are not the only bodies who run car parks for public use. Indeed, if Parliament wishes to investigate how efficiently and/or economically the massively- expanded area of land devoted solely to cars (temporarily) out of use functions, it must consider all types of car park, private as well as public. C. A brief look at the National Car Parks website, for instance, suggests that this organisation is not always the private gold-mine often assumed. Any relief that we might feel over this is countered by the question of who is making up, or has made up, its alleged losses dating from late in 2011, for instance. Yet the tone of some of the HoC Committee’s questions hints that, unusually, this Inquiry quietly assumes that “public” = bad, and “private” (in this instance by implication and no more) = good. So that is why we object to this singling out of the local authority element in car park operation. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w68 Transport Committee: Evidence
D. Our comments in detail should be read alongside one or two jaw-dropping statistics. Parking space for a private car usually measures about 100 square feet. Assuming an average of two persons per car, every such vehicle takes up 50 square feet per person of otherwise unusable land, for which, in any civilised society, a charge should be made to reflect, not only the convenience for the car’s user(s) of a safe place while they work, shop or visit others, but also the extra distance between calling-points imposed on pedestrians and cyclists as a direct consequence.
E. When we compare this with the space taken by any train, tram or bus (which last occupies as few as 200 to 300 square feet, according to type); and when, by definition almost, none of these vehicles remains stationary, never mind empty, for anything like as long as a car, the unbelievable generosity of the whole car-parking “tradition”—taking, as it does, between 10 and 20 times as much land as even a parked bus, to accommodate the same number of people—is shown to be socially, politically, and economically scandalous.
F. In short, the very existence of car parks of any sort in any kind of place implies a strong bias in favour of motorists, allowing each one to account for, if not permanently to occupy, up to 30 times the area allowed to each bus user. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this may be, it alone tells us that free car-parking is a gift to a motorist out of all proportion to the decreasingly-evident subsidy to users of public transport (if, indeed, on “commercial” bus routes there can, by law, be any “subsidy” at all). More work needs to be done to expose this on-going, yet largely unchallenged, imbalance, both within the transport market itself and across the length and breadth of our whole landscape.
Questions from the Transport Committee, and our Replies to them
1(a) How should councils use their revenue from penalty charges, metered parking, car parks and residents’ parking?
It is difficult to make any general statement about this without clarification of what councils may or may not do at present. We, as campaigners for improved public transport, would advocate more legislation to ensure that parking-charge revenue went towards supporting bus services in the council’s area. Even if such legislation were not forthcoming, we would consider that councils should be expected to pay fully for all the costs of a car park, including—no matter how difficult it might be to work out—its operation and its maintenance, plus a notional asset value (cf. our remarks at (d), (e), and (f) above) and a notional cost of pollution arising from car use to reach it. [See also now the article “The Last Gasp” by John Vidal in Guardian 2, pp.6–9, Wednesday March 20 2013.]
1(b) Should there be more local discretion over how income is used?
Again, as we do not know how much of such discretion exists now, and in what respects, we have to limit our answer. But, as stated in 1a above, we see no reason why a car park, no matter by whom it is run or for whom it is provided, should not have its full costs, direct and indirect, met by whoever is providing it, be that a private firm, a public building, the local authority, or a “professional” car-park provider. And our emphasis here is on the indirect costs—loss of serviceable land to housing, recreation or other uses; extra effort and distances forced on non-car-owners between calling-points, and the increased pollution from exhausts arising from the vehicles themselves. All of these point to a need for legislation that enables local authorities to collect fees from all car-park users, not just those on local authority land, to offset the frighteningly-gigantic expenses implied, if not always recognised, in providing space for so many idle cars.
2. What impact will new technology, such as cashless parking, parking sensors and CCTV, have on local authority parking enforcement?
It is almost impossible to forecast a realistic answer to this; we would point out, even so, that any costs of providing these gadgets should be met exclusively from parking charges, including penalty fees. Councils should have full authority to prosecute offenders and anyone vandalising the equipment. There is, however, more than enough scope for using parking sensors, CCTV and an increased human enforcement presence to combat the widespread nuisance of pavement parking, in residential and business areas alike. Culprits evidently feel entitled, as of right, to invade pedestrian territory unchecked, whereas the law officially pecifies otherwise. Any gadgetry, of any kind, that could reduce if not remove this menace would be welcomed fully by pedestrians, with and without prams, pushchairs, wheelchairs and/or impaired sight.
3. How effective are the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for England and Wales and the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service for London?
It is doubtful if anyone in NECTAR is competent to answer either aspect of this question. This points, therefore, to inappropriate secrecy about how well these bodies do their job, and we think that, to improve public knowledge and confidence, performance data for both these services should be made public at frequent intervals, preferably once a month. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w69
4. Should parking policy in London be subject to separate provisions and guidance, given, in particular, its large parking revenue surpluses, its more integrated public transport network, and the number of foreign- registered vehicles in the city? The wording of this question prompts some mordant remarks about why London’s transport provision is so noticeably superior to that in any other part of this country, but as they are not strictly relevant to this survey we do not make them here. To answer this question directly, we see no justification for treating London any differently from anywhere else: all vehicles and their drivers should be dealt with according to the same set of regulations, wherever in the UK they may be.
5. How can local authorities strike a balance between using parking policy to manage congestion and using it to encourage people into town centres? We have already said (cf. (d) above) that any car-parking space for motorists, regardless of who provides and runs it, means: (i) restrictions on pedestrians’ freedom of movement; (ii) greater distance between buildings, and from pavements/roads to buildings in some cases; and (iii) further for pedestrians to walk than would otherwise be needed, either in their own right or when going to and from bus stops. Local authorities should ensure, therefore, that by charging car-park users adequately, rather than with a view to encouraging more car-borne shoppers, they have the funds to provide Park-and-Ride services, better public transport, larger pedestrianised areas, and a recognisable network of purpose-built cycle tracks. If a real “balance” is to be achieved, as implied by this question’s wording, we think that charges for congestion should be introduced far more widely, whether motorists like it or not—though we do not under-estimate the obstacles that such a proposal might all too often face.
6(a) How can smaller local authorities use parking provision to manage congestion? This depends on: (i) where the parking is provided (on-road, off-road, behind big shops, at designated Park-and- Ride interchanges); (ii) what proportion of traffic entering a “congested” area does so on public transport, by bicycle, or on foot; and (iii) how a local authority defines “congestion”—as distinct, say, from slow-moving motor traffic that is not forced to stop except at traffic lights, but that effectively hinders pedestrians from crossing the road it is on, and/or cyclists from riding safely alongside it on the carriageway, to the point where self-preservation forces them on to adjacent pavements. In practice, sadly, many local authorities are extremely reluctant to do anything that deters trade from their shopping areas, even if congestion becomes a problem as a result. But they should have powers to reduce, or even to remove, parking facilities in favour of a greatly-improved bus network with subsidised low fares, as a strong weapon against congestion and—of much wider importance and significance—in favour of improved air quality for one and all, car user or not.
6(b) Do they need to work regionally and strategically with neighbouring councils? This is hopelessly vague without a rough definition of how “smaller” a local authority is, and how near or far a council qualifies as “neighbouring”. At the risk of sounding too idealistic on this matter, we consider that small or large neighbouring authorities should collaborate on matters of parking and congestion policy, to avoid “unfair” advantage or disadvantage between neighbours, and above all to minimise CO2 emissions (cf. 6a above) for the sake of better health for everybody within their communities, be they residents, commuters, or visitors.
7(a) What role does the Workplace Parking Levy have? It probably varies according to the terms on which such a levy is made (eg on vehicles inside the workplace’s enclosure) and how far parking-space exists outside, or within easy reach of, the workplace concerned. It also depends on whether it is the employer or the employee who pays the levy. Regardless of these variables, such a levy could be said to act as a “surrogate congestion charge”, and its proceeds in effect balance the cost to the individual of providing the road network in general.
7(b) Would people be more inclined to use park-and-ride services if there were a charge to park at work? The only real way to answer this is to ask the people concerned. It should be remembered, however, not only that people cannot be expected to use a park-and-ride service if it does not exist, but that, in the almost fanatically free market context in which any new bus service is introduced, the chances of such a park-and- ride being started by a benevolent private bus company are usually laughably slim. We would think that a Car cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w70 Transport Committee: Evidence
Park provider, be it a local authority or a private firm, should be able to put on a park-and-ride service to an agrees target, eg a town centre, even if its only motive were to maintain or increase its own profitability.
8. Are there steps [that] local authorities can take, while managing congestion, to make it easier for businesses to trade and [to] make deliveries? We would suggest that the introduction of timed delivery/despatch access, and the development of consolidation centres, are among possible steps: examples of good practice from overseas might also transplant smoothly into a British context.
9(a) Are parking signs clear and comprehensible? To answer this depends, again, on whose signs are meant. It is up to each authority to provide clear signage, so standards will, in practice, inevitably vary.
9(b) To what extent are unclear signs and instructions the cause of breaches of parking control? This, again, will vary from area to area. Rules for parking as such may differ according to context, and signs indicating the rules may leave something to be desired: but, leaving aside misuse of car-parks as such, we draw attention to the frequent breaches of nation-wide law that restricts/forbids pavement parking (already mentioned), plus parking on yellow lines, parking across dropped kerb access points, and parking along clearly- identifiable bus lanes. If authorities, be they local of police, stepped up their action in pursuit of the many offenders against each of these rules, we would probably see a welcome reduction in such offences, to the great and (we hope) lasting benefit of pedestrians and cyclists alike.
Concluding Remarks G. We realise that we have, in several places, extended the scope of our remarks beyond what a question sought to find out, but in the light of our preliminary comments on the vast unspoken bias in favour of motorists that widespread provision of car-parks (many of them free of charge) indicates, we make no apology for this. H. Planners and local authorities in most of continental Europe have noticeably spent years, if not decades, trying to develop effective urban transport policies that encourage public transport use rather than private cars, thereby changing the nature and extent of car parks, with concomitant extension of pedestrians-only zones in towns and cities. We can only throw up our hands in despair at how little of similar thinking is evident in our own country, with deficient and/or inadequately-resourced public transport the norm, and vast areas of unproductive vehicle parks disfiguring even the most rural landscapes, especially those of above-average scenic beauty and tourist attraction. In short, we think that the whole issue of car parking needs a much further-reaching review, at every level, nation-wide, as part of a general re-think of the best way to use our increasingly-scarce resources of land, fuel (of all kinds) and built environment. We are happy to expand on any or all the points that we have made, and we thank you for your attention to our response. March 2013
Written evidence from the BVRLA (PE 45) 1. Overview of Response 1.1 This memorandum is submitted by the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association on behalf of its members and their customers, the BVRLA represents the interests of more than two million business car drivers and the millions of people who use a rental vehicle each year. 1.2 Key recommendations for the committee to consider: — Strengthen Right of Representation—simplify and harmonise the way local councils enforce parking fines to help secure natural justice for all motorists who incur a parking fine when using a car club, rental or leased vehicle and to protect their right to make a representation. — Make it easier to make a representation—To modernise the way local councils manage parking fine enforcement to allow all businesses and motorists to make representation through a national parking portal. — Encourage motorist to make representations—Remove the double jeopardy element of the parking appeal service. Businesses and motorists should be encouraged to make timely representation against unfair or illegal parking fines without losing their right to pay at the reduced fine rate should they lose their appeal. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w71
2. Who we are and what we do 2.1 The BVRLA is the trade body for companies engaged in the leasing and rental of cars and commercial vehicles. Its members provide rental, leasing and fleet management services to corporate users and consumers. They operate a combined fleet of 2.75 million cars, vans and trucks, buying nearly half of all new vehicles sold in the UK. 2.2 As well as lobbying the Government on key issues affecting the sector, the BVRLA regulates the industry through a mandatory code of conduct. www.bvrla.co.uk
3. Harmonising Parking Laws 3.1 It may be helpful to explain that our members are legal owners of the vehicle and responsible for taxing the vehicle and are therefore recorded as the registered keeper with the DVLA. Customers renting or leasing a vehicle will agree to operate the vehicle legally and be held responsible for any road traffic offences during the duration of the lease or rental agreement. 3.2 As parking fines are issued to the registered keeper, we estimate that our members receive one in every 10 parking fines issued across the UK. As a consequence the management of a total of 800,000 parking fines each year, which are sent through the post, is both costly and time consuming and as we explain below creates injustice depending on the legal framework operated by the local council. 3.3 Depending on the legislative framework being used to enforce the parking fine, our members can either: (a) Make a representation—in essence this means our members will be able to legally transfer liability onto the customer. Our members will provide details of the customer to the local council, supported by evidence that the vehicle was subject to a valid hire or lease agreement when the alleged parking offence took place. If satisfied, the local council will then re-issue the parking fine to the nominated customer—who then has a right to either pay or challenge the fine. (b) Pay the fine—If our members do not have legal right to transfer liability then they will have no option but to pay the fine. In doing so, our members will not only have to recover the debt from the customer, but critically the customer will lose their right to appeal the fine. 3.4 Members and their customers incur unnecessary costs due to the inconsistencies with the approach of the various councils. We would therefore encourage the committee to support our call for the Department for Transport to take leadership to ensure that the existing legislation is both modernised and harmonised to ensure there is consistency of approach and application across the UK. We note that The Traffic Management Act 2004 was introduced specifically for this purpose, however, this legislative framework has not been adopted by all local councils, most notably in London. 3.5 If the Department for Transport was able to revise and simplify its legislation in this area, we believe this would bring about a positive impact on businesses, jobs and growth. We estimate that the cost savings for our members, in just simplifying processes and procedures, would be an estimated £6 million each year. Road traffic offence Legislation Change required Cost savings Bus lanes in London Local Authorities Amendment to allow vehicle hire £2.1 million per London Act 1996 (as amended) companies to transfer liability to their annum customer where the agreement is less than six months in duration London congestion Road User Charging Amendment to allow vehicle leasing £4 million per charging scheme (Charges and Penalty companies to transfer liability to their annum Charges) (London) customers where the agreement is more Regulations 2003 than six months in duration Parking on private Protection of Freedoms Amendment to reduce the evidence Too early to say land Act burden on rental and leasing companies when providing customers to details to a private parking company.
4. Electronic Notifications 4.1 We also believe that it is time for the Department for Transport to develop a clear vision to modernise the way local councils issue and enforce parking fines. We believe motorists should be able to make representations through a number of channels including via email, even where supporting evidence is required.
4.2 Being able to make a representation electronically via a national parking portal, where supporting evidence can be attached, would, not only help ordinary motorists, but help rental and leasing companies make representation efficiently through a harmonised means. We estimate that introducing such a system would reduce our members’ costs of £6 million per annum by half. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w72 Transport Committee: Evidence
4.3 Further details are summarised below on how savings and benefits for businesses and councils could be delivered are below: Cost reductions Benefits Postage costs for councils and businesses Quicker access to the motorist who committed the offence Time spent photocopying agreements Improved cash flow as offences will be paid quicker Cheque raising No scope for correspondence getting lost in the post
5. Make it Simpler and Easy to Appeal 5.1 We understand that as many as eight million parking tickets are issued annually in the UK. Only a fraction of these are contested. However, there is strong evidence many more motorists would be more likely to contest a fine they feel has been incorrectly issued, but fail to do so, as they lack confidence in the appeal process and feel they would be better off paying the fine at a reduced rate within 14 days of the fine being issued. 5.2 It would seem that many motorists are reluctant to risk having to pay the higher amount for the fine if the appeal is unsuccessful and therefore feel they are forced into paying the parking fine. We do not believe motorists should be penalised for an independent review of the issuance of the fine and that this choice should be made without any such fear of a financial repercussion. We therefore urge the Transport Select Committee to encourage the DfT to consider making amendments to legislation to allow a motorist to make a timely appeal and benefit from paying the reduced fee if they are unsuccessful.
6. Specific Questions 1. How should councils use their revenue from penalty charges, metered parking, car parks and residents’ parking? Should there be more local discretion over how income is used? 6.1 We believe that all revenue from parking fines should be re-invested back into the local road network improvements so that motorists and road transport users benefit directly from parking fines. We believe this is a far more equitable way to use the revenues generated from parking fines and would help instil greater accountability. It would remove the concern that local councils are simply using motorists as a cash cow to help support other revenue shortfalls. In addition, such an approach is fairer as it will help support and tackle local congestion problems and help local councils maintain local roads. 6.2 Recent figures from Halfords Autocentres have revealed that potholes and poorly maintained road surfaces are currently costing fleets in the UK more than £215 million6 in vehicle repairs over the past year to rectify damage. 6.3 In light of our comments, we would encourage the committee to look at options and incentives which would help to encourage local councils to use revenue generated from parking charges and fines to directly benefit all local road users. 6.4 We question whether the parking fines are set at a fair level across the UK. For example, a motorist caught speeding will be asked to pay a £60 fine, yet a motorist caught overstaying in a parking meter by 10 minutes is fined £120 in central London. We believe that this not only sends a confusing message to the motorists, but leads to concerns that local councils are being opportunistic in unfairly penalising motorist to help support cash-strapped local authorities. 6.5 As we have mentioned we believe that without a robust enforcement budget to help ensure a high level of compliance the scheme will not be successful. VOSA will need additional budget to fund resources to enforce the HGV road user charge.
2. How effective are the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for England and Wales (TPT) and the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service for London (PATAS)? (The Committee will not be considering individual cases and appeals.) 6.6 Overall we believe that TPT and PATAS offer a good service and maintain an independence from motorists and councils. We believe they are effective in offering an independent appeals service. However, we would recommend that both appeal services consider offering businesses that have several appeals on the same point the ability for a single hearing covering multiple fines. This would help maintain an efficient service for both businesses and the adjudication service. 6.7 We have reviewed the annual reports published by TPT and PATAS and believe that it would be helpful if more information was published on the reasons motorists are appealing. This is, for example, available in the annual report from PATAS for the London congestion charging scheme but the other reports do not seem to cover this. This information would help better inform and educate motorists and local councils on the areas where common mistakes are occurring. 6 http://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/2013/3/4/potholes-costing-fleets-millions/46357/ cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w73
3. Should parking policy in London be subject to separate provisions and guidance, given, in particular, its large parking revenue surpluses, its more integrated public transport network and the number of foreign- registered vehicles in the city?
6.8 No, as we have stated in our opening comments, we strongly believe that legislation should be the same to help ensure that motorists know where they stand when they receive a fine.
6.9 For our members, this approach would ensure they have one approach for all road traffic offences rather than different procedures depending on the jurisdiction and geographic location of the authority who issued the fine.
6.10 As we indicated, the current approach costs our members in excess of £6 million per year, an amount which would be reduced significantly if the same approach could be taken with all fines.
6.11 From a policy perspective, we recognise the unique nature of London and believe that guidance should be available from central Government which helps to harmonise the experience across London so that all motorists are clear on the rules around parking in Greater London.
4. What role does the Workplace Parking Levy have? Would people be more inclined to use park and ride services if there were a charge to park at work?
6.12 The BVRLA strongly disagrees with the principle of Workplace Parking Levy (WPL). It is simply another tax on business and there is no evidence to demonstrate that the imposition of this tax will actually help to improve traffic congestion. It is in fact nothing other than a money raising initiative aimed at businesses and employees.
6.13 It is worthwhile pointing out that employers have been increasingly looking at ways to promote and implement the most sustainable mode of transport for their employees commuting to work as well as business travel. It must be stressed that the car is, in the main, used out of necessity where there is no alternative cost effective or reliable mode of transport to travel to and from work.
6.14 For example, a recent report published by the UK passenger watchdog highlighted that rail passengers in the UK pay one of the highest maximum fares per kilometre when compared with other countries. Given that this is the case, rail is increasingly an unaffordable option for a commuter.
6.15 Outside of London there is not a reliable and cost effective public transport system for employees who work shifts or live in areas without adequate public transport so they have no choice but to drive. A WPL will therefore place an unfair burden on people just trying to go about their daily lives.
6.16 We note that some estimates put the cost of WPL on business to be in the region of £3.4 billion a year. We however believe that the financial and economic impact of WPL will be far greater than this figure. The last thing that employees, and indeed employers, want is a tax on work in the current financial and economic climate.
6.17 We don’t believe that there is evidence available to show that a WPL would improve the use of park and ride facilities by commuters. As far as we are aware there would need to be significant infrastructure investment in park and ride facilities to encourage commuters to use them as a solution. There is also a real risk that towns and cities will see companies refusing to invest in areas where WPL is introduced and ultimately looking at relocating the business premises outside the catchment area where WPL is applicable.
6.18 We remain concerned with the impact a WPL will have financially on local and small businesses which could in the extreme be catastrophic for the local economy. It is vitally important that the government has the right infrastructure in place to encourage employees out of their cars and onto public transport. This isn’t a risk worth taking for a scheme which has no proven track record of reducing traffic congestion.
7. Closing Comments
7.1 We trust our comments add value to the committee inquiry into the adequacy of current arrangements for parking enforcement and the likely consequences of Government policy in this area. March 2013 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w74 Transport Committee: Evidence
Written evidence from Clarkes of London (PE 46) I write further to your article in Route One “Parking: Have your say”, I would like to express my thoughts on the points raised in this article, as a London Coach Operator we deal with parking restrictions in London on a daily basis. I hope you find our comments below worthy of consideration. 1. I believe Councils should use revenue raised from penalty charges to improve parking facilities for all motorists (including commercial vehicles PSV/HGV) in the London area. 2. The pay by phone facility is very efficient but from our experiences many CEO’s appear to require further training on this facility (particularly in the Camden and Westminster areas). I feel that CCTV is an unfair system; it is obviously very good at raising revenue but makes no contribution to solving the problem at the scene. 3. From our point of view the Appeals Service for London is an excellent service, the adjudicators have an empathy with the appellant. 4. I do feel coaches should be included in the integrated transport system. 5. A Park and Ride facility would benefit congestion in central London and also make it easier for people to travel into the centre which in turn would encourage people into the city. 6. Smaller councils should obviously work with region and neighbouring councils. 7. Workplace parking levy appears nothing more than a stealth tax. 8. Many CEO’s issue PCN’s as if their very lives depend on it and few make any effort to understand the professional/commercial driver’s difficulties in delivering, setting down and picking up. The overnight parking ban is interpreted as a ban on stopping after 18.30 other than to set down/pick up passengers. Coach drivers are forced into a “cat and mouse” situation, with CEO’s and enforcement cameras. They have to comply with the driver’s EU hours rules and they have to find somewhere to park legally, therefore driving around London to find a parking place, thereby contributing to pollution of the atmosphere and congestion of the area, simply because there are insufficient facilities for coaches in London. I do feel that there are steps that could be taken to make it easier for businesses such as ourselves to trade and I have outlined some examples below to demonstrate our frustrations. Example One CEO WS5400 in Bryanstone Street on 5 February 2013 informed our coach driver that after 10 minutes he would be issued with a PCN, when our driver informed the CEO that he would drive around the block and return, rather than exceed the 10 minute window, the CEO informed our driver that he would issue an instant ticket as he would have already had his 10 minutes…. It’s the world gone mad! Example Two CEO WS6295 in Regent Street will not accept that coaches are permitted to pick up/set down passengers where there are loading restrictions. There are two elements to this debate A) Set down and Pick up and B) parking within London and associated risks that goes with it and the two need separate deliberation. Councils that use enforcement contractors should be made to be totally transparent as it appears deceitful when contractors respond on behalf of councils without declaring such. Many people believe they are writing independently to a council however they are only writing to the contractor who has a financial interest and therefore will never cancel/revoke a wrongly issued PCN because it is not in their interest to do so therefore putting more pressure on the appeals service. 9. Parking signs are generally clear and comprehensible, albeit occasionally nonsensical. March 2013
Written evidence from Gary Shaw (PE 47) I should like to give my evidence to the Transport Committee. I do this as an individual who (in a private capacity and also on behalf of my local residents association) regularly provides advice and assistance to motorists who wish to fight unjustified parking or traffic tickets. I give my time free of charge helping typically with 100 to 200 cases each year. Thus over the past decade I have had a personal involvement in several thousand parking and moving traffic cases, mostly inside London. Where the motorists I have aided have been determined to contest a case to conclusion, if necessary taking their cases to independent adjudication, our success rate has been in excess of 99%. My observations over the years cause me to conclude that the local authorities (including for these purposes Transport for London) have proven themselves to be thoroughly irresponsible repositories for parking powers cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w75
and that, largely unanswerable to any over-seeing party, they have run riot in the pursuit of easy revenue whilst paying little attention to their obligations to act fairly in their dealings with the public. Penalties for minor traffic contraventions, grossly disproportionate to the offence, are pursued by the local authorities with a degree of vigour that is often absent in matters for which they have responsibility such as the maintenance of signs and the clear explanation of regulations. Any motorist hoping for a common sense approach or even a reasonable response to a contested case is likely to find that these are alien concepts within local authority parking departments. If it is not quite true that a murderer in modern Britain is less harshly treated than an erring motorist there is a widespread perception that a burglar, mugger or petty thief is both more likely to evade capture by the authorities and, if caught, to be less severely treated than a motorist who has parked on the wrong side of a particular line. Whether accurate or not, such impressions gravely undermine respect for the authorities among a wide section of the law-abiding public. Parking matters may not appear high on the list of the country’s problems but in so far as they are possibly the most frequent and widespread point of contact between the citizenry and the state the experience of receiving and appealing a parking ticket often establishes in people’s minds a sense that contemporary authority as exercised by the state is unjust, greedy and irrational.
1. The Callousness of the Existing System and of those who Administer it may be Judged from a few Examples of Cases in which i have Assisted Westminster Council instructing bailiffs to pursue an unpaid parking ticket against a nonagenarian wartime refugee who had subsequently fought with the RAF. The gentleman knew nothing about the ticket but the bailiffs (in a probable breach of the industry code which states that they should not threaten vulnerable people) repeatedly telephoned him threatening to visit his home and that of his similarly elderly wife if he did not pay the sums demanded. A single mother unable to collect her young child from school after her car was clamped on behalf of Camden and Barnet Councils whose parking tickets (about which she knew nothing) were sent by the two Councils to the wrong address. An elderly lady reduced to tears by Barnet Council’s insistence on pursuing a bus lane ticket after the lady’s windscreen had shattered causing her to pull over to the side of the road in the process of which she unknowingly entered the prohibited lane. A diabetic whose health was endangered because he was unable to find somewhere to eat after his car was removed from an ambiguously marked parking bay by Westminster Council. A lady issued with a parking ticket by Transport for London for not being seen to load or unload after parking in a loading bay. She did not unload her goods because the intended recipient did not open his door so after waiting a few minutes the lady drove away. The recipient did not open his door because he had died. Each of these thoroughly unjust and disproportionate cases was brought to me because the individuals in question were unable to persuade the relevant authority that there was no case to answer. Each case was subsequently resolved in favour of the motorist. A list of similarly outrageous cases in which I have provided some assistance might run for many pages. I see only a tiny number of the overall but clearly hundreds of thousands of such injustices are perpetrated against decent people each year by the local authorities which all too often display such dismissive arrogance towards the public. This is something for which which they ought to be ashamed and for which they are long overdue being brought to book.
2. A Specific Case The Committee has asked for examples of signage that is unclear or incomprehensible. These are legion but I will offer one which has become notorious in my part of London. Transport for London is responsible for the Red Route section of the A1 within the London Borough of Barnet. This includes a section of that road which passes through the Market Place in NW11. The Market Place is a typical inter-war shopping parade. In common with many of these it is in precarious health. Parking is available in front of the parade subject to a variety of Red Route concessions which include disabled bays, loading bays and general use bays subject to a time-limited stay. The loading and general use bays directly adjoin one another and are distinguished only by means of adjacent plates. These have been positioned so that the loading sign is less easy to read than the general parking signs and this confusion results in around 1500 tickets per year (worth up to almost £200,000) to be issued by the CCTV camera monitoring the loading bay. Parking adjudicators have repeatedly determined that the loading bay is inadequately marked but TfL has continued to enforce the bay with utter inflexibility against motorists who, in almost every case, have parked there unwittingly believing it to be one of the nearly identically marked general usage bays. Several nearby shops are believed to have closed because of lost business after customers were fined up to £130 for parking in the bay and the remaining traders all express fury at the damage TfL causes them. Having campaigned on this specific issue for some eight years there is now some suggestion that TfL, following pressure from the cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w76 Transport Committee: Evidence
local London Assembly member, may introduce new bay markings within a few months but this should have been done long ago. The money taken out of this community by TfL is greatly resented with the camera being regarded as a tool for a mugging operation. London Transport was once seen as a familiar, if not always efficient symbol of the capital. Its successor, Transport for London is regarded very differently by Londoners who see it as an opportunistic organisation which appears to take an almost sadistic delight in the damage caused to local communities by its over-zealous enforcement of confusing controls.
3. Generally: (a) CCTV Enforcement In recent years abuses of the type outlined above and in the earlier italicised examples have increased with the proliferation of CCTV enforcement. The principle that permits the use of a camera to record an alleged motoring contravention about which the motorist may know nothing for several days (or sometimes weeks) after the event is inherently unjust. If an allegation is made it is essential that the accused motorist has an opportunity to examine the site and the circumstances contemporaneously. A motorist who, because of distance or for other reasons, cannot return to the location to check the conformity of signs or other significant evidence may be hugely compromised in his ability to contest a case. Even where it is possible to visit the site retrospectively signage may have been altered or replaced in the interim or other relevant factors may have changed. Motorists are acutely conscious of the disparity between the way CCTV cameras are likely to capture any minor motoring misdemeanour but are rarely employed against those who would commit crimes against property or person. The impression exists also that CCTV operators, many of whom may not themselves be motorists, make decisions to issue penalty charges from the comfort of a desk in an office with little awareness of the complications of the dynamic situation faced by the motorist whose actions they are second guessing. This may be especially true of box junction cases where I have known motorists receive tickets for stopping in the box because a blue light emergency vehicle has cut across the junction. As motorists become more conscious of themselves being watched at all times and judged from a distance in this way the tendency is for them to become less instinctive in the way they deal with a rapidly changing situation and more anxious to ensure that no technical contravention of a regulation takes place. I would suggest that this effect of the CCTV regime makes our roads considerably less safer, not more so.
(b) CPZ Schemes Few issues have created greater divisions among residents of the London boroughs than the CPZ (Controlled Parking Zone) schemes. Exploiting these divisions and revelling in the riches expropriated from residents and visitors via the sale of permits, vouchers and concessions along with countless opportunities to issue fines for parking in the wrong place at the wrong times, local authorities have succeeded in creating parking problems for thousands of their citizens where, before the schemes existed, there were problems for a few hundred at most. CPZs which were ostensibly introduced to cut commuter parking immediately around railway stations (a motive that is usually regarded as being self evidently good but which might benefit from some sensible examination) has succeeded in displacing that traffic over far wider areas. The result is that most CPZs, which were created to solve a problem that spanned no more than a couple of hundred square yards, have expanded to incorporate dozens of streets and thousands of households often at great distances from the amenity whose access they were designed to limit. The effect is that, for many people, the amenity itself (station, shopping street, doctor’s surgery etc) is often put beyond practical use. A parking scheme that creates more problems than it solves is a solution that could only be devised by local government and only survives because local government can make so much money from it. Councils claim that CPZs are necessary for traffic control and that revenue is not a factor in the operation or proliferation of the schemes. This strikes most observers as improbable in the extreme but should be simply tested by requiring Councils to hand over CPZ surpluses to some approved third party. Possibly local charities might be such beneficiaries as this would be a popular move which most residents would be likely to approve. If, as councils claim, the CPZs are essential for traffic control and have nothing to do with raising money the schemes would survive despite the loss of revenue to the local authorities.
(c) The Appeals System There are many ways in which the appeal process might be made easier and fairer for motorists but the single most important of these is to create a cost for councils when their cases are lost. At present councils issue their enforcement staff with the implicit or explicit instruction, “If in doubt issue a ticket”. They can do this because no matter how egregious the case may be there is no cost to the council if it loses its case on appeal. However the motorist may have spent many months and a great deal of time taking his case to adjudication. Automatic compensation, set at a meaningful level (perhaps the equivalent of the fine being sought by the council), should be paid by councils to motorists where the motorist’s appeal has succeeded at cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w77
adjudication or where the council has withdrawn after the case has been referred to adjudication. Overnight this would change the standing instruction to “If in doubt do not issue a ticket”. Nothing would have a greater effect of reminding local authorities of the need to fulfil their signage and other obligations than the prospect of having to pay compensation every time a motorist was unjustly accused of contravening a parking regulation.
(d) Members Permits The existence of members permits (providing free, unlimited use of any parking space by councillors, regardless of restrictions that apply to the public) provokes understandable anger. How can a local councillor be expected to understand his constituents’ frustrations about the local parking regime if he is not subject to the rules that apply to everyone else? Most members of the public would have no complaint about a councillor claiming his parking expenses when on council business but for councillors to be exempt from the requirement to buy a voucher or permit and to be excused the need to return to the car within a certain time creates a sense of “one rule for us, another for them”. This seems quite unacceptable in the modern context and surely the Members Permit scheme should be ended before it does still further damage to the relationship between public and politicians. March 2013
Written evidence from Professor John Raine and Mrs Eileen Dunstan, University of Birmingham (PE 48) Background We are pleased that the Transport Select Committee has decided to undertake a further review of local authority parking enforcement. The previous review in 2006 drew some critical conclusions on a number of aspects concerning the manner in which many local authorities were conducting themselves in relation to their civil parking enforcement powers, and in our view, insufficient progress has been made since then in changing culture and practices in this regard. Indeed, with local authorities under more financial pressure than ever, because of the climate of austerity, their interest to maximise income from penalty charge notices has probably never been greater. When the Select Committee undertook its 2006 Review, Professor John Raine, acted as its specialist adviser, having recently developed expertise in this field through conducting a research project, “Quality in Local Authority Parking Enforcement” in 2005, and previous to that, undertaken two user surveys for the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) (now the Traffic Penalties Tribunal). While we have not subsequently undertaken further research on the subject, we have retained a close eye on developments and been involved in various consultancies on the subject (Professor Raine, for example, served on the Sauvain Committee (2008) on Parking Documentation as well as on a DfT Committee on Traffic Signage).
Our Response to the Committee’s Questions You have posed a number of specific questions, presumably as key lines of Enquiry for the new review. Our responses are as follows:
How should councils use their revenue from penalty charges, metered parking, car parks and residents’ parking? Should there be more local discretion over how income is used? Particularly in the new climate of localism, we think it legitimate that Councils should have full discretion to use the income derived from metered parking, car parks and residents’ parking as they wish (ie it should form part of the general revenues of the Council) although the magnitude of such income should be transparent to council tax-payers and other residents. However, we take the view that the revenues from penalty charges should be treated differently and paid directly to a national body (perhaps the Department for Communities and Local Government or the Local Government Association) and then distributed back into local government (to the CPE authorities only) on the basis of pro-rata to population size. In this way the public perception (and any reality) of revenue-drive enforcement practices would be addressed. The distributed shares might be added into the general (unhypothecated) grant paid to local authorities or paid as a special transport-related grant (but with discretion as to its use under that broad heading).
What impact will new technology, such as cashless parking, parking sensors and CCTV, have on local authority parking enforcement? It seems inevitable that new technology will increasingly dominate parking enforcement methodologies— which in some respects—may be helpful in limiting some of the potential for human error or malpractice on the part of civil enforcement officers. However, at the same time we should be concerned at developments that totally remove human intervention—ie digital photographic data being automatically and immediately linked with the DVLA for the registered keeper’s address so that a PCN can subsequently be dispatched. Such developments that remove any opportunity for human scrutiny and the exercise of discretion seems likely only cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w78 Transport Committee: Evidence
to lead to more unreasonable penalties being issued and to the system of enforcement being brought further into disrepute.
At the same time, another worrying issue about increased camera enforcement is that it increases the number of PCNs that are issued late (as much as 14–21 days after the alleged contravention), which means many motorists are unlikely to be able to recall what they were doing, or what the circumstances were at the time the alleged contravention took place (eg the condition of the parking signs etc at the time). It would be more fair if, one way or another, motorists were provided with at least preliminary notification of the contravention on the same day (eg by an automated text message if not a PCN attached to the windscreen
How effective are the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for England and Wales and the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service for London? (The Committee will not be considering individual cases and appeals.)
The Tribunal and London PTAS do excellent work and all the evidence (from our user survey) indicates that even those who do not succeed at appeal at least felt their case to have been given a fair hearing. The twin attributes of being independent of the local authorities and lawyer-driven ensures that the Tribunal and PTAS are generally highly trusted and respected by those who have cause to take their cases there. The introduction in recent years by TPT of telephone hearings (in addition to the options of postal or personal) has also widened access and enabled council officers also to take part from their desks (which is important for many appellants who wish to interact with/question Council personnel in the presence of the adjudicator). The Tribunal’s annual reports have also proved a valuable force for improvement in civil parking enforcement. It would be good to see the adjudicators given additional powers to direct local authorities to pay appellants’ costs and to impose penalties on local authorities that are found to have pursued vexatious allegations against motorists or which had failed to check for their own errors (eg missing signs and lines or shortcomings in the TROs) before rejecting representations.
Should parking policy in London be subject to separate provisions and guidance, given, in particular, its large parking revenue surpluses, its more integrated public transport network and the number of foreign- registered vehicles in the city?
There is a case to be made for TPT and London PTAS merging into a single national tribunal now that almost all English and Welsh local authorities (as well as London Boroughs) operate civil parking enforcement. However, it should be recognised that such a merger could be administratively distracting, and given the balance of workloads these days between London and the rest of the country, there would likely be only very limited advantage in management terms, and probably many disadvantages too.
How can local authorities strike a balance between using parking policy to manage congestion and using it to encourage people into town centres?
We suggest that the key to improving local authorities’ balancing of parking policy for management of congestion and encouragement of vibrant town centre economies is having enlightened councillors. They need more involvement in this subject (from which they have traditionally been largely excluded because officers view it as “operational”). There should be more councillor training and education sessions on parking policy— with the aim of getting the issue out of the (rather closed) environment of engineers’ departments, and more strongly presented as a key element of corporate/economic development and environmental policy-making. Increased development of park-and-ride with free shuttle services into and out of town centres (and with cars excluded except for time limited access for picking up the heavy/larger purchases and blue badges) would also make a significant difference here.
How can smaller local authorities use parking provision to manage congestion? Do they need to work regionally and strategically with neighbouring councils?
There are sound arguments for shared service arrangements for parking departments between smaller local authorities, especially in the current difficult economic climate. But even in rural areas with small market towns, there are usually some significant traffic management issues to be addressed; eg for fire engines and other emergency services getting where they need to be on busy market days or when parking restrictions are flouted outside the post office/pub or whatever. As argued above, councillors have a key role in identifying such issues and bringing them to the fore for action.
What role does the Workplace Parking Levy have? Would people be more inclined to use park and ride services if there were a charge to park at work?
Anything that incentivises use of public transport as an alternative to private transport in towns is worthwhile pursuing. The most important issue is achieving convenient, reliable, rapid, affordable and safe public transport within towns. Use of Park-and-Ride services could certainly be incentivised by workplace parking charges. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w79
Are there steps local authorities can take, while managing congestion, to make it easier for businesses to trade and make deliveries? In our view, the current regulations need updating (they use terminology and concepts from the 1960 and earlier) because they are inadequate for current circumstances, needs and practices. Council planners need also to think more carefully about traffic congestion and parking contravention issues that arise when approving applications for more fast-food chain outlets (particularly in areas covered by 24 hours bans).
Are parking signs clear and comprehensible? To what extent are unclear signs and instructions the cause of breaches of parking control? Too many traffic/parking signs are ill-designed and fail to communicate their meaning clearly to motorists (eg exactly what the restrictions are). As a result much injustice is caused when unsuspecting motorists find subsequently that they misunderstood the signage. Such problems are compounded by automated photographic enforcement that gives the motorist no immediate indication of the contravention (and surprise and resentment several weeks later when the notice to owner is received) March 2013
Written evidence from TNT Express Services UK & Ireland (PE 49) We welcome the opportunity to contribute to this enquiry and would like to submit the following written evidence.
Background to TNT Express Services UK & Ireland TNT Express Services UK & Ireland is the UK’s leading business-to-business express operator delivering up to 150 million items per annum. It has the largest individual share of the national market, employs more than 10,000 people and has an extensive network of 53 strategically located express delivery depots, plus sortation hubs and National Customer Contact Centres. In addition to its leading role in the business-to-business express delivery market, TNT is also a major provider of end-to-end outsourcing services in the specialised arenas of information solutions, records management, logistics solutions and facilities management. TNT has impeccable environmental credentials having topped the prestigious Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI) for the past four years and being accredited with the Carbon Trust Standard in 2010. With the largest fleet of zero emission vehicles in the express sector, TNT is committed to reducing its carbon footprint by 40% between 2008–20. As a strong advocate of corporate responsibility, TNT is the largest benefactor of the children’s charity, Wooden Spoon, having generated donations in excess of £3.25 million since the association started in 1997. Internationally, TNT also partners the United Nations’ World Food Programme providing annual sums of £7.5 million to aid malnourished youngsters in impoverished areas across the globe. The company has, to date, won an unprecedented 31 Motor Transport Awards in the past 24 years—the “Oscars” of the UK transportation industry. Established in the UK in 1978, the company has developed its leading position in the time-sensitive express delivery market through organic growth. TNT Express Services UK & Ireland is a vital component of the newly formed independent company TNT Express N.V. a listed public company which came into being in May 2011 following its demerger from its sister company TNT Mail. It now stands alone as one of the world’s leading express delivery companies.
Response by TNT Express Services UK & Ireland to the Enquiry We have only responded to those questions, which fall within our area of expertise.
1. How should councils use their revenue from penalty charges, metered parking, car parks and residents’ parking? Should there be more local discretion over how income is used? Local authorities raise in excess of £1 billion a year from parking fines. Some of the money raised goes into the costs of operating the system. Local authorities are required to report their income from parking fines and charges and must also state what any surplus is spent on. Typically, the revenue from such schemes is greater than the cost of running the scheme and the surplus can be allocated to the public purse. Although the surplus revenue is ring-fenced to be used for transport related expenditure, if a council is judged to be “excellent” by the Audit Commission, the surplus can be allocated to the council’s general budget. It has been reported in the media that some council’s are alleged to have attempted to use parking enforcement as a source of revenue. It is our view that the use of surplus revenues raised from parking enforcement and charges should be restricted. Funds should be ring-fenced and used for transport related expenditure only, including additional cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w80 Transport Committee: Evidence
and adequate provision for parking. In particular, council’s should aim to provide additional parking and loading facilities in areas designated as so-called “PCN Hot Spots”. In our experience, hot spots are usually created due to the inadequacy of sufficient parking provision.
2. What impact will new technology, such as cashless parking, parking sensors and CCTV, have on local authority parking enforcement? Parking Sensors are currently on trial in the City of Westminster (SmartEye and SmartApp). It is claimed that the system will guide drivers to free parking spaces within the City of Westminster, thereby making life easier for motorists and reducing congestion in the area. The sensors on trial in Westminster are operated by Town and City Parking Ltd and made by its parent company, Car Parking Technologies Limited whose main business is the provision of parking enforcement services. Similar or identical systems are already in use elsewhere outside the United Kingdom. One particular example can be found in Perth, Western Australia where the technology is known as “Meter-Eyes”. The system enables signals to be sent to the nearest civil enforcement officer to capture “over stayers” in paid for parking bays. According to local press reports (source: http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/meter-eyes-spy-on-perth- parkers-20090720-dq4q.html), this system produced a staggering 750% increase in parking tickets issued. Delivery and servicing is vital to the UK’s economy. TNT operates a fleet of over 3,500 commercial vehicles and boasts the largest fleet of environmentally friendly zero emission vehicles in the express industry. TNT drivers receive comprehensive training throughout their employment on parking regulations and the rules concerning loading and unloading. Nevertheless, our annual expenditure on PCN’s is a significant six-figure sum in London alone. We are concerned that the introduction of similar parking technology systems throughout the UK could result in unsustainable constraints being placed on our ability to service the UK economy. We would therefore recommend that safeguards and restrictions be mandated on the uses of such equipment by local authorities.
3. Should parking policy in London be subject to separate provisions and guidance, given, in particular, its large parking revenue surpluses, its more integrated public transport network and the number of foreign- registered vehicles in the city? Kerbside rules and regulations in London are highly complex. They can differ by location—across the same road, by borough, by time. The clarity of signage is often poor and confusing. We would recommend that a unified and consistent approach be adopted throughout Greater London and across all London Boroughs, including TfL.
4. What role does the Workplace Parking Levy have? Would people be more inclined to use park and ride services if there were a charge to park at work? TNT has direct experience of the Workplace Parking Levy as our depot located in Nottingham is subjected to this tax. The cost exceeds £30,000 per annum (£191 per member of staff). At present, the cost of the levy has not been passed onto our employees. As a consequence, we have not experienced any change in commuting behaviour by any of our employee’s. Having reviewed where our employee’s reside, their working patterns (shifts) and the availability of public transport links operating outside of normal business hours, we deem it unlikely that the provision of general park and ride services would provide suitable alternatives to our employee’s commuting patterns. The introduction of such a tax elsewhere within the UK could also make it more difficult for our business to shield our employee’s from the cost of this tax and could result in TNT having to pass on the cost to its employees at those locations subjected to the tax.
5. Are there steps local authorities can take, while managing congestion, to make it easier for businesses to trade and make deliveries? Fundamentally, the effectiveness of kerbside loading facilities depends on a number of different parties: — Drivers of freight vehicles need to use the right facilities at the correct (legal) time. They must also show consideration for other road users. — Delivery companies need to schedule delivery trips according to the availability of legal loading facilities. They must also have procedures in place to manage their drivers’ behaviour. — Street planners and engineers must recognize the requirement for kerbside loading facilities and optimise location, design, construction and timings. — Enforcement authorities must recognise the importance of keeping loading facilities clear of non-loading vehicles. They also need to maintain a balanced approach that considers different loading activities. Failure by any of these parties to act appropriately may result in the delivery company receiving a Penalty Charge Notice. Indeed, this is one of the most contentious issues in the freight and highway/enforcement authority arena today. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w81
Transport for London (TfL) data suggests that one third of all Parking PCN’s are issued to commercial vehicles (vans and trucks). Other data shows high levels of repeat contravention by the same delivery companies, often at the same locations. The implication is that factors such as health & safety, customer demands, driver behaviour and environmental restrictions play a significant role in the delivery decision making process. It is not simply a matter of adhering to rules and regulations relating to “signs and lines”. In our experience, the provision of loading and unloading facilities in many commercial centres is substantially inadequate. It is our view that it is important to ensure that the demand for loading and delivery activity is not ignored as it can create congestion, harm road network performance and reduce the effectiveness of traffic engineering schemes. Facilitating kerbside loading at the right place and time, through a combination of appropriate physical infrastructure and TRO’s, smooths the traffic flow and benefits the local economy. As internet shopping and home delivery continues to increase exponentially, more places to legally stop for deliveries outside or near shop fronts and residences becomes an evermore essential requirement. A review of the existing provision for loading and unloading, particularly in PCN Hot Spots (as referred to in paragraph 1), could enable delivery activities to be integrated more successfully into a street’s day-to-day operation. This would result in a positive impact on air quality through reduced congestion and improved traffic conditions. March 2013
Written evidence from Big Brother Watch (PE 53) Summary Much of the new technology being used by councils for parking enforcement is indiscriminate, takes away the human judgement of a traffic warden and is incredibly intrusive. The two relevant pieces of technology that we are contacted about are CCTV cars and body worn cameras being used by Traffic Wardens; both indiscriminate and intrusive. With the number of successful appeals against the use of CCTV cars rising, and in many cases the funds being collected from the use of the cars going up, there needs to be serious questions as to whether they are in fact successfully tackling the problems surround parking enforcement or are revenue generating measures. With respect to body worn cameras, there has been new legal precedent regarding the use of audio recording. This needs to be looked into by the Department for Transport and the Information Commissioner. 1. Big Brother Watch is a privacy and civil liberties campaign group that has a particular interest in the issues associated with CCTV and the disproportionate use of surveillance technology by local authorities. We are not traffic penalty specialists, therefore our focus will be on the issues surrounding the proportionality, transparency and accountability of local authority policies and practices. 2. It is essential that Local authorities are aware of the privacy implications of the technology that they used, with emphasis being placed on the Data Protection Act 1998 and the developing CCTV Code of Practice. 3. CCTV Cars: With parking fines up more than ten% in the two years since CCTV cars were introduced, it is imperative that the purpose and outcome of the cars is understood. From discussions with members of the public who have come face to face with CCTV cars, it appears that rather than focusing on specific parking infringements councils have taken the approach of using CCTV cars to indiscriminately spy on drivers. 4. By taking decision-making away from Traffic Wardens and giving it to a CCTV camera the council is moving rational decisions and good judgement away from the law enforcement process. 5. The number of people successfully appealing their tickets has risen by 20% since the cars were introduced.7 6. This also appears to be the guidance being issued by the Traffic Penalty Tribunal when faced with appeals.8 7. The Department for Transport need to be clear as to whether CCTV cars are actually acting as a deterrent for parking violations or are, in fact, merely a convenient source of cash. 8. Body Worn Cameras: If there are complaints against Traffic Wardens, making them responsible for their own surveillance seems a strange way to solve the problem. Even worse, the use of these cameras reinforces the idea that every member of the public is under suspicion. 9. There is a concern that the devices that are being used are so small that they are only distinguishable after close inspection of the Warden. A tiny warning on a badge hardly constitutes telling someone they’re being recorded. 7 http://www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/downloads/TPT_Stats_15.pdf 8 http://www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/downloads/BF05251K_1_.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w82 Transport Committee: Evidence
10. At the very minimum it should be a legal requirement that the member of staff informs the other person that they are being recorded.
11. Custodial sentences under section 55 of the Data Protection Act could prove to be a deterrent for individuals.
12. Traffic Wardens should only use (and are only supposed to use) the cameras if they believe that there is a confrontation with a motorist. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal has criticised the use of CCTV cars, stating that CCTV should only be used when “enforcement is difficult, sensitive or enforcement by wardens is not practical”.
13. If a member of public objects to the filming, this right should be respected and Traffic Wardens should then make alternative arrangements with the police or other third party if they are concerned about issues regarding their safety.
14. It is also important that effective administration is upheld when handling personal information. It is important that the companies using body worn cameras establish:
(a) Who is responsible for the control of the images (the data controller) (eg deciding what is to be recorded, how the images should be used and to whom they may be disclosed) and therefore legally responsible for compliance with the Data Protection Act (DPA);
(b) Clear purposes and principles behind the use of images that have been communicated to those who operate with the system;
(c) Clear document procedures, based on the ICO code of practice, for how the images should be handled;
(d) Plans in place to ensure that the procedures are being followed correctly and are meeting the standards that have been set.
15. An automatic wipe on any images stored is in place following a retention period of 30 days. We continue to believe that without custodial sentences the Data Protection Act penalties for the disclosure or wrongful processing of these recordings is a risk, and as such would in the first instance not support any compulsory use of body-worn cameras.
16. Audio recording: Recently Big Brother Watch has been campaigning against councils requiring audio recording in taxis. Local authorities who have sought to pursue audio recording in taxis. The ICO has ruled this to be in breach of the DPA and has commenced enforcement proceedings. We raise this as it highlights the challenge of even getting relevant authorities to abide by the code, let alone those who are not.
17. In the case Southampton City Council v The Information Commissioner EA/2012/01719 found that audio recording by the Council in taxis was unlawful. The policy was described as having the potential for “function creep” and was disproportionate. The case sets important precedent for surveillance and data protection law, and we hope that this means that in the future councils will be less quick to implement policies that abuse people’s right to privacy with little justification for doing so.
18. CCTV code of conduct: Under the Protection of Freedoms Bill 2012 (Part 2, Chapter 1), the Home Secretary is required to prepare a code of practice containing guidance about surveillance camera systems. The Act outlines that relevant authorities “must have regard” to the code, however “a failure on the part of any person to act in accordance with any provision of the surveillance camera code does not of itself make that person liable to criminal or civil proceedings.”10 Equally, the draft Code states “the commissioner has no enforcement or inspection powers.”11
19. We believe there are some simple criteria that would ensure a regulatory framework would have public confidence. They are: A single, straightforward point of contact to make and resolve complaints about CCTV cameras; A comprehensive code that covers cameras irrespective of their owner and is more focused on the purpose and operation of cameras; Clear, robust guidance on the information public authorities should be required to publish and have regard to when making decisions and during on-going operations. March 2013
9 http://www.panopticonblog.com/2013/02/20/application-of-the-dpa-to-surveillance-activities/ 10 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 s33(2) 11 Draft Code of Practice paragraph 12.3 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w83
Written evidence from Ruth Brown (PE 58) Just a few years ago, we voted in a CPZ that was active for one hour a day, with visitor vouchers costing 20p. It worked well. Now the CPZ runs all day: locals voted against this several years ago, but the vote was ignored. Visitor vouchers are now £4. This is a big £4 “tax” for every visit by a weekly music teacher, window cleaner, repair man, plumber etc. The money from our CPZ is paying for road repairs for the whole of Barnet—it’s unfair that CPZ residents are paying for everyone else. Also, our High Road is the A1000 and shops have always relied on passing trade. Trade was VISIBLY reduced by suddenly higher parking charges and making people pay by phone: the parking meters were removed! Please do something to save our precious high streets! March 2013
Written evidence from Sarah Ebner (PE 59) I live in Barnet, in East Finchley. When we moved here, 13 years ago, there was a one hour CPZ, and permits cost 30p each. This was reasonable. Now we need a permit all day (from 10 till 6.30) Monday to Saturday, and they cost £4.20 each. This is awful and unreasonably expensive. If my elderly parents want to come round, it costs me £4.20, even if my father simply wants to pop in for half an hour to see his grandchildren. If the children have friends round, I can’t invite other parents in for a cup of tea at pick up, as it would cost me each time. The same goes for when the plumber or electrician comes round. It all mounts up and we spend well over £1,000 a year on parking. This is crazy. In fact, we laugh when we see that our council tax is apparently “frozen”. We feel we suffer hugely via the way permits have been increased and money made that way. And as it only affects a small number of us, no one seems to care. It is unfortunate in so many ways, affecting people who don’t even drive, but would like others to come and see them (including the elderly or housebound). The rest of East Finchley, apart from a few roads, still only has a one hour CPZ, so of course they are not bothered (it is easy to ask people not to come and visit between 2 and 3pm). We are the ones who miss out—and we are the ones who live in the cheaper houses (nearer the tube station) where the others are able to park too! I find this really stressful. We seem to be always keeping an eye out for wardens. I have no idea why the time runs till 6.30 (very annoying for play date pick ups) nor why it is in use on a Saturday, when there are always masses of spaces. My feeling is that the council simply don’t care, not least because councillors get free parking across the borough, so they really have no idea how much it all costs. I know this sounds like a minor thing, but it really affects our lives. Please do look into it properly, especially the cost. That is what is so unfair. It went up in one year from £1 to £4 a permit. This is crazy. Thank you very much for your time. March 2013
Written evidence from Jeremy Neuberger (PE 60) I am a motorist living in Barnet, London, and am submitting evidence in frustration of the over-zealous approach of Barnet Council in enforcing its Parking Zones to the detriment of residents and shopkeepers.
Cost of Parking Tickets 1. It is my opinion that the cost of parking tickets is set too high. In London, a higher level offense has a fine of £130, and a lower at £80. 2. Motorists earn money on which they pay tax and national insurance. They then purchase a car, on which they pay VAT. They need to license it, at a cost of around £150–£200 per year. They insure it, on which they pay an insurance premium. They buy fuel on which they pay fuel duty and VAT. If they live in a CPZ, they need to buy a resident permit at a cost of over £100 a year. They then use their car to buy goods on which they further pay VAT. Enough money is flowing from the motorist to Government without further exorbitant charges. 3. The minimum wage is £6.19. It is entirely unfair that for a minor parking misdemeanour, such as parking in a loading bay for under one minute, one can be asked to surrender 21 hrs of work income—almost three day’s income for a full time worker on minimum wage. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w84 Transport Committee: Evidence
4. A maximum fine of £30 should be sufficient for all offences. A repeated offender could be charged more.
Complex Regulations 5. I recently emailed Barnet’s parking service to ask why they were issuing fines in CPZs on bank holidays, even though their website says explicitly that resident bays are not enforced on bank holidays. The answer that I got was as follows: Dear Mr Neuberger, I cannot legally go into to many details about the Penalty Charge Notice issued in the Riding, however, I can advise that the vehicle was parked on a waiting restriction marked by a single yellow line. The Controlled Parking Zone entry plates indicate that the waiting restrictions are in operation: Monday to Saturday, 09:00 to 18:30 & Sunday 09:30 to 18:30. I would point out that the Controlled Parking Zone entry plates do not refer to the parking bays, only the waiting restrictions marked by single yellow lines (there is an exception where the single yellow line is offset, in this case it would have its own time plate). Parking bays have separate time plates as they do not necessarily follow the Controlled Parking Zone. This is stated in the Highway Code, a UK drivers licence is issued on the proviso that drivers are aware of the Highway Code and keep up to date with any changes. From what I can decipher, this means that although the resident bays are not policed on Bank Holidays, the yellow lines, whose sole purpose is to delineate the bays, are policed. This is not made clear on the council website, and it is more than the average motorist can be expected to understand, bearing in mind that there are no street signs saying anything relating to Bank Holiday regulations. This type of ridiculous complexity can only be put down to the cash cow motorist mentality of local council, and has to be eradicated. 6. There is no standard observation time between London Boroughs. A minimum of three-five minutes illegal parking should be observed before a ticket can be issued. This would limit the amount of ridiculous parking tickets issued.
Local Shopping 7. The result of the parking zones in high streets means that motorists automatically add the price of the parking to the cost of a shop in their local store. It discourages people to quickly nip out and buy the odd item, as it can often double the cost of the item. People will rather suffer the inconvenience and buy it all on their weekly supermarket shop, free parking included. 8. It would be advantageous for everyone if High Streets had free parking for the first 15 minutes of a shopping trip. 9. Zones are often illogically small. A resident with a permit may be allowed to park in a small area around his home. Whilst zones were set up with the intention to stop commuters from parking all day near tube stations, in effect, motorists are restricted to a small area around their homes which stops them from performing social and economic activities.
Illegal Tickets 10. There have been many cases of tickets being ruled unlawful by PATAS. However, the councils will not refund prior or latter tickets issued in the same manner. This would seem to be illegal and inappropriate.
Level of Accountability of Subcontracted Services 11. I recently received a letter through the post from Barnet Council saying that I had not paid for a ticket that had been issued by a CEO. On enquiry, it transpired that the CEO had recorded the ticket as issued, when in fact I had driven my car away before the CEO had affixed it to the windscreen of the car. I appealed and was successful. (Of course, for all this time consuming and worrying process I received no redress, even though I had been clearly wronged.) 12. As a result of this experience, I sent a Freedom of Information request to Barnet to enquire about the level of probity, honesty and accountability the individual CEO’s are required to keep to. 13. The response, which I send as an appendix, showed a shocking lack of accountability to both Barnet and the public. This is due to the subcontracting arrangement between Barnet and NSL. Barnet seem to have no control at all over the CEO’s, cannot order their dismissal or any action taken against them. There seems to be no system of accountability for CEO actions. 14. If there would be more accountability, with a log kept of successful appeals and complaints against each individual CEO, I believe that many of the problems of over aggressive ticketing would stop overnight. Since tickets are referenced to the CEO that issues them, I can only conclude that a lack of such system is a deliberate cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w85
effort on behalf of both councils and private companies to reduce accountability and scrutiny in effort to gain more revenue I wish the enquiry much success in proposing a new system for fair parking which will ease congestion, improve traffic flow, and be fair to residents and shopkeepers. April 2013
BARNET LONDON BOROUGH 20 December 2012 Thank you for your request received on 22 November 2012, for the following information: I would like to find out about measures taken by the Parking Team to prevent fraudulent tickets being issued by Parking Officers. Could you please state: (1) How many PCNs have Barnet Parking (henceforth called BP) issued a) in the past year and b) in the past five years? (2) How many appeals against these PCNs has BP received a) in the past year and b) in the past five years? (3) Of these appeals, how many relate to improper procedure followed by the CEO responsible for the PCN a) in the past year and b) in the past five years? This would exclude any way in which the appellant agrees with the action of the CEO but state personal circumstances etc, or faulty street signs/markings, but include any action which is the personal responsibility of the CEO. If this information is not available, please give as much detail as possible in whichever categories that you hold. (4) Are complaints of the nature mentioned above in Q3 recorded against the individual CEO in question? (5) Is there a level of complaints at which the individual CEO is questioned or reprimanded? (6) How many CEOs have been reprimanded/questioned a) in the past year and b) in the past five years? (7) Are there any other measures taken by BP to ensure that PCNs are not issued fraudulently? For example, issuing tickets shortly after boxes being drawn, issuing tickets after cars have left the parking space, issuing tickets for cars with purchased parking permits? Please give all details of all checks and controls in place. (8) How many public appeals/complaints against CEOs have been upheld a) in the past year and b) in the past five years? (9) How many CEOs have been dismissed from office due to this type of fraud a) in the past year and b) in the past five years? (10) How many appeals/complaints have been received against the CEO responsible for issuing PCN XXXXXXXXXX (11) Please state the official policy in respect to appeals where the appelant states that the ticket was not placed on their car a) where the CEO has not written any notes and b) where the CEO has written that he did affix the ticket to the car. Please address how this policy relates to the checks and controls that you have in place against fraudulant activity by the CEO. We have processed this request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
Response I am writing to inform you that we have searched our records and some of the information you requested is not held by London Borough of Barnet. Therefore regulation 12(4)(a) applies to your request. Regulation 12(4)(a) provides an exception to the duty to disclose information when information is not held. 1. April–Dec 2011—118220 Jan–25/11/2012—145886 2. Appeal logged at the Parking And Traffic Appeal Service (PATAS) with decisions made. April–Dec 2011—770 Jan–Nov 2012—1297 3. The system does not have a report that can provide this information, as requested. 4. Appeals against PCN’s are against the individual PCN and PATAS will not record complaints against individual CEO’s. Council does not hold this information; the CEO’s are employed by NSL who are responsible for all employee relations. 5. Council does not hold this information; the CEO’s are employed by NSL who are responsible for all employee relations. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w86 Transport Committee: Evidence
6. As per number five. 7. The contract with NSL ensures good levels of honesty and probity. 8. As per number five. 9. Ibid. 10. Ibid. 11. All parking enforcement is carried out under the Traffic Management Act 2004, as amended. (a) Details recorded by the CEO make up the penalty notes as well as any free typed notes. (b) Under legislation, the PCN can be affixed to the vehicle, handed to the driver or issued by post (the London Borough of Barnet does not issue by post at present).
Written evidence from Richard Chaumeton (PE 62) Camden Council Officers Fettering their Discretion Regarding PCN CU31775121—PCN’s CU31796733, CU31838028, CU31905668, CU31907878 & CU31939240, CU31966822, CU32010593, CU32051320 From the beginning of October 2011 to the end of December 2011 Kentish Town Building Contractors Limited carried out building works at a property in Grove Terrace and due to the narrow south end entrance to Grove Terrace I am unable to get through in a 3,500Kgs flat bed tipper truck when the residents are parked at this end of Grove Terrace. If a resident parks their vehicle say 2–3 inches from the curb it is impossible for me to drive a 3,500Kgs vehicle in at the south end of Grove Terrace; I do not mean the south end entrance off Highgate Road I refer to when you have entered in to Grove Terrace via the south end entrance off Highgate Road and then want to turn left in to the road along outside the houses that the pavement runs along. Some days when we were working at a property in Grove Terrace Camden Councils pavement contractors were working at the south end of Grove Terrace and again it was impossible to enter Grove Terrace from the south end entrance. The problem entering is highlighted by the second attachment which is a photo of my 3,500KGs truck driving out of the south end entrance of Grove Terrace and if you notice how close to the parked car my truck is; the parked silver car is a small vehicle and if it were parked 2–3 inches from the curb, which is was not when I took this photo, it was parked tight to the curb; it would be so tight as to not allow passing in my vehicle. Also there is a very high 10" curb stone which if you hit it with the rim of your vehicle wheel it damages it. I have damaged one of my vehicles rims on this curb. If one does try to get through in a 3,500Kgs vehicle one will inadvertently scrape the parked car and or bash the nearside rear wheel on the very high curb; remember that you cannot see the near side wheels when entering the south end entrance of Grove Terrace but when you drive out of the south end of grove Terrace you can lean out of the driver’s window and drive very close to the curb and judge very carefully to not hit the curb and at the same time not scrape the parked vehicles. I don’t wish to damage a parked vehicle or my nearside wheels or tiers so on some of the mornings I had to enter Grove Terrace via the north end entrance at the top end of Grove Terrace for reasons of access only. KTBC Ltd worked forty five working days for the owner of the property in Grove Terrace and only entered on eleven of those days for access only. The Traffic Management Order (TMO) does not allow for access why? This is a very poorly worded and thought out TMO as many are in Camden, the third and forth attachments are the front and rear pages of the Grove Terrace TMO, I am surprised that this TMO is lacking in an exemption for access. I made representations to all of these PCNs and they fell on deaf ears a of Camden’s Town Hall Officers and the stance that they took regarding these PCNs is a total disgrace and let me tell you my client the owner of the property in Grove Terrace is appalled at what Camden Council’s officers have put me through to date regarding these PCNs issued while KTBC Ltd was carrying out works for him at his property in Grove Terrace. I used the top/north entrance to Grove terrace to gain access to my works in Grove Terrace for my client and not to use Grove Terrace as a Rat Run; this is why Camden enforce the restriction at the top/north end of Grove Terrace between 07:00 hours to 10:00 hours to stop Grove Terrace being used as a Rat Run and not to generate income for Camden off a local Building Company. What is most interesting is when my client of Grove Terrace was picked up by a Black Cab to attend an appointment last summer, yes an appointment not an emergency, his Black Cab driver was issued a PCN for entering the top/north end of Grove Terrace.; and guess what Camden Council cancelled the PCN, the PCN number CU3427495A. This is a very clear case of Camden Council’s Officers Fettering their discretion. Please read the first attachment which is a copy of Local Government Ombudsman Report. My wife’s motor bike received two PCNs in December 2012 CU35083571 on 6th December and on 7th December CU35092561, she made two separate representations on line and CU35092561 was cancelled; CU35083571 was rejected and now she has to waste time appearing at PATAS. This is another very good example of Camden Council’s Officers Fettering their discretion. The first PCN was appealed at PATAS and the appeal was allowed. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w87
Bailiffs Charging Extortionate Fees on Warrants that are meant to be on hold and the Fact that the Local Authorities can not Control their Bailiff agents To add insult to injury a Bailiff clamped one of my vehicles outside my home with two clamps on 21 March 2013, as far as I was concerned all the PCN’s warrants were on hold that the bailiff was attempting to collect on. A Camden Council Officer put all the enforcement of these PCNs on hold pending the application for my Judicial Review; see the fifth attachment. I left home with my four and one year old daughters to take them to nursery and school in Camden due to my wife not being well. This caused no end of trouble for my wife and I because our car was in the garage being repaired, so we had no alternative vehicle to take the kids to nursery or school and the weather was horrendously cold for my children who had to be walked to school and they were both getting over colds. I gave the bailiff a copy of the Camden Council Officer’s e-mail and he would have not accept it. I have had three run inns with this bailiff over the years and he is the past master of overcharging, he always says that “the reason that the charges are so high is that my office tells me what to charge”. This is total rubbish for him to say this, he is as a Certificated Bailiff and directly responsible for what he charges and no other person can be made responsible; that is written in the “Bailiff Rules of Rent”. He tried to charge me for his charges £1,073.38 for seven warrants which totalled £1,414.00. This is a grossly overcharging. The Bailiffs are not allowed to make multiple charges when collecting multiple PCNs; see attachment number six, seven and eight and read them, this is a transcript of a complaint I made about a Bailiff who is no longer a Bailiff; three months after this hearing he did the very same thing again to a lady who lived in Islington and was brought in front of the same County Court at Northampton by myself and a colleague and then the Bailiff ceased to be a bailiff any more. This is the breakdown of what the bailiff should have charged and what he is entitled to charge under the Bailiff Rules of Rent Scale of Fees. A PCN will rise from £65 to £130 to £195 and then a £7 Court fee will be added making a total of £202.00, the bailiff can then add one letter fee of £11.20 plus vat per PCN Warrant; making the total debt of £1,492.40 for the seven warrants for which the Bailiff can add fees to for levying, which is what clamping is determined as under the Bailiffs rules of rent. On the total of the £1,492.40 the Bailiff is allowed to add 28% of the first £200.00 of the debt , So £56.00 plus Vat, 5% on the rest of the debt, So 5% of £1,214.00 = £67.20 plus Vat. Fees at 28% = £56.00 plus vat of £11.20 = £67.20 Fees at 5% = £67.20 plus Vat of £13.44 = 80.64 7 x letter £11.20 each = £78.40 plus Vat of £15.68 = 94.08 Add the total of the 7 x Warrants £1,414.00 Total Bailiff allowed to collect under the Rules of Rent £1,652.82 scale of fees Not the £2,487.38 that the bailiff wanted to charge me, this man should not be permitted to be a Certificated Bailiff. Attachment 9 scan of the bailiff’s visit to my Roofing company 2011. The same bailiff tried to charge £688.84; he should have charged £204.08. So the bailiff was over charging £484.76. That is over three times more than he should have been charging. So now Camden’s Enforcement Team might realize that this bailiff should not be permitted under any circumstances be collecting Camden Councils Warrants.
Camden Council’s Appallingly Trained CEOs and Camden Council Officers Fettering their Discretion Again Outside our yard there is a drop side curb with a single yellow line along it. The restriction in this CPZ is between 09:00 to 11:00 hours to stop commuters parking all day so they can use the three local stations; a very good restriction until it comes to outside our yard. I have four PCNs on the go at the present that were issued outside our yard CU34139841 at PATAS and CU35548212 &CU35893913 issued last week by CEO2689 and CU35622417 issued to one of E&D Scaffolding’s Directors Cars while he was collecting paper work to take to a site meeting. I have been to PATAS so many times regarding these PCNs issued to our vehicles while parked alongside our yards drop side curb it is so very boring that a Local Authority can waste so much of our time making representations to PCN and going to PATAS so our companies don’t get ripped off £65.00 for doing our lawful days work. We pay Business Rates and have planning permission to operate a business form Grafton Road so why all the harassment. Here are some of the PCNs that have been to appeal at PATAS and all the appeals were allowed; PATAS Case number 210057032A re PCN CU26925961, PATAS Case number 2100570385 re PCNs CU26771904, CU26890583 & CU26952589, PATAS Case number 2100570374 re PCNs CU26971095, PATAS Case number 2100570330 re PCNs CU26737010, PATAS Case number 2100326384 re PCNs CU25879938, PATAS Case number 2100153162 re PCNs CU21209977 and every appeal was allowed and the Adjudicators were miffed as to why the CEOs continue to issue PCNs at this location and even more so why the Local Authority Correspondence Staff continue to enforce when it is so clear why our operatives park in this location. These cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w88 Transport Committee: Evidence
PCNs have nothing to do with Parking Enforcement, IE to keep the roads clear form obstruction or to stop vehicles creating an obstruction; it all about the activities of Camden Councils Environment and Parking Departments generating income with no regard for the business or the residents operating in the Borough. I must have dealt with at least fifty PCNs that have been issued to our vehicles outside the yard and we have never paid one of them due to the fact that I have had to spend a great deal of time to deal with correspondence to make Camden Council cancel them or having to go to PATAS in person to make representations to the Adjudicators at PATAS.
Camden Officers The Ham & High’s front page on 27 October 2011 exposed an illegal immigration of employees at NSL the enforcement contractor for Camden’s Parking Department. Camden Council denied the issue by not answering the question by saying “NSL have assured us that their employment practices are robust and that claims being made are without foundation”. I found this most strange because weeks earlier at a meeting at the Town Hall a Camden Officer admitted to me that there was an issue when I said that “12 CEOs had been found out at the Holms Road Base”; this was in front of a Councillor and another Camden Office. There was a major illegal immigrant problem in NSL at Camden, 26 CEOs left after the raids by the NSL immigration officer. I obtained a CD Rom from Camden of all the PCNs issue January to December 2010 and January to December 2011, the information on the CD Rom had every location, time, date, PCN number and issuing CEO number; and everyone of the 26 CEO shoulder numbers that I obtained that had been found out to be illegal immigrants stopped issuing PCN on either 8 August 2011 or after 15 September 2011 or very shortly afterwards. The illegal immigration scam had been exposed 27 October 2011 and still Camden used NSL to explain two weeks later in the Ham & High that there had been an illegal immigration issue at NSL Camden. The issue I have is that a senior Camden Officer had already admitted that there was an Illegal Immigration issue. None of the above bodes well for Camden by any means; a Camden Council Officer who set up Camden’s Parking from 1993 to 2006 to generate income at any cost and now Camden are addicted to the income and because of this we the residents suffer this kind of antagonism because of Camden’s desire for easy money.
Unjust Enrichment the Grafton Road Width Restriction 29. The CCTV camera installed at the top of Grafton Road is a very good example of how the senior Officers of CC’s Departments of Environment and Parking have been using enforcement of moving traffic contraventions to generate revenue/income. 30. A width restriction was put in by CC in 1998 at the top of Grafton Road to stop large trucks using Grafton Road being used a rat run, a very good idea. 31. In July 2002 CC employed a contractor/manufacturer and installer of hydraulic bollards to install the bollards at the Grafton Road location. This was to restrict all vehicles from driving south in the morning between 7am to 11am and north between 3pm to 8pm, so as to stop Grafton Road being used as a rat run by any vehicular traffic, a very good idea. 32. The time restrictions were changed upon a further consultation in 2005 to 7am to 10am south bound and 3pm to 7pm north bound, a very good idea because the residents complained about the times.. 33. In 2005 CC installed a CCTV camera to enforce in this location. 34. At the end of June 2006 CC wrote to all the residents and businesses in the surrounding area that informing them that: “These Bollards have been unreliable, which is unsatisfactory for all concerned.” 35. In the same letter, first paragraph the writer says: “As you are probably aware the automatic bollard road closure in Grafton Road has been in operation since 8 July 2002. This timed closure has been very successful in reducing rat-running traffic in Grafton Road, to the point where we have been able to install pedestrian crossing facilities at its junction with Prince of Wales Road.” 36. Paragraphs 30 and 31 contradict each other. 37. While the bollards were in operation they made Grafton Road safe from drivers using Grafton road as a rat run. 38. CC Officers have deemed to make Grafton Road an much less safe by ceasing with the operation of these bollards and as a consequence of CC’s Officers decision to cease the operation of these bollards the CCTV camera generates in excess of £550,000 per annum for CC’s coffers. 39. CC have made these bollards a major bone of contention after CC deemed the bollards to be unreliable and the bollards had suffered vandalism. The residents in the surrounding area objected to CC’s termination of the operation of the bollards and the income that was being generated by CC, there were many protests at the location where residents would stop drivers going through the width restriction, also there was a lot of articles cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w89
in the local papers which expressed how disgruntled the local residents had become regarding CC activities with the CCTV camera. 40. The bollards did not suffer acts of vandalism as claimed in a letter written by a CC Correspondence Officer (CO) to a representation to a PCN issued at this location in April 2008. There was one single act of vandalism; this single act of vandalism was that, someone had put expanding foam down the gap of the hydraulic bollard with no effect to the operation of the bollard. 41. It was also claimed that these bollards were unreliable; this is a travesty of the truth. I contacted the contractor and spoke to one of the Directors and they informed me that these bollards are not unreliable and that they have installed these types of bollards all over the country with no complaints. So the manufactures categorically dispute CC Officers accusations that the bollards are unreliable. 42. Another very important issue is that, why was there no maintenance contract taken out with these bollards at the time that they were installed? Surely this would be a matter of course for a local authority to have a mechanical operating bollard serviced by way of a service contract by the manufacturer/installer? CC cannot complain that they cannot afford the cost of the maintenance of these bollards; CC’s surplus from Parking Enforcement and the three Permits Schemes was £20 million last year. 43. The Director I contacted at the contractor ATG Access Limited that installed the bollards wrote in an e- mail to me that: “Having checked our records there have been 9 calls to site since 2004. Of these nine calls two were as a result of vehicle damage, 4 where the result of the timer being set incorrectly and the remainder where no fault found”. Also the Director of ATG Access wrote “Bearing in mind there has never been any service contract for these bollards, and the reason for the calls to site, I wouldn’t call this unacceptable by any stretch of the imagination but I will leave you to your own conclusions”.
44. There is no argument that as a consequence of the bollards not being operation at the Grafton Road width restriction, CC enriches their coffers to the tune of £550,000 per annum and in doing this Grafton Road is made dangerous as drivers are able to use Grafton Road as a rat run. 45. I have obtained the PCN and income figures for this CCTV since the bollards operation ceased and it seems that as time goes on as many as ever continue to drive through during the restricted hours. 46. Still over 6,400 drivers drive through the Grafton road width restriction and I would very much like CC to enlighten me as to why they think that it is acceptable to not have these bollards in operation? 47. How long will it take until CC realise that the operation of these bollards needs to be reinstated.
South End Road 48. It became very apparent when my company were working at South End Road NW3 that drivers were confused when parking in the last bay on the left had side when travelling up South End Road towards Whitestone Pond. 49. The confusion was that when parking the driver of the vehicle was under the impression that the bay was a Pay and Display because the signage is only at each end of the bay with no time plate on a post in the middle of the bay and the sign plate at the bottom end of the bay is on the lamp post and too high up. 50. For seven weeks in March, April and May as well as eight weeks in July and August 2011, I and my men observed many drivers parking in this location and often I or one of my operatives advised the driver that the bay was a Residents Bay and not a Pay and Display so they would move to another bay. 51. On occasion I and my operatives would witness CEO’s observe people park their vehicles in the resident’s bay on the left hand side when travelling towards Whitestone Pond, buying a voucher, then the driver would display this voucher in the window of their vehicle. Then the CEO watched the driver leave the vehicle and then the CEO would walk across the road and issued a PCN to the vehicle. 52. The descent thing surely would have been for the CEO to advise the driver before they purchased a voucher from the machine that they were not permitted to park in this location. It seemed to me and my operatives that the CEO’s were using this location to generate the Council income. 53. I ask for a formal investigation in to all the PCN’s issued at this location the last three years because I believe that if so many PCN’s are being issued in one location surely the CC Officers should wonder why and take some action to stop this. 54. It is very obvious to me that another post with the residents CPZ time plate should be put up in the middle of this bay so that the drivers of vehicles could not be confused.
55. I wonder if the CC will do this, or will CC continue to use this resident’s bay to generate income? cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w90 Transport Committee: Evidence
Appallingly Trained CEOs & Appallingly Trained Correspondence Staff Regarding Representations’ to PCN’s Double Parking for the Purposes of Loading and Unloading 56. I have hundreds examples of PCNs issued where every time the PCN should not have been issued due to the exemptions in the TMAs. 57. In the Traffic Management Act 2004 loading and unloading exemptions are provided for when there is no other option but to Double Park a deliver vehicle.
TMA 2004 Section 85 Prohibition of Double Parking etc (1) In a special enforcement area a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway in such a way that no part of the vehicle is within 50 centimetres of the edge of the carriageway. This is subject to the following exceptions. (2) The first exception is where the vehicle is parked wholly within a designated parking place or any other part of the carriageway where parking is specifically authorised. A “designated parking place” means a parking place designated by order under section 6, 9, 32(1)(b) or 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27). (3) The second exception is where the vehicle is being used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes. (4) The third exception is where— (a) the vehicle is being used for the purposes of delivering goods to, or collecting goods from, any premises, or is being loaded from or unloaded to any premises, (b) the delivery, collection, loading or unloading cannot reasonably be carried out in relation to those premises without the vehicle being parked as mentioned in subsection (1), and (Traffic Management Act 2004 (c. 18) Part 6—Civil enforcement of traffic contraventions 55) (c) the vehicle is so parked for no longer than is necessary and for no more than 20 minutes. (5) The fourth exception is where— (a) the vehicle is being used in connection with any of the following— (i) undertaking any building operation, demolition or excavation, (ii) the collection of waste by a local authority, (iii) removing an obstruction to traffic, (iv) undertaking works in relation to a road, a traffic sign or road lighting, or (v) undertaking works in relation to a sewer or water main or in relation to the supply of gas, electricity, water or communications services, (b) it cannot be so used without being parked as mentioned in subsection (1), and (c) it is so parked for no longer than is necessary. (6) In this section “carriageway” has the meaning given by section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980 (c. 66). (7) References in this section to parking include waiting, but do not include stopping where— (a) the driver is prevented from proceeding by circumstances beyond his control or it is necessary for him to stop to avoid an accident, or (b) the vehicle is stopped, for no longer than is necessary, for the purpose of allowing people to board or alight from it. 58. One example of this exemption was outside one of our scaffolding company’s contract in Fellows Road NW3 in 2009, three PCNs CU27421249, CU27385101 & CU2745817A were issued for parking more than 50 Centimetres from the kerb and I wrote one letter regarding all three PCNs and two were cancelled. 59. The third PCN was not cancelled by CC Correspondence Officer (CO) at the point of the first representation to the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) or the Notice to Owner (NTO), we were made by CC to go to PATAS for an appeal and at the appeal hearing the Adjudicator allowed the appeal and was miffed why CC saw fit to make me have to go to PATAS. This is an abuse for CC CO’s position where CC COs can try to antagonise owners of vehicles in to paying for a PCN when the PCN should be cancelled at the first point of correspondence.
Parking on the Footway for the Purposes of Loading & Unloading 60. Another exemption in the TMA 2004 is for “parking at dropped footways” and our companies have suffered many PCNs for parking in this type of location. The CEOs are not trained or advised of these cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w91
exemptions or are they told to issue PCNs for this type of contravention on the premise that the average punter will not know of the exemptions that are provided for this type of operation? 61. Parking a Heavy Commercial Vehicle on a footway is permitted under the TMA 1988 section. Section 19, Prohibition of parking of HGVs on verges, central reservations and footways: (1) Subject to subsection (2) below, a person who parks a heavy commercial vehicle (as defined in section 20 of this Act) wholly or partly— (a) on the verge of a road, or (b) on any land situated between two carriageways and which is not a footway, or (c) on a footway, is guilty of an offence. (2) A person shall not be convicted of an offence under this section in respect of a vehicle if he proves to the satisfaction of the court— (a) that it was parked in accordance with permission given by a constable in uniform, or (b) that it was parked in contravention of this section for the purpose of saving life or extinguishing fire or meeting any other like emergency, or (c) that it was parked in contravention of this section but the conditions specified in subsection (3) below were satisfied. (3) The conditions mentioned in subsection (2)(c) above are— (a) that the vehicle was parked on the verge of a road or on a footway for the purpose of loading or unloading, and (b) that the loading or unloading of the vehicle could not have been satisfactorily performed if it had not been parked on the footway or verge, and (c) that the vehicle was not left unattended at any time while it was so parked. (4) In this section “carriageway” and “footway”, in relation to England and Wales, have the same meanings as in the [1980 c. 66.] Highways Act 1980. 20 Definition of “heavy commercial vehicle” for the purposes of section 19 (1) In section 19 of this Act, “heavy commercial vehicle” means any goods vehicle which has an operating weight exceeding 7.5 tonnes. (2) The operating weight of a goods vehicle for the purposes of this section is— 62. A Heavy Goods Vehicle of 7500 Kgs or less has an exemption of under the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974. (3) A person shall not be convicted of an offence under this section with respect to a vehicle is he proves to the satisfaction of the court that the vehicle was parked— (a) in accordance with permission given by a constable in uniform; or (ii) the vehicle was not left unattended at any time while it was so parked; or (d) for the purposes of loading and unloading goods, and— (i) the loading or unloading of the vehicle could not have been satisfactorily performed if it had not been so parked. (ii) the vehicle was not left unattended at any time while it was so parked; or 63. I have many examples of CEOs issuing PCNs for this type of alleged contravention where they should not issue PCNs at all. 64. When representations are made to CC quoting the TMA exemptions regarding these PCNs the CC COs reject the representation outright and write “you will have the 50% reduction for a further 14 days so you can pay the PCN at £65.00”. 65. What should have happened is the CEO should not have issued the PCN in the first place and if the CEO had been trained properly and versed in the TMA’s exemptions the PCN would never have been issued. 66. When a CC CO receives a representation to a NTO that reiterates the same reason for cancelling the PCN as was made in the representation to the PCN; IE quoting the TMA exemption that allows for the cancellation of the enforcement of the PCN, the CC CO should cancel the PCN and not continue with the “you will have the 50% reduction for a further 14 days so you can pay the PCN at £65.00” and “if you don’t like this decision you will have to appeal at PATAS”. 67. CC COs are sometimes divisive when replying to representations to PCNs and NTOs and enticing an owner of a vehicle to pay the PCN is a potential abuse of their position; especially when the PCN should not have been issued in the first inst and the PCN should be cancel by the CC CO at the first representation to the PCN. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w92 Transport Committee: Evidence
68. I have many examples of CC COs that seem to be trained to reject representations to PCNs to try to entice the writer to pay at 50% discount where really the PCN should be cancelled, or when the representation is made to the NTO and again the 50% discount is put forward to try to entice the owner of the vehicle to pay when again the PCN enforcement should cease and the PCN be cancelled. 69. It is not a matter of this happening once or twice it is a regular occurrence and I have so many examples of this I have lost count but soon a spread sheet of all the PCNs CC CEOs have issued our vehicle and a Scott Schedule will be completed for the JR.
Loading and Unloading on Single and Double Yellow Lines 70. Another exemption that is very really applied by the CEOs is that until 11am an exemption is applicable for the purposes of loading and unloading when parked on a single or double yellow line with no kerb markings which signify time restrictions. This exemption allows for loading and unloading for as long as necessary up till 11am and after 11am the exemption allows for 20 minutes for cars or vans and 40 minutes for an HGVs or HCVs. 71. Once again I have much evidence that firstly the CEOs are not trained properly because they continue to issue PCNs at these locations or are they trained to do so because then the driver/owner of the vehicle will have to waste their time in writing letters of representation to the PCN or they might not be bothered to make a representations to the PCN issued, so pay the PCN. 72. CC you need to train your CEOs properly in all the exemptions for the building industry and Freight Trade Association industry as well as advise your COs to apply these exemptions to representations made to PCNs and NTOs and at the same time advise the COs to not be divisive in trying to entice people with to pay at the 50% discount. I have suffered greatly at the hands of Camden Council’s Parking Department and their pursuit of income at any cost and the cost to me has been over 800 PCNs issued from 2006 to date and we have only paid 35 of them due to the rest being cancelled by Camden but how they have wasted 100’s house of my time with protracted correspondence and PATAS appeals. I have kept the correspondence re al the Camden PCNs see attached photo.
City of Westminster Enforcement I am the first person to agree with Controlled Parking Zones, London would be total and utter chaos without them but the way some of the Local Authorities and have used the Decriminalized Parking Enforcement side of these CPZs to generate vast income is a total disgrace. The City of Westminster (COW) since 2006 have changed their ways and toned down there enforcement, I had much to do with this and at Westminster Parking Seminars from 2006,7 & 8 I continually confronted The Director of Parking and the Environment Councillor at these meetings about their abusive actions to the point that I became known as Richard The Parking Terrorist. It all started with the Bailiffs and the BBC Whistleblower program that I appeared on and exposed the City of Westminster (COW) inability to control their Bailiffs and the abusive actions of their Bailiffs, who are their Agents whether they liked or not and whom they are directly responsible for their Bailiff’s actions re the collection of COW PCNs. The Director of Parking was most embarrassed at the 2006 COW Parking Seminar which was chaired by an MP. Since I have got to know the COW Director of Parking and at the culmination of the 2008 Westminster Parking Seminar I had verbal’s with the Director of Parking and the Environment Councillor. I engaged them in conversation about the COW’s Parking Departments use of their position of impunity, it was very heated public conversation and they both lost their cool. They did not like being confronted with the COW Parking Departments abuses namely the COW PATAS record which did not make good reading and still does not today; COW record at PATAS 2008–09 was 21,892 appeals completed, 19,007 allowed and of those 19,007 were allowed and 13,947 were not even contested, COW record at PATAS 2007–08 was 17,507 appeals completed, 16,254 were allowed and of those 16,254 allowed 12,001 were not even contested. My company has suffered this personally during 2006–07 when we undertook a contract in Talbot Square, we paid £37,211.00 to COW for eighteen months parking suspension and were issued with 132 PCNs for parking in the three suspended bays. I was advised by the then COW Director of Parking that I would have to pay a further £20.00 to park in the suspended bays. I advised the then COW Director of Parking that under no circumstances was I going to pay any more monies to COW. When a new CEO started work for COW they would issue my vehicles with PCNs, so I would have to write letters to COW Parking Department with copies of my Suspension enclosed. COW would rejected my letters making an informal representations to the PCNs, then I would have to wait for the COW to issue the Notice to Owners and I would have to make Representations to the Notice to Owners and COW rejected fifty four of my representations to the Notice to Owners, COW forced me to fill in PATAS forms to apply for PATAS appeals. I did this fifty four times and every one of the PATAS appeals were not contested. A great deal of my cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w93
time was wasted dealing with all of this correspondence and I felt that the COW were abusing their position of impunity to the enth degree.
After this meeting I spoke with the TV personality who chaired the Seminar and he advised me that he had been warned by the Director of Parking and the Environment Councillor that there would be a man turning up call Richard the Parking Terrorist we had quite a laugh about this and some other person Matters. After we had finished speaking the COW Director of Parking came over to speak to me stating that he as Director of Parking at COW: “I do not need to issue 815,000 PCNs a year but only needed to issue 330,000 PCNs a year.” “I don’t need 265 CEOs on the streets of Westminster but 150 CEOs.” “I don’t need the CEOs to walk down every street every day being a treat to motorists, but need the CEOs to walk down each street in the COW every other day so being a deterrent.”
Also he made it very clear that vexatious pursuit of revenue was a politically driven thing from the very top of the COW Council.
The COW have realised that they have to change their ways and have done so but Camden do not wish to change their ways and their contractor NSL have a great deal to answer for.
TFL Correspondence Officers Fettering their Discretion
GF42389774, GF42386721 & GF4228934A
After receiving the three separate PCNs for Congestion Charge (CC) I wrote to TFL and explained that I had paid for my Vehicles CC in a news paper shop but when doing so I had got one of the letters incorrect of my number plate, I also explained in my letter that I am dyslexic . The TFL correspondence officer cancelled two of the PCNs but enforced the remaining PCN. This eventuated to the point that in January 2009 a bailiff clamped one of my vans the outside my home, the bailiff was most rude and insulting to me as well as TFL’s in house solicitor when she asked for the bailiff to remove the clamp and leave me well alone.
I had issued County Court proceeding against TFL some six weeks before on the grounds of discriminating against me for being a small business man because I only had four vehicles and not the fifteen that TFL required to have the automatic monthly account; also TFL would not let me add my vehicles to our other two companies account because they were resisted to a different company but all the said vehicles of our scaffolding and roofing companies as well as my companies vehicles were registered to the same address.
Another example of TFL’s correspondence officers fettering their discretion is when our scaffolding company received the PCN’s at a site in Swiss Cottage and they were all for the exact same location. I wrote a representation to the first PCN and the first PCN was cancelled by the TFL correspondence officer. I wrote a representation to the second PCN to TFL and explained that the pervious PCN had been cancelled and that this was for the very same site; I even enclosed a copy of TFL’s letter cancelling the first PCN. TFL saw fit to make me waste time filling in the PATAS form to apply for a PATAS appeal hearing and make me make time in my diary for an appeal hearing. Three days before the hearing PATAS wrote to me to saying the appeal was not going to be contested by TFL and the PCN was cancelled.
I wrote a representation to the third PCN to TFL and explained that a pervious PCN had been cancelled and that this was for the very same site; I even enclosed a copy of TFL’s letter cancelling the first PCN. TFL saw fit to make me waste time filling in the PATAS form to apply for a PATAS appeal hearing and make me make time in my diary for an appeal hearing. I went to the PATAS appeal hearing and the Adjudicator was miffed as to why TFL had continued with the enforcement of this third PCN when he had seen all the correspondence of the first two PCNs.
I suffered the very same scenario with Camden Council Correspondence officers regarding three PCNs outside a site in Fellows Road NW3. Three PCNs issued to one of our scaffolding truck for double parking, the operatives were delivering scaffolding to a site at the time of all three PCNs being issued. See paragraphs 57 to 60. May 2013
Written evidence from Peter Marriage (PE 63)
We are a family owned milling company. We manufacture flour and deliver to small bakers and shops in London. We have delivered into London for more than 100 years and have witnessed a huge decline in small family run businesses. We believe that the manner of parking enforcement is putting huge competitive; probably terminal; pressure on this type of shop. On behalf of our company I would like to comment on parking enforcement as follows: cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w94 Transport Committee: Evidence
1. How should the income from parking fines be spent? We believe that parking fines should not be treated as a source of income because this puts the wrong emphasis on enforcement. Fines should be a last resort when other means of obtaining co-operation from road users has failed. If not needed to improve the parking/loading provision the money could be given to the Foreign Aid budget or charity. Fines should not be regarded as a benefit.
2. How effective are the Traffic and Parking Tribunal For England and Wales? I have found the Tribunal to be fair and efficient. I don’t think it is effective for the following reasons: (a) Whilst it produces a report to Parliament this has little effect on the standard of enforcement. (b) It provides no incentive for the enforcing authorities to act correctly because there is no penalty imposed on them for repeatedly failing to do so. If a road user appeals to PATAS and loses then effectively the fine is doubled because the option to pay the reduced rate is lost. The local Authorities will claim that there is cost involved in the appeal. In fact this is minimal. Their evidence usually consists of many pages of photocopied waffle of no practical value to the case, with the pertinent facts incorrect. (c) To date we have not lost an appeal to PATAS but this has cost us many thousands of pounds. Appeals have to be properly presented and this together with researching the facts is costly and time consuming. The Committee may find this a cause for concern. (d) The enforcing authorities have nothing to lose from incorrectly issuing PCNs. In my experience most PCNs are wrongly issued and while PATAS may fairly consider cases presented to it this is not preventing widespread abuse of the system by the enforcing authorities.
3. Should parking policy in London be subject to separate provisions and guidance? I suggest that proper planning and provision of sensible cost effective public transport is the solution to these problems. The careful planning and consequent huge success of the Olympic Games shows what the Country is capable of achieving.
4. How can local authorities use parking provisions to manage congestion and encourage people to use town centres? By operating their policy in a fair and sensible way with the objective of encouraging people to visit town centres rather than taking every opportunity to exploit and penalise them when they do so. I realise that that sounds an extreme statement but the situation is very bad and will not be improved by randomly penalising people who try to trade with town centre businesses.
5. How can smaller local authorities use parking provisions to manage congestion? We tend not to experience unnecessary problems making deliveries in smaller local authority areas.
6. What role does the work place parking levy have? From the point of view of our company a workplace parking levy would be damaging. In order to manage to make deliveries our vehicles have to operate outside peak traffic times. This means that our staff have to arrive at work outside the times that public transport operates. In any event many of us do not have suitable public transport to get to work. A work place levy would add extra cost and bureaucracy to our business while providing a significant dis-benefit.
7. Are there steps that local authorities can take, while managing congestion, to make it easier for businesses to trade and make deliveries In London they should properly and diligently follow the Mayor’s guidance for deliveries which seems sensible and well thought out. You might consider restricting the issue of PCNs in locations where the guidance has not been followed. You might also consider making the guidance available to authorities outside London.
8. Are parking signs clear and comprehensible? Often they are not. If they follow the traffic signs regulations they are likely to be much better. As requested I have included some examples poor signs on the next pages. These have come to light as a result of my investigations relating to PCNs. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w95
Example 1. Poor signing of a road with weight restriction.
Right. Shows entrance to road and you can just see the 2 restriction signs but you can’t read them. There are no advance warni ng signs of the restriction.
Only the front vehicle at the lights can see the sign on the right and the one on the left is hard to see anyway. Once you start to make the turn (below left) you lose sight of the sign but by that point you are committed to the turn
Example 2. Another sign indicating the weight restriction on the same road.
The sign is obscured by the right hand beacon post. There is only 1 sign not 2. Before reaching this sign the driver will have driven for about half a mile through double parked cars. It will be impossible for him to go back and he will have no alternative to entering the restricted road. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w96 Transport Committee: Evidence
Example 3. Poor signing of weight restriction.
The road with the white van has a weight limit. There should be 2 signs, one at each side of the road.There is only one sign and that cannot be seen before you enter the road.
Example 4. Confusing loading restriction sign.
These two signs are located about 30 metres from each other. Our vehicle was issued with a PCN for unloading by the upper sign during the late morning. The local authority maintained that the loading restrictions at both locations were identical.
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w97
Example 5. Loading restriction signs that do not comply with regulations and are not easily visible.
These signs on the posts are to indicate a loading restricon. They cannot easily be seen from the cab of a lorry. Once the lorry has stopped by them they cannot be seen because they face the lorry.
They do not comply with the regulaons because they cannot be seen clearly, they are not mounted as specified on a flat surface and they are defaced
Some me ago we won an appeal against a PCN issued here because of the poor signage. Since then the signs have remained unchanged. Now another vehicle delivering here on our behalf has received a PCN .
What incenve do the local authority have to correct this situaon when doing so will cut their income from fines?
I think that the difficulties associated with making deliveries to small town centre shops is not widely appreciated.
We deliver flour and to a lesser extent animal feed in the Greater London area. Individual deliveries range between 250 kilos and 10 tonnes with most between 1 and 5 tonnes.
We computer schedule and route our lorries to minimise emissions and cost while complying with all the regulations. We expect our drivers to follow the rules and behave in a proper manner at all times. We will not support them if they do not, but the corollary of this is that we must support them when they are correct. This means that we cannot take a commercial view of parking tickets and just pay them. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w98 Transport Committee: Evidence
We know from our routing and scheduling software that it costs in the region of £800 extra in transport costs per day for us to route our vehicles with the intention of meeting all the restrictions. I am certain that we would not incur in excess of £800/day in PCNs if we ignored all the restrictions and because of the unreasonable manner in which the enforcement is conducted I suspect that the number of PCNs issued to us would not increase to a significant degree. We run a fairly modern fleet of 15 vehicles. It recently cost us £50,000 to modify all but the newest vehicles to comply with the Low Emission Zone requirements. It is unfortunate when vehicles are unable to make a delivery and have to repeatedly revisit a delivery address to find an unloading place or worse miss the delivery and return home which of course more than doubles the congestion and emissions associated with that delivery. If a driver has difficulty accessing a delivery, is unexpectedly held up by congestion or an accident then clearly this will upset the planned timing for all the subsequent drops but this does not remove the need for the delivery. A failure to make the delivery may well leave people or animals without food. The enforcement system needs sufficient flexibility to accommodate the impact of unexpected events. The Committee should look at the totality of the regulations affecting delivery vehicles and assess whether the totality is reasonable. (Drivers hours and breaks—particularly in London, Working time directive, London Lorry Ban—route planning with multi drops, The myriad loading restrictions and how they relate to route planning and scheduling etc) I hope this is of some help to you. March 2013
Written evidence from Geoffrey Stansfield (PE 64) A. Executive Summary 1. Since 1991 across Greater London, and followed by many other Local Authorities, Councils have elected to “Go De-Crim” with their Parking Policies, that is, to introduce Civil Parking Enforcement. 2. They are therefore not only legally empowered to bring in Parking Restrictions, but since voting to go De-Crim they are also able to collect and retain the resulting Parking Fines resulting from both the existing and from those newly created Parking Restrictions. It is understood that 200 or so Councils had done this by 2008. 3. Based upon a detailed investigation, evidence exists that many Councils have unlawfully brought in Parking Restrictions, not to avoid danger nor to reduce congestion, which were the main aims of the Statutes, but simply to increase Council Revenue by means of Parking Fines, which is claimed is unlawful and not what Parliament intended. 4. As a result, Councils have simply stolen the streets, and are busy renting these back to the Electorate from whom they have been stolen, and recklessly killing Businesses in the process without conscience or remorse, and often in breach of their Fiduciary Duty owed to Electors. 5. This is especially damaging to Businesses across a whole range of areas, from Village Shops in Northumberland, to London’s West End. 6. Since Audit Surcharge was abolished in 2000, Electors, Council Tax Payers, and Businesses have had no affective Legal Remedy against this identified and alleged abuse of power by Councils. 7. Based upon the Grounds outlined within this Submission, an Appeal is made that a check be put on Council Parking Policies which are so damaging to Businesses and the sustainability of Cities themselves and that the Public’s Former Remedy of Audit Surcharge against Abuse of Power by Councils and which existed prior to 2000 be re-instated in it’s previous Form concurrent with the pending demise of the Role of the Audit Commission.
B. Transport Committee’s Suggested Terms of Reference and Committee’s Suggestion that Particular Questions be Addressed by the Inquiry 1. In responding to this Call for Evidence by the Committee, the Terms of Reference and Suggested Particular Questions have been noted. 2. I would like to specifically address “the likely consequences of Government policy in this area of Local Authority Parking Enforcement”, rather than to be constrained within the particular questions asked. I would like to address both the historical consequences to date, and the future potential consequences. 3. I would respectfully make initial general comment that I believe that the nature of many of the particular questions being asked by the Transport Committee, and what very many others in the Press are reporting, are the symptoms of an alleged wide-spread abuse of power by many Local Authorities, rather than the cause. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w99
4. I am alleging a wide-spread and real but nevertheless local and isolated pockets where Local Electors and Businesses are battling with Council greed, and that which I am alleging is a wide-spread corruption of Statutory Law. 5. In trying to obtain a remedy, the Individual is simply fobbed off with the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for England and Wales and the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service for London where the cost and efforts of any sort of defence are totally disproportionate to the penalty being inflicted. 6. In the handful of cases taken forward to the High Court, several Litigants have lost everything in the fight to set a precedent in the Public Interest for the Many. 7. I would put this Question to the Committee: Would any Member of this Transport Committee risk their very Homes and £ 100,000 legal fees/costs to get a £ 75 allegedly unlawful Parking Ticket set aside? 8. Thus I believe that the nature of my Response is hierarchical to the sort of questions put forward in the Terms of Reference, and is founded upon an alleged wide spread abuse of power, which can only be remedied at the highest level viz Parliament. 9. Rather than to comply with the legitimate purpose of Traffic Regulation Orders, which Parliamentary Statutes had intended, and which were for the purpose of “avoiding danger”, and to “enable access”, Council’s and most especially Council Officers using Delegated Powers, have used their Civil Parking Enforcement Powers, in Council Officer’s common jargon, “Going De-Crim”, unlawfully and not as Parliament had intended. 10. Instead, they have used TRO’s as a collateral means of increasing Council Revenues via a wide-spread abuse of power, often making a sham of the prescribed Statutory and Prescribed “Consultation” process by simply by-passing it, and other times using deceit and deliberate omission of Documents and/or withholding these from the Public. 11. There appears to exist an almost unilateral recklessness by Council Officers to completely omit any consideration as to the effects which their onerous Parking Restrictions have on the Viability of Businesses, perhaps the prime example being the effects on the sustainability of London’s West End by Westminster Council’s Parking Policies. 12. A key point of my Submission, is that both Council Members and Officers [Including many Monitoring Officers, Chief Executives, Heads of Paid Service, Heads of Law etc etc] appear to ignore their Fiduciary Duty owed to the Public and Electors, and the legal principle that Councils as a Body Corporate hold City Assets “On Trust” for the wellbeing of Future Generations.
C. Introduction and Brief Background and Relevance to this Transport Committee of a Previous Submission to Constitution Committee of the House of Lords 1. As an experienced but politically and financially independent Civil and Structural Engineer and also Businessman [Hotel and Property Development], I have been investigating, un-paid and in the “Public Interest”, what I have recognized as and legally labelled as a wide-spread “abuse of power” within many Councils over their “Parking Policies”. 2. Whilst neither Solicitor nor Barrister, yet since my Professional qualifications allow me to instruct Counsel without going through an instructing Solicitor, and having done this on several previous occasions, I have found it useful to conduct research and to attempt to write mainly from a Legal point of view. Hence my Conclusions have been based upon both Statutory and Case law, coupled with my naturally limited understanding of the idealistic way in which Councils and their Officers should and are expected to operate, yet have often become allegedly corrupted by power and politics of the real world. 3. Firstly I would like to thank the Transport Committee for being given this opportunity to submit Written Evidence on this matter. I do apologise in advance to any Members of this Transport Committee and Members of Parliament who may also be Members of the Legal Profession should they find my legal arguments wanting and, of course, any are invited to comment, to criticise, or to add material, which I do hope some might be prepared to do? 4. I have in the past submitted Written Evidence to Sir David Clementi’s Review of the Regulatory Framework for Legal Services in England and Wales, and which was published in December 2004. 5. I also made a Written Submission to the Constitution Committee of the House of Lords [9 Pages] conducting an Inquiry into the Accountability of Regulators to the Public [... and Parliament ...]. The Memorandum was published in the 2003–04 Session, the subject being on the failure of the Audit Commission and can be found at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldselect/ldconst/68/68we62.htm 6. I feel strongly that this Case Study has now become especially significant not only to this Transport Committee Inquiry, but also to the current overall economic situation regarding checks on Public spending and the Accountability of both Civil Servants and Councils and their Officers towards Public Funds, and the effective Audit of these. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w100 Transport Committee: Evidence
A mere Bagatelle these days, but between 1986 and 1995, £7 billion had not been audited over a 10 year sampled period. For those interested in the Accountability of how our Council Taxes and Council Income is derived and collected and spent, the Committee will be aware, that since taking up office, Mr Pickles has “scrapped the Audit Commission”. Although my evidence detailing a case Study was published in the 2003–04 Lord’s Parliamentary Session, it is regretted that the significance of the Submission does not appear as yet to have been professionally recognized by MP’s. 7. Now there is a fundamental question which I asked within my Memorandum, and which relates to the relative duties and statutory boundaries of the responsibilities for the audit function and operations between the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission. My perception is that, nine years on from my Submission, no-one wants to address it and I consider that this is a most important matter which is absolutely material to the whole audit scenario and the accountability of public funds. This point was also confirmed by private correspondence with the Public Accounts Committee. 8. This appears to me to perhaps remain one of the main weaknesses in the integrity of the current audit system, and is a further liability within the legacy of the out-going Government. Within the Section “Lessons to be Learned”, Paragraphs Numbers 2 to 4 are therefore here repeated: (2) The main questions which the Case Study asks is: “In the event of known irregularities within a Grant Application made by a Local Authority for Government Funding, which irregularities are known both to the Body Corporate making the Application, and also the Government Body or Agency who is supposed to scrutinise details of the Application, including the Secretary of State for that Government Department, which of the Statutory Regulators carries the responsibility for the Audit of the Factual Accuracy of the Application? (3) Is it the Audit Commission through its District Audit Service, or the National Audit Office or, when it is alleged that such an Application is fraudulent, is it the Police? Perusal of the Press Articles in Section 4 of Appendix D, particularly the Article published in the New Civil Engineer on 11 May 1995, entitled ‘Row flares over lack of auditing for Local Roads’ provides the answer. Apparently there is no one responsible, or accountable. (4) Thus taking the example of the period 1986 to 1995, the ‘need for’ and ‘Value for money of’ some £7 billion expended on Local Roads has not been audited. In the area of North East England, the description has been used that a Local Highway Authority could apply with a sack of potatoes, or no potatoes at all, and the potatoes would still be given Transport Supplementary Grant and other Associated Grants thereby, including European Funding.” Since Road Funding is viewed essentially no differently to any other Central Government Funding, the Committee are invited to estimate the amount that I am really referring to. 9. Thus and upon these grounds, I believe that my Evidence which was published by the Constitution Committee of the House of Lords remains of serious significance and of continuing relevance to today, and indeed even more so since the Electorate’s main remedy against a Council abusing it’s Statutory Powers [Surcharge (fines) of Council Members and/or Officers] was removed by the Audit Act 2000. 10. I do hope that my evidence would be taken into account when statutory powers [if any] are conferred upon the Body [if any] which replaces the statutory functions of the Audit Commission, and so as to enable the Electorate to regain a remedy so sorely needed against the “Abuse of Power” by Councils, such abuse which has prompted me to write an Open Letter and this supporting Report to the Secretary of State, Mr Pickles. 11. There was a review of the National Audit Office conducted in 2008 by John Tiner, examining the NAO’s Corporate Governance arrangements. This came out of the John Bourn scandal. Tiner indicated that there was an argument for bringing the Commission together with the NAO—but only after the governance changes he recommended for the NAO were bedded in. 12. Thus the Lord’s Memorandum confirms that there exists a “Black Hole” in the Auditing Regime and this is between the differing Responsibilities of the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission. Transport Committee members are invited to assess the significance of this alleged “Black Hole” and further details are contained in Appendix 5 to this Submission “Are Council’s By-Passing Public Scrutiny?” by Paul Gosling in the Independent 3 April 1996. 13. The Tiner Review, nor the Government Response to it, by the Public Accounts Commission via their 15th Report failed to address this issue. 14. The LSE Public Policy Group in their Report 2009: “The National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and the Risk Landscape in UK Public Policy” produced in July 2009 for the Risk and Regulation Advisory Council also failed to address this simple issue. Their Report is here: http://pdf.edocr.com/866108045b930dc1c8b72b56699d0bbf6e6bd3f6.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w101
15. It is not known whether my Lord’s Memorandum was taken into account by this New Government and Mr Pickles’ decision when they decided to scrap the Audit Commission? 16. Putting that matter to one side however, after two years of [unpaid] part-time detailed research into Councils and Parking Fines, substantial evidence has been assembled, a simple precis of my findings being a Question in the form of an Open Letter which has been sent to Secretary of State the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP. Using the old dictum, “one picture is worth a thousand words”, the Open Letter to him is [unusually for a Professional] in the form of a Banner/Cartoon. The Transport Committee might appreciate that my Open Letter to Mr Pickles is merely 17 Words long, but it represents two to three years part-time unpaid Research in the Public Interest. It is also supported by a Detailed Report, however, of which this current Submission is a Precis. Since Mr Pickles is a very busy man, I have shown my OPEN LETTER to him in the form of a picture, and I have labelled this a “Banner” and I attach to this Submission as Appendix 1.
D. Mandate from the PM Mr Cameron to Justify this Submission 1. In a speech reported on Friday 16 December 2011, the Prime Minister Mr Cameron stated: “… one thing is clear: moral neutrality or passive tolerance just isn’t going to cut it anymore.” He said people were unwilling to distinguish right from wrong. “The absence of any real accountability, or moral code, allowed some bankers and politicians to behave with scant regard for the rest of society.” 2. As well as taking Mr Cameron’s comments as moral support for my making this submission, I would like to add two quotations by others being: “For every four persons whom one meets : One person will cheat you, reckless as to whether he could be caught out or not ; Two persons will cheat you, provided that they cannot be found out : Leaving only one person out of the four who will deal with you in a honest way”; and “When two persons meet to discuss money belonging to a third, fraud is inevitable.” 3. This Submission and the Report supporting my Open Letter to Mr Pickles has thus been written from an ethical and moral standpoint. 4. I would further quote the Journalist Dr Richard North, who on 17 December 2011 under the heading entitled “Xenophobia” expressed my concerns in print far better than I ever could have, viz: “It confirms that you cannot win an argument against these people, because they are incapable of arguing their case. They just mouth insults, and hide behind their mantras”. 5. Whilst Dr North was referring to others, his description could so aptly be applied in describing the way the majority of Councils and Council Officers react and are behaving when having gone De-Crim, and unlawfully using Traffic Regulation Orders to increase revenue.
E. The Great Council Going De-Crim Parking Fine Scam—The Logistics of the Scam 1. Councils across the country have seized upon an opportunity to increase their Revenues by wide-spread mis-use of a legitimate change in Statutory Parking Laws, that is, a wide-spread Abuse of Power. 2. Within Council’s Traffic/Roads Department’s jargon this change is known as “GOING DE-CRIM”. 3. This refers to the takeover of Parking Enforcement and Parking Fine Collections by Council’s Highway Authorities from the Police, which will be no longer classed as Criminal when enforced by Councils. 4. Prior to Parking Offences going “De-Crim”, in general the Police held and had themselves used their statutory powers to convict persons for Parking Offences, and it is understood that the Police had collected and retained the resulting fines, and offences were classed as Criminal. 5. Whilst not all Council’s Highway Authorities have yet done so, many have gone “De-Crim” and have taken over those Statutory Powers from the Police. 6. Councils have used the “change over” of their going “De-Crim” to organise and bring in extra Parking Permit Zones [ie extra Revenue], which themselves have extra Double Yellow, and less frequently, Single Yellow Lines [DYL’s and SYL’s] associated with them.In many cases, for example, Newcastle upon Tyne Council, there has been a vast increase in the amount of DYL’s compared to what had existed prior to their having gone “De-Crim”. [Thus additional extra revenue] 7. One resulting characteristic of this process is that by installing Permit Parking Zones, the Council have created a self-perpetuating knock on effect where vehicles have been displaced from where they can usually park, into having to find spaces in other adjacent areas. 8. Councils have thus seized upon this opportunity and consolidated their area’s parking arrangements in an overall attempt to maximise revenue from the enforcement of parking at the time of their going “De-Crim”. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w102 Transport Committee: Evidence
9. The original installation of the DYL’ and SYL’s which had existed prior to “De-Crim” had historically reducing the risks of dangerous parking, ie they had been put down as Parliament intended, and only for safety reasons and accordance with the various Traffic Regulation Acts and Associated Regulations. 10. Thus, and at the stroke of midnight of the date at which a Council went “De-Crim”, there has been a combination of new and/or amended Parking Restrictions viz: (A) New or very often extended Permit Parking Zones [PPZ’s]. (B) Making newly created Parking Zones in preparation for going “De-Crim” “live” at the Date of going “De-Crim”—those which had been planned, or laid down, but had not become “active” prior to the date of going “De-Crim”. (C) Plus the new DYL’s and SYL’s associated* with the New PPZ’s. (D) Plus entirely NEW DYL’s and SYL’s and other restrictions [No Loading, Disabled etc]. (E) Plus the effect of displaced parking where cars are forced to move from Parking Permit Zones into adjacent areas because these vehicles which had been historically used to parking in certain areas were unable [or unwilling for example Student Cars**] to obtain a permit, and could no longer park where they could previously. (F) Plus: A failure by Councils [For example Newcastle Council] to provide sufficient Permits for it’s Student population in areas such as Jesmond because Newcastle Council insists that before Students are allowed a permit, their car must be Registered at the address on the Permit resulting in a lack of Permits taken up 11. Based upon a detailed investigation, it is claimed that most Councils have seized upon this as an opportunity and means to simply increase their revenue, via a multitude of Traffic Regulation Orders [TRO’s being Notices displayed on lamp-posts etc and published in the Press inviting Objections (usually entirely ignored by Council Members)] coupled with a massive increase in Double and Single Yellow lines and Parking Zones [Controlled Parking Zones ie CPZ’s] and associated Parking Permits often done at the time of going “De Crim”. 12. I have labelled this as the “Great Council Parking Fine Scam Going De-Crim” being an alleged wide- spread Corporate deceit [ie FRAUD] practiced against the Electorate by Councils such that, when going “De-Crim”, the majority of these extra Parking Restrictions were not really needed on the grounds of road Safety, and as required by the Road Traffic Act 1984 and within later Statutes. 13. Thus on the stroke of midnight on the date when a Council went De-Crim, a City such as Newcastle changed overnight from a safe place to drive and park and Small Businesses obtain trade from Car Shopping Customers, to a City flooded with allegedly largely un-necessary Parking Restrictions, with over 5,000 Traffic Regulation Orders and 115 Miles of Yellow [Mainly DYL’s but few SYL’s] and White lines painted on City Streets, on the allegedly false basis that all these restrictions suddenly became essential to ensure traffic safety. 14. Since the most common road markings are Single and Double Yellow Lines this results in these stretches receiving the most parking tickets and penalty charge notices [PCN’s], and hence Fines, and severely restrict road space previously available for safe parking. 15. However, Research illustrates that Councils have often failed to carry out the prescribed Legal Public Consultation which Councils should have held with the Police, Fire Brigade, Ambulance Services and Other Affected Parties, as to why such extensive Parking Restrictions, including extra Double and Single Yellow Lines were required in the first place. 16. Such Consultation is prescribed within the TRO Regulations being Statutory Instrument [SI] No 2489 published 1996 [The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996]. 17. Further Research shows that many Small Businesses have seen their Takings drop by 50% entirely because of the onerous Parking Restrictions which have materialised since Councils went De-Crim, and which have nothing to do with preventing accidents but done for the express purpose of increasing Council’s Revenue. Many Shops have been forced to close, or are closing. 18. This COMBINATION of Parking Restriction Factors has made it appear that the roads became substantially more dangerous instantaneously—between 1 minute before and 1 minute after midnight on the relevant date of a Council’s going “De-Crim”, which in Newcastle was 15 April 2009. 19. Increasing Revenue from Parking Fines has now become big business within Councils, and on the back of this Business has grown organisations such as the British Parking Association***, now unhealthily infused with Council Staff, and creating secret conflicts of interest, especially oblivious of the nature of the Fiduciary Duty owed by Council Members and Officersto the Council and Electors. 20. In fact, and within Cities particularly, Councils may be described as having “hi-jacked” the streets, and have been busily renting these back to the Electorate, who actually own them, since the Highways are assets of the Cities who own them [or should own them] on behalf of the Electorate. That is, the Body Corporate of the Councils hold in trust the assets on behalf of successive generations of Electors. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w103
21. One result of this, is that these practices by Councils are simply “murdering” Small Businesses, and totally breaching their Statutory Fiduciary Duty which they also owe to that Class of the Electorate who are in Businesses. 22. If Councils were to act in accordance with their Constitutions, and complied with the Statutory Purposes for which they were created by Parliament, Council Members would seek to correct this abuse of power, re- gain control of their Councils from their own officers, and save their Cities forthwith.
F. Council’s “Going De-Crim” ie Civil Parking Enforcement CPE 1. Councils appear to be collectively going against all existing DfT pronouncements, as well as Statutes and Case law, without fear of penalties or correction. Appendix 3 are extracts from a key DfT Publication, 3.6 and 3.7 are shown below viz: CPE Financial Objectives being Crucial Extracts from DfT Document 168 Pages: Operational Guidance to Local Authorities: Department for Transport Parking Policy and Enforcement Traffic Management Act 2004 March 2008 ISBN 978 0 11 552943 6 3.6 CPE is a means of achieving transport policy objectives. For good governance, enforcement authorities need to forecast revenue and expenditure in advance. But raising revenue should not be an objective of CPE, nor should authorities set targets for revenue or the number of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) they issue. 3.7 The judgement in R v LB Camden (ex parte Cran) made clear that the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is not a revenue raising Act.
G. Effects of Parking Policies Killing Off Small Businesses 1. Merely to illustrate the wide-spread problem of Parking Fines Killing Businesses I have taken the names of Reporters from three recent Articles on Parking from the Richmond and Twickenham Times: Miss Smales wrote about Mr Ken Livingstone’s views on Bexley’s Parking; Mr Livingstone said: “What Bexley is doing to keep council tax down is screwing the motorists. Literally it’s almost as if it’s a religious fanaticism.” Another is Miss Natalie O’Neill, with her Article re Barnet Council 30 November 2011: the third is Tom Barnes, of the Surrey Comet with his Article re Kingston’s Fines, on 30 October 2011. 2. Miss O’Neill wrote on 30 November 2011 that in Barnet, Mr Patel, 30, owns Hallmark Cards in High Road, Finchley, and has lost around 35–40% of trade in the last month. 3. FSB senior development manager, Matthew Jeffer said: “These measures undertaken by Barnet Council are short term revenue grabs and a tax on shopkeepers. It’s driving customers away from the high street at a time when we need people to shop there.” 4. Tom Barnes wrote on 30 October 2011: “The most lucrative street in Kingston for parking fines has raked in more than £100,000 for the council” and that Salfaya Hussein from parkingfinesuk.com, which offers free advice to motorists issued with parking tickets, said: “Nearly two-thirds of parking tickets issued by local authorities are obtained illegally which means it is quite likely around £66,000 has been stolen from motorists in Tolworth Broadway.” 5. Here are more examples where Businesses themselves have recorded that “Parking Fines Are Killing Businesses”: For example: Hamilton (Lothian), Camden, Croydon, (Norbury), Ham High (Temple Fortune), Southport, Gravesend, Hyde, Windsor Drive (Chelsfield), Richmond, Leatherhead, Northamptonshire, Private Individual Leslie Lindridge Cancer Victim, Glasgow Arcade, Hamilton (Lothian) Butcher (Second Hamilton Article), Salisbury, Alfrteon (Notts), London Parking Fine Payments Rising—Flintshire—across this County, Tom Logan (Reading University—from Daily Mash—Maybe a spoof, but—a real fit with Surgeons’ experience in Newcastle upon Tyne) and so on and so on: So taken in the round, so to speak, Councils have simply stolen the streets and are busy renting these back to the Electorate from whom they have been stolen; And recklessly killing Businesses in the process, without conscience or remorse; And charging ever increasing rents for the streets which they have hi-jacked.
H. Fiduciary Duty of Council Members and Officers 1. Local authorities must act (1) reasonably, (2) consistently with their fiduciary duty (ie manage public resources in the manner of a trustee) and (3) conformably with any relevant statutory purpose—Dr Nicholas Dobson, Pannone LLP. 2. See, for example, the dicta of Lord Atkinson in Roberts v. Hopwood [1925] AC 578: “A body charged with the administration for definite purposes of funds contributed in whole or in part by persons other than the members of that body, owes, in my view, a duty to those latter persons to conduct that administration in a fairly businesslike manner with reasonable care, skill and caution, and with a due and alert regard to the interest cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:57] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w104 Transport Committee: Evidence
of those contributors who are not members of the body. Towards these latter persons the body stands somewhat in the position of trustees or managers of the property of others.” And in Bromley London Borough Council v Greater London Council [1983] 1 AC 768 Lord Diplock said that: “It is well established by the authorities... that a local authority owes a fiduciary duty to the ratepayers from whom it obtains moneys needed to carry out its statutory functions, and that this includes a duty not to expend those moneys thriftlessly but to deploy the full financial resources available to it to the best advantage”. 3. More currently, on 10 June 2010 Page 8 of a Counsel’s Opinion from Miss Cherie Booth QC of Matrix Chambers stated 7 Fiduciary Duties [not exhaustive however] which would be owed by Council Officers, and beginning with a Chief Executive, to their Employer, a City Council. These are listed in Appendix 6.
I. Conflict of LA’s Member’s and Officer’s Fiduciary Duty with BPA 1. Statement By: BPA Council—2011–12 “Council Members do not represent their employer’s or company’s interests while working for the Association, they represent the interests of the BPA although their background and experience will add to views of the Association. The BPA aims to maintain a Council membership which reflects the membership of the Association as a whole and provides a proper balance between Local Authority Members and those with a Commercial background. Elected Council Members are Directors of the BPA Company, which is Limited by Guarantee and as such bound to exercise a fiduciary duty in respect of the Association. All members of Council are encouraged to participate fully in the work of the Association, and it is though the voluntary efforts and work of Council Members that the Association continues to flourish and grow”. Council Member of the BPA [26 Council Members] of which 15 Council Members are Senior Local Authority Officers of Local Authorities or of Councils in England. 2. In the Financial Year 2011–12, the BPA thus stated that there were 26 Persons who were BPA Council Members and therefore Directors of the BPA Company. Would Members of this Select Transport Committee of Inquiry please note that of these 26 BPA Council Members, 15 were Senior Local Authority Officers of Local Authorities or of Councils in England. 3. Clearly those Officers who are in Council’s “Parking Departments” and who are also Members of the British Parking Association, or who have material dealings with the BPA, would do well to consider their Fiduciary Duty, as would LA Members bearing in mind the BPA’s own criteria for being Members of the BPA Council and quoted above.
J. What Legal Powers are Councils using to Raise Revenue using Parking Fines? 1. In Porter v Magill [2002] 1 All E.R. 465 (House of Lords), Lord Bingham of Cornhill briefly summarised the underlying legal principles of the auditor’s findings against Dame Shirley Porter and Mr Weeks: One such was: “Powers conferred on a local authority may be exercised for the public purpose for which the powers were conferred and not otherwise”. 2. Lord Bridge of Harwich in R v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council Ex p. Chetninik Developments Ltd [1988] A.C.858, 872 stated: “Statutory power conferred for public purposes is conferred as it were upon trust, not absolutely—that is to say, it can validly be used only in the right and proper way which Parliament when conferring it is presumed to have intended”. 3. So where and when did Parliament confer powers upon Councils to enable them to increase Revenue by using Parking Fines? 4. And what Statutory Powers are Councils using to be able to steal the streets and rent these back to the Electorate and recklessly kill businesses in the process in order to increase revenue? 5. Is it: The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984? Or is it: The Road Traffic Act Regulations 1996 SI? Or might it be: “The LCRE Act”? Is this perhaps new to this Committee? It shouldn’t be, it’s just The “Let Councils Rob the Electorate Act 1991”! 6. So where are the statutory powers which Councils are using for the purposes of increasing revenue by means of Parking Fines? I simply can’t find them: Perhaps Mr Pickles might be able to tell us?
K. Recommendations for Action by Parliament and the Government 1. Several other senior advisers to Mr Cameron were also known to be aghast at the proposals for the West End. Lord Young said: “I cannot understand the logic of it. It’s biting the hand that feeds it because the West End pays Westminster council a great deal of money”. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:58] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w105
2. So through this Submission to the Transport Select Committee, containing the Open Letter to Mr Pickles, and Referencing it’s Supporting Report, as a Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers, I appeal to Mr Cameron, Mr Pickles and Lord Young that this Government should act swiftly to give the Public a real remedy against such an abuse of power as Councils are now clearly and widely engaged in by their Parking Enforcement Policies, not only in Westminster, but right across the Country.
As a result Councils have simply stolen the streets and are busy renting these back to the Electorate from whom they have been stolen; And recklessly killing Businesses in the process, without conscience or remorse; And charging ever increasing rents for the streets which they have hi-jacked; And causing no end of stress to the Public who simply cannot go about their daily lives because City access is being constricted by Council greed; Especially damaging across a whole range of areas, from Village Shops to London’s West End.
It is believed that this is unacceptable;
It is alleged that this wide-spread practice may even be a form of “money laundering”;
It is terrible now; It can and will only get worse; It must be remedied at the highest level possible;
Whilst many have publicly railed and fought against the symptoms via the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for England and Wales and the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service for London, it is believed that the above Submission may arguably provide the grounds/causation of these symptoms. March 2013
APPENDIX 1
THIS IS AN OPEN LETTER WHICH HAS BEEN SENT TO THE RT HON ERIC PICKLES MP
The Great Council Parking Fine Scam
“Going De-Crim”
R.I.P. Small Businesses
PLEASE SEE STATEMENT/PRESS RELEASE
AFTER READING, WOULD MP’S and OTHER RECIPIENTS KINDLY PASS TO RT HON ERIC PICKLES, SECRETARY OF STATE?
THIS IS AN OPEN LETTER WHICH HAS BEEN SENT TO: The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government 22 November 2011
Dear Mr Pickles,
Why are COUNCILS ACROSS THE LAND MURDERING SMALL BUSINESSES BY THEIR PARKING POLICIES SINCE GOING “DE-CRIM”??????
FROM: Geoffrey Stansfield BSc MSc AMCST CEng MICE 22 November 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:58] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w106 Transport Committee: Evidence
APPENDIX 2 CIVIL ENGINEER WRITES OPEN LETTER TO THE RT HON ERIC PICKLES, SECRETARY OF STATE IN AN APPEAL THAT HE SHOULD CURB COUNCIL’S WIDE SPREAD LEGAL ABUSE OF PARKING POLICIES Wide-Spread Council Parking Scam Exposed— THE GREAT COUNCIL PARKING FINE SCAM “GOING DE-CRIM” —Works Pro Bono Publico Geoff Stansfield, aged 67, an Independent Newcastle Civil and Structural Engineer, and Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers, has written an Open Letter [ 22 November 2011 ] to Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, supported by a Report. The Open Letter is overleaf. He accuses many Councils of unlawfully bringing-in parking restrictions, not to avoid danger or to reduce congestion which were the main aims of the statutes, but simply to increase Council revenue by means of fines, which he claims is unlawful, and not what Parliament intended. Pickles has been asked in just 17 Words: “Why are Councils across the land murdering Small Businesses by their Parking Policies since going ‘De-Crim’?” [Please see Statement/Press release] Going “De-Crim” is Council Officer’s jargon for an administrative change which Councils can make so that rather than the Police collecting parking fines and this being a criminal offence, Council Members can vote to collect fines themselves and parking offences will no longer be classed as criminal. The legal name for this administrative change is for a Council to introduce Civil Parking Enforcement [CPE] into its area. Based upon a detailed investigation, it is claimed that most Councils have seized upon this as an opportunity and means to simply increase their revenue, via a multitude of Traffic Regulation Orders [TRO’s being Notices displayed on lamp-posts etc and published in the Press inviting Objections (usually entirely ignored by Council Members)] coupled with a massive increase in Double and Single Yellow lines and Parking Zones [Controlled Parking Zones ie CPZ’s] and associated Parking Permits often done at the time of going “De Crim”. Thus what GS has labelled as the Great Council Parking Fine Scam is an alleged wide-spread Corporate deceit [ ie FRAUD ] practiced against the Electorate by Councils such that, when going “De-Crim”, the majority of these extra Parking Restrictions were not really needed on the grounds of road Safety, as required by the Road Traffic Act 1984 and within later Statutes. Thus on the stroke of midnight on the date when a Council went De-Crim, a City such as Newcastle changed overnight from a safe place to drive and park and Small Businesses obtain trade from Car Shopping Customers, to a City flooded with allegedly largely un-necessary Parking Restrictions, with over 5,000 Traffic Regulation Orders and 115 Miles of Yellow [DYL’s and SYL’s] and White lines painted on City Streets, on the allegedly false basis that all these restrictions suddenly became essential to ensure traffic safety. Since the most common road markings are Single and Double Yellow Lines this results in these stretches receiving the most parking tickets and penalty charge notices [PCN’s], and hence Fines, and severely restrict road space previously available for safe parking. However, Research illustrates that Councils have often failed to carry out the prescribed Legal Public Consultation which Councils should have held with the Police, Fire Brigade, Ambulance Services and Other Affected Parties, as to why such extensive Parking Restrictions, including extra Double and Single Yellow Lines were required in the first place, and which Consultation is as prescribed within the TRO Regulations being Statutory Instrument [SI] No 2489 published 1996, [The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996]. Further Research shows that many Small Businesses have seen their Takings drop by 50% entirely because of the onerous Parking Restrictions which have materialised since Councils went De-Crim, and which have nothing to do with preventing accidents but done for the express purpose of increasing Council’s Revenue. Many Shops have been forced to close, or are closing. As a result: Councils have simply stolen the streets and are busy renting these back to the Electorate from whom they have been stolen; And recklessly killing Businesses in the process, without conscience or remorse; And charging ever increasing rents for the streets which they have hi-jacked; And causing no end of stress to the Public especially Tradesmen who simply cannot go about their daily lives because City access is being constricted by Council greed; Especially damaging across a whole range of areas, from Village Shops across Northumberland to London’s West End. He added: This is unacceptable: cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:58] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w107
He alleges that this wide-spread practice may even be a form of “money laundering”; It is terrible now; It can and will only get worse; He urges that it must be remedied at the highest level possible. Through the Open Letter and it’s Supporting Report, Stansfield therefore appeals to Mr Cameron, Mr Pickles, Mr Cable and Lord Young that this Government should act swiftly to curb the reckless killing of Small Businesses by Council’s legal miss-use of their Parking Policies, and to give the real remedy of Audit Surcharge back to the Public against the abuse of power in which Councils are now widely engaged. [The opportunity for Surcharge [Fining] of Council Members and/or Council Officers by the District Auditor on behalf of the Electorate for the unlawful expenditure of Public Funds or unlawfully acquired funds was removed in 2000]. AFTER READING, MP’S and OTHERS WHO ARE RECIPIENTS OF THIS OPEN LETTER ARE INVITED TO PASS IT ON TO THE RT HON ERIC PICKLES MP, SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES and LOCAL GOVERNMENT FOR ACTION BY HIM
APPENDIX 3 CPE FINANCIAL OBJECTIVES CRUCIAL EXTRACTS FROM DFT DOCUMENT 168 PAGES Operational Guidance to Local Authorities Department for Transport Parking Policy and Enforcement Traffic Management Act 2004 March 2008 ISBN 978 0 11 552943 6 3.6 CPE is a means of achieving transport policy objectives. For good governance, enforcement authorities need to forecast revenue and expenditure in advance. But raising revenue should not be an objective of CPE, nor should authorities set targets for revenue or the number of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) they issue. 3.7 The judgement in R v LB Camden (ex parte Cran) made clear that the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is not a revenue raising Act. 3.8 Enforcement authorities should run their CPE operations (both on- and off-street) efficiently, effectively and economically. The purpose of penalty charges is to dissuade motorists from breaking parking restrictions. The objective of CPE should be for 100% compliance, with no penalty charges. Parking charges and penalty charges should be proportionate, so authorities should not set them at unreasonable levels. Any penalty charge payments received (whether for on-street or off-street enforcement) must only be used in accordance with section 55 (as amended) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. 3.9 Previous guidance said that local authority parking enforcement should be self-financing as soon as practicable. This is still a sensible aim, but compliant applications for CPE (see Chapters 12 to 15) will be granted without the scheme being self-financing. However, authorities will need to bear in mind that if their scheme is not self-financing, then they need to be certain that they can afford to pay for it from within existing funding. The Secretary of State will not expect either national or local taxpayers to meet any deficit. Any application to the Secretary of State for a scheme that is not self-financing should be supported by a resolution of the full Council. 13. CPE can only apply to privately owned car parks that are regulated by an order made under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, section 35 and provided under any letting or arrangements made by a local authority with some other person (such as a privately-owned company) under section 33(4) of that Act. 15. Applying for CPE powers in conjunction with neighbouring authorities may be one way of tackling a potential financial shortfall. But a robust agreement on cost sharing will be needed if the partnership is to last.
Please Note The above extract has two type faces, one being bold: The difference is explained in Chapter 1—Introduction to the Operational Guidance Paragraphs 1.3 and 1.4 are extracted as below: 1.3 This Operational Guidance is good practice guidance. It is not the guidance issued under section 87 of the Traffic Management Act 2004, although it quotes from that guidance—see paragraph 1.4 below. Where it says that something must be done, this means that it is a requirement in either primary or secondary legislation, and a footnote gives the appropriate provision. Where a statute imposes a duty on a local authority, a failure to comply will constitute a breach of statutory duty. This document has no special authority in regard to matters of legal interpretation. Where there appear to be differences between the regulations and the Guidance, the regulations always take precedence. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:58] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w108 Transport Committee: Evidence
1.4 Wording in this document in bold and Comic Sans MS typeface is part of the Secretary of State for Transport’s Guidance (often referred to as the Statutory Guidance) which is published under section 87 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. section 87 of the TMA stipulates that local authorities must have regard to the information contained in that Guidance, which is available as a separate document.
APPENDIX 4 West End pays the price for Westminster’s mess. Evening Standard Article by Paul Dimoldenberg 28 November 2011 plus three comments. The Westminster parking controversy is as much about what Westminster residents pay for local services as it is about the impact of charges on West End businesses. Ever since the bad old days of Dame Shirley Porter, Westminster Conservatives have boasted of charging a low council tax. In electoral terms it has served them very well. Porter needed a low council tax to buy the 1990 council elections when her popularity was at an all-time low, following the “homes for votes” scandal. After 1991, a change in the law gave Porter’s successors the golden egg of massive parking income with which to finance their election success. This enabled them to claim they were an “efficient” council, when the truth was that they were a very lucky council which enjoyed an enormous annual financial windfall. Thus Westminster can charge a Band D council tax of just £687 when the average everywhere else in London is roughly double that figure. The fact that just next door, hardly profligate Kensington and Chelsea charges £1,438 shows how Westminster’s finances are reliant on parking income. But when parking income started to decline in 2009, thanks to the recession and the introduction of pay-by- phone parking, Westminster had a big problem. The council’s income from parking fines dropped from £38.2 million in 2006–07 to £20.5 million in 2009–10—a loss of nearly £18 million. How could the Conservatives fill this black hole? The option of small but regular council tax increases has never found favour. Last February, council officers reminded the Conservatives that they had ignored successive finance directors’ advice for a council tax “increase of 2.9% in 2005–06, 5% in 2006–07, 5% in 2007–08 and 2% in 2008–09”. If the council had followed that advice, it would have £13 million more income today. This would have cost the average Band D council tax payer just 80p a week extra. As it is, the council’s income base has now been badly eroded, making it even more dependent on parking income. Instead, the council raided reserves to fill the gap and also to pay for huge redundancy costs. Its reserves have plummeted by more than £60 million, from £72 million in June 2008 to £11.4 million in November 2010. In addition, more than 1,000 council jobs have been axed over the past two years. Westminster estimates that redundancy costs for 2011–12 and 2012–13 “will be in the range of £12–18 million”. Yet there is insufficient money in reserves to cover these costs. Westminster Tories are reaping what they have sown. Everyone knows that the new West End parking charges are all about raising money to finance local services. But the council can’t say this because parking charges are not allowed, by law, to fund day-to-day services. The Conservatives fear putting council tax up because this would destroy their electoral advantage. But even if they did, they have eroded the borough’s income base so badly that they would need a massive council tax increase to fill the gaping hole in their finances. What a mess. And through these new charges, it is West End theatres, restaurants, theatres, casino workers and businesses generally that look like paying the price. Reader views (3)
The Great Council Parking Fine Scam “Going De-Crim” In a London Evening Standard Article, 2 December 2011, “Westminster’s parking plan will stifle West End culture”, Lord Tony Hall, CEO Royal Opera House, asks: “The only question remaining is: Why isn’t Westminster listening?” Based upon considerable research, might I suggest that the answer is most likely to be as follows: They are not listening because they are attempting a “cover-up” of a country-wide Council scam. This has all the symptoms of a “cover-up” to a scam, and it is the “symptoms” which are being reported. Since Council’s have taken over the collection of parking fines from the Police, evidence exists of many hundreds of Small Businesses being damaged Country wide. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:58] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w109
Since the introduction of Civil Parking Enforcement, Council’s Parking Policies have been aimed at making excessive use of Parking Restrictions—especially Single and Double Yellow lines. Councils are using these simply to increase Council Revenue, rather than such Parking Restrictions being used for the proper purposes for which Parliament intended, being in the main for avoiding danger and easing congestion. In their excessive zeal for extra Revenue Councils are often by-passing the prescribed Statutory Procedures in the process, which in other circumstances should be classed as “money laundering”. Geoffrey Stansfield, Member Institution of Civil Engineers, Jesmond, Newcastle upon Tyne —geoffrey stansfield, uk, 01/01/2012 16:46 We all know the real truth. Whilst a council must not make a profit out of parking ... this is exactly what our corrupt system allows the councils to do. They reap what they sow … and by that I mean “Higway robbery”. Westminster Council and its parking department know only too well what it aims to do. Parking fees in Westminster has nothing to do with kerb side space or traffic management … just money. —David Triphook, Sutton, Surrey, 28/11/2011 22:30 Time for incompetent Barrows and Rowley to be kicked out of the Tory party. I live in the other model Tory borough Wandsworth, and if they want my vote they have to pressure Westminster to stop this tax. WCC have boasted for years that they could have a zero council tax funded by motorists, and this is what they’re attempting pure and simple. Congestion my foot, I could draw you a map out of my head showing you the miles of extra double yellow lines they’ve put ii over the last few years to justify this … in my opinion it’s deception. —Dave, London, 28/11/2011 18:10
APPENDIX 5 ARE COUNCILS BY-PASSING PUBLIC SCRUTINY? INDEPENDENT 3 APRIL 1996 BY PAUL GOSLING Are councils by-passing public scrutiny? PUBLIC SECTOR FINANCE Anti-roads campaigners may have shown up a loophole that is leading to unnecessary secrecy. By Paul Gosling Paul Gosling Wednesday, 3 April 1996 Anti-roads protesters in the North-east claim to have uncovered a “black hole” in the auditing system that allows hundreds of millions of pounds of road building each year to be approved without proper checks. Campaigners have been in conflict with Newcastle City Council for three years as they tried unsuccessfully to force the authority to disclose its figures for justifying the Cradlewell by-pass, which opens later this month. The pounds 12m new road was given the go-ahead after Newcastle council submitted a cost-benefit analysis to the Department of Transport, applying for a Transport Supplementary Grant. But the figures used by Newcastle council are being questioned by campaigners. It was when Geoff and Penny Stansfield, owners of a local hotel, attempted to object to the calculations that they found there was a problem about audit jurisdiction. Andrew Foster, controller of the Audit Commission, which audits local authorities, wrote to Mrs Stansfield saying: “Transport Supplementary Grant is distributed by the Department of Transport, according to conditions laid down by the Government and the department. Those conditions do not require the audit of applications for grant and the commission and its auditors, therefore, have no remit to audit such applications.” Yet Robert Sheldon, chairman of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, also wrote to Mrs Stansfield, on behalf of the National Audit Office, responsible for Government departments, saying: “While the National Audit Office is responsible for ensuring that money voted by Parliament is properly accounted for, it is specifically excluded from access to the accounts or records of local authorities and has no authority to audit the accuracy of information which local authorities use to prepare their bids or to check how the grant is actually applied once it has been approved. The National Audit Office relies on certificates from the District Auditor, appointed by the Audit Commission, to obtain assurance that actual expenditure is fairly stated and has been properly incurred in accordance with the conditions under which the grant was approved.” Meanwhile, Peter McNamara, formerly head of Newcastle’s highways department, refused to release the calculations to local people as “a matter of principle” adding that “there is no requirement on us to provide this information to other people”. As a result, Newcastle council has been involved in an ill-tempered and festering dispute with the anti-roads campaigners, that has led to the council’s annual accounts being challenged, and an objection being lodged against the district auditor for alleged wilful misconduct in failing to audit the cost-benefit analysis. Unprecedentedly, the Audit Commission appointed an outside independent auditor to review the work and cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:58] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w110 Transport Committee: Evidence
approach of the Newcastle district auditor, who was found to have acted correctly. But the dispute has taken up many hours of Audit Commission business. Both the Audit Commission and the National Audit Office maintain that the dispute does not indicate that there is anything wrong with the current system. Newcastle MP Nick Brown is not so sure, having asked several Parliamentary Questions on behalf of the local protesters to try to bring information into the public arena, though he is not persuaded by the campaigners’ case. Mr Brown says it is not surprising that the council’s case was challenged by local people. “They only had the local authority’s word on the figures, which puts the onus on the ordinary citizen to become an expert overnight,” says Mr Brown. “It is cumbersome and prone to delays, and the council was very secretive, but I am not satisfied that the process was unfair. I don’t think the procedure is satisfactory. I would like to see more candour. There should be more in the public domain, though I can’t say the decision-makers were unreasonable.” Friends of the Earth argues that if the decision-making and the figures behind them were more open, then different decisions would in fact be taken. Roger Higman, FoE’s senior transport campaigner, says that when the National Audit Office did check the Department of Transport’s projections for road usage they were found to be broadly accurate—but only because the gross over-estimates in the South were balanced out by the gross under-estimates in the North. FoE believes that if expenditure on national and local schemes were fairly compared, then there would be much less major road building, and far more minor road improvements. “The money available for small-scale schemes has been limited,” says Mr Higman. “There is good evidence that the rate of return for local road building and minor works is much better than for national road building. The Department of Transport does not accept this as it believes that local authorities over-estimate their figures.” It is rumoured that the Audit Commission is seriously considering checking the figures used by local authorities for cost-benefit analyses, to prevent any repetition of the Cradlewell row. However, no one at the commission was able to confirm whether this was correct.
APPENDIX 6 This is Page 8 of a Counsel’s Opinion dated 10 June 2010 given by Miss Cherie Booth QC of Matrix Chambers. It lists 7 Fiduciary Duties [ not exhaustive however ] which would be owed by Council Officers, beginning with a Chief Executive downwards, to their Employer, a City Council, and through the Body Corporate to Electors/Council Taxpayers. These are listed below: A Chief Executive of a Council will owe Fiduciary Duties to the Council. These Duties will include [but not necessarily exhaustive] the following Duties: (1) A fiduciary must not place himself or herself in a situation where his own interests conflict with those of the City Council, or where there is a real possibility that this will happen. (2) A fiduciary must not profit from his position as a fiduciary and must account to his company for the entirety of its property and the profits from his position as a fiduciary. (3) A fiduciary owes undivided loyalty to the City Council and must act selflessly and must not place himself in a position where his duty to another organisation conflicts with his duty to the City Council. (4) A fiduciary cannot use or disclose information obtained in confidence from the City Council for the benefit of others. This duty will continue after the end of the fiduciary’s appointment. (5) A fiduciary may not exercise his powers in his own or third parties’ interests. (6) To act in good faith in the interests of the City Council. (7) A fiduciary must disclose his own misconduct. March 2013
Written evidence from Wish Travel & Transportation Solutions Limited (PE 65) With regards to the request for representations about how effective companies find the TPT, I’d like to comment accordingly: I’m a 33yr old Transport Manager for an independant coach and minibus company. I am legally trained but couldnt get a training contract so retrained in Transport Law and now manage a SME in Wigan. I have to say three things about the TPT that I hope influences a change. I hope this gets to the right person and they put up with the length, for which I apologise in advance. We, as a company, offer out our vehicles to private paying parties. They are popular for Stag and Hen dos over a weekend. Weekend breaks abroad are less popular now because the costs of going cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:58] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w111
into Europe have caught us up now and people are chosing to travel inter-city at the moment. This is great for the economy, local and nationally. Popular destinations for us personally (being in Wigan) would be Newcastle, Whitley Bay, London, Liverpool and Manchester, York, Cardiff and Leeds. As you can see, that’s pretty much everywhere in England (apart from Cardiff of course). If the price is right for us, we’ll do the work. The problems are: (1) Drivers are professional drivers and are expected to drive to the highest of standards. The ability to sign restricted roads differently in each city causes confusion. A bus lane restriction ... a tram lane restriction ... a pedestrianised road at certain times ... they all need one sign that’s the same nationwide rather than varying from city to city. It is unfair on drivers for them to have to look for a varience in signage because, to them, it feels like a trap if they are better signed in one place than in another because there can often be many signs in an area and for them to spot each one, take in the information and allow for regional varience on each issue, really is unfair. If there is no sign that suits a city centre situation, then it’s unfair to police it because drivers only get a glance at these signs on approach, they should not be so obscure that the effect makes it feel like a trap to the average driver. (2) With regards to the TPT itself, as an SME, because of the effects of appealing a matter wont include expenses for a successful appeal (save for very limited and narrowly defines situations), as a small company only employing a hand full of employees, if we are wronged by a councils decision to issue a charge certificate, the actual costs of defending ourselves is more than the fine itself. In one example, a driver of ours was looking for the front enterance to a Hotel in Nottingham town centre and drove around the block until he found it … each time committing an offence. The council issued a Charge Certificate to the company and we protested it on two counts, firstly that the company itself was not liable and secondly that even if there was an offence committed, then there was a direct contradiction in the TRO used to charge us and primary legislation to the contrary. In this instance, the driver in question had gone round the block three times whilst executing his duty to the company and might have committed an offence, but the way the TRO directed that the offence should be dealt with (treated as a bus lane offence) meant that the driver, on paper, committed no offence because he was in a vehicle compliant with a bus lane restriction but not compliant in a local tram lane restriction … the original offence. However, because of the limited expenses situation with the TPT, as a company, when we decided to protest the ticket (because it was not charged correctly in the first place, thus creating a contradiction in legislation and resulting in no offence being committed in the first place) we realised there was no suitable venue for our voice to be heard. We were not going to go to a TPT hearing without our time being paid for. If we win, we shoudl get all our time back. We were not represented by a solicitor at all. Nottingham Council hiked up the fine from £60 per offence to £90 and to £110 per offence each time representations were made....even if the representations were right! Because no expenses are awareded in the TPT and we rejected the TPT as the correct venue to settle the dispute. Because of this, the council had to go to the Magistrates court to obtain a warrent (an abuse of a process because the issue was not about just not paying, the issue was protested from the start) but what else could they do? They wanted us to go to the TPT and we would love to have done this because this was our opportunity to put the record straight … but the stark reality of the situation was that we are based in Wigan, the TPT process would be over in Nottingham area ... we’d naturally put two members of staff onto the matter on the day of the hearing (notwithstanding all the prep work beforehand) and we would go through a mini trial in the same way as the civil courts would do but without being paid for our time in doing so! This is unacceptable to a SME. We cannot spend time fighting cases without merit on a freebie. Our time is not free, we are a company and our time should be compensated accordingly upon success. We rejected the whole process of the TPT simply because it would cost us more in defending the charges than it would to just pay them ... but we wont do that without a fight. After bailiffs were appointed, we had to pay but then we were then forced down the civil courts route to reclaim back our money. This is because the TPT did not have a satisfactory remedy for us as victims. If there was an expense remedy, we would have persued the TPT route because I was the one desperate to shout from the hilltops about our situation! I wanted to be heard … but from a financial view point, I couldnt do it without expenses because it would just be a crusade … but we are a company and a crusade is for the solo person on his own that didnt make the right turn … maybe. (3) The other consequence of not having a satisfactory remedy upon appeal is that it allows the councils nationwide to over-zealously sanction tickets without any worry whatsoever. With no expenses in the TPT and not many prepared to go through the Civil Courts, there really is no rememdy to every single company out there unless you happen to know how to get around these issues....a price 99% of companies just wont pay for. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:58] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w112 Transport Committee: Evidence
It is wrong for the council to over zealously apply tickets but I believe they are doing it purely because there is “nothing they can do about it” without taking the matter through the civil courts ... something which not many will do. This isnt right, this is totally wrong and not only wrong, its fraudulent because the councils wont back down on matters they should be backing down on because they know the battle that follows is a lot of work. Time is money! This isnt just Nottingham we have had problems with. We had it with Leeds City Council, Lambeth Bourough Council, Wigan Town Centre and Nottingham. Each time was bus lane offences. To give credit to Leeds, Lambeth and Wigan Councils, they all did drop their matter when it was pointed out the problems but Nottingham havent. They are resolute. This is acceptable if there is a suitable venue to get the issue dealt with but in the absense of expenses in the TPT, SME’s are unable to use the TPT purely on an economic/fiscal sense. I am aware the reason for the lack of expenses in the TPT is to deter solicitors away from it thus keeping costs right down (to open the doors for self representation and to save over the top legal bills) but on the other hand, what can you expect if you get councils wrongly applying tickets to companies such as ourselves? There is no way on earth we would fight tickets in the TPT simply because it isnt worth our time in fighting it … but then again, there is no way on earth we would pay the fines if we were not guilty neither.
Conclusion
My overall conclusion on the TPT is that the point of them is to offer independant eyes on issues to stop councils applying tickets willy nilly. However, this only works on an individual level. The TPT is wholly inadequate for SME’s because of the lack of expenses upon success. We should not be forced into paying a ticket that is in dispute either but, from Councils position, what else can they do? We wont use the TPT at a financial loss … they want the money they believe they are entitled to.
My conclucion is that from an SME point of view, the lack of expenses protection renders them useless for a company that has been wronged by a council. It forced us to reject the appeal process and seek remedy from the civil courts, an issue of jurisdiction itself because the correct venue is the TPT. I totally agree but the lack of expenses upon success make the TPT wholly inadequate in protecting a successful appellant that happens to be a company like ourself.
IF the TPT is to really protect SME’s the way it is meant to, it has to allow expenses and if that results in solicitors, then so be it. They are a necessary evil unfortunately.
If our case, we were self represented because we are armed with the tools to be able to defend ourselves but, without exoenses, even self representation is not an option. We need expenses. Expenses are the weapon SME’s can use against councils up and down the country that get it wrong.
If you do anything at all as a result of the representations you receive, please change the TPT rules on expenses. Allow them for SME’s. It gives us our voice to be heard. Without expenses, we have no voice and get treated like criminals because we wouldnt pay the fine neither. The councils are made to look like they are over zealous … but they have no other option neither if we are not going to defend ourselves … and the real loser is the Judge in our up and coming hearing for Summary Judgement because really, it isnt an issue he should be dealing with … but the costs rules in civil matters are much more accomodating to us than the costs rules in the TPT.
Expenses serve as not only punishment for the party in the wrong … but they also serve as a real deterrant to a council being over-zealous in its application of charges.
It is right that the councils should be able to police their local roads. It is not right that the give tickets out willy nilly because they know there is no legal remedy to a company because of the expenses situation.
Given the above, the TPT does not cater for SME’s well and the civil courts suffer as a direct result because we want our money back and it’s the only way.
I trust this feedback is what you were hoping for. I just hope it doesnt fall on deaf ears. The expenses bit needs to change. March 2013 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:58] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w113
Written evidence from Ian Swan (PE 66)
Decriminalised Parking Enforcement Within my county of Hampshire there are 14 unitary and borough councils each responsible for parking control within their area. All local authorities with the exception of Gosport Borough Council have opted to become Special Enforcement Areas, SEA, in regards to parking enforcement within their authority boundaries under the Traffic management Act 2004.
Upon the awarding of an SEA the local authority become responsible for the enforcement of on road parking, such as double yellow lines, double parking and parking over dropped footways (driveways). They also retain any revenue for the running of the parking facilities.
I have made contact with the 13 separate councils within Hampshire who have been granted SEA status to discover that all except Rushmoor and Southampton have made no provision within their parking policy to remove any vehicles which have been issued a Penalty Charge Notices regardless of any obstruction that the parked vehicle may be causing as a result of the decriminalised parking offence.
Present Stance of Councils within Hampshire Towards Dealing with Obstructions under the TMA
Southampton City Council has a small area around St Mary’s football stadium where they will remove vehicles on match days. This removal zone was incorporated under the Traffic management Act before the legislation was amended to remove a flaw in legislation requiring a Traffic Regulation Order to be in place before vehicles could be removed. The legislation has since been amended (ref a & b) allowing a local authority introduce procedures to remove a vehicle from anywhere within the SEA, however it is my belief that Southampton City Council have not revisited their decision since the initial decision on 21/01/08.
Having recently been challenged my me that their previous advice to residents was that the responsibility of dropped kerb vehicle removal was that of the police to deal with as an obstruction, they have amended the Southampton City Council website to now advise “Where vehicles are preventing access to or from a driveway, the Police have the capability to identify the vehicle owner and request the vehicle is moved. They can be contacted on their non emergency number of 0845 0454545” Which appears to be an attempt to pass the matter back to the police, who they believe may mount an enquiry into the subject on behalf of the local authority.
Parking enforcement departments across the county were asked what they tell a resident who had called them because the callers driveway had been blocked by a vehicle, Many respond that once a PCN had been appended to the vehicle caller would be told to contact the police who will deal with the vehicle obstruction, giving he impression that they believe incorrectly that any obstruction caused by a decriminalised parking offence was a police matter. Only two councils within Hampshire, when spoken to were open to the fact that they were aware of the powers available to them in regards to the decriminalised parking offences and vehicle removal powers and within whose jurisdiction the responsibility to deal with the matter lies.
Discussion with the Department of Transport
I have spoken with the Department of Transport, parking policy department in Whitehall, London, about who is responsible for dealing with decriminalised parking offences, in particular driveway obstructions and the removal of offending vehicles. I came to understand from my discussion with them the following: Upon a local authority having Special Enforcement Area status bestowed on them, the relevant parking offences double yellow lines, double parking and parking over dropped foot ways within their SEA become decriminalised parking offences which are subject to decriminalised parking enforcement, for which the local authority become the enforcement agency and not the police. Where civilian Enforcement Officers CEO’s may issue a Penalty Charge Notices PCN for these offences and have the power to remove any offending vehicles considered necessary. The legislation is not subject to dual enforcement, (except pedestrian zig zag lines) the enforcement of the relevant parking offences encompassed by this legislation is passed to the local authority.
I was also directed by the DfT to their current edition of “Operational Guidance to Local Authorities for Parking Policy and Enforcement (ref e), where in chapter 12, entitled “The continuing role of the police” it states in paragraphs 19 & 20: 12.19 When an authority receives CPE (Civil Parking Enforcement) power the police service is specifically excluded from yellow line parking enforcement. But the police retain sole responsibility for certain non-yellow line parking offences in a civil enforcement area: — enforcing certain non-yellow line parking offences, principally endorsable offences such as dangerous parking, obstruction, and failure to comply with police “no parking” signs placed in emergencies; cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:58] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w114 Transport Committee: Evidence
— enforcing the full range of moving traffic offences and infringements; — acting against any vehicle where security or other traffic policing issues are involved, including the need to close roads or set up diversions; and — enforcing all parking restrictions on roads outside CEAs. 12.20 The TMA gives authorities the power, among other things, to enforce prohibitions on vehicles stopping on or near pedestrian crossings. This is the only area subject to civil parking enforcement where the police have retained the power of enforcement. If the enforcement authority and the police both take enforcement action, the criminal action takes precedence and the PCN must be cancelled. If the PCN has been paid, the money must be refunded.
This section of the operational guidance document above clarifies in chapter 12.19 that the police are still responsible for certain parking offences, which are still covered by the criminal law, the guidance then goes on to explain in chapter 12.20 that the police only have the power to enforce white zig zag lines in unison with CEO’s but have no power to enforce any of the other decriminalised parking offences, namely dropped kerb or double parking offences.
The parking across a driveway or “dropped foot way” as it is called in the TMA legislation is a specific decriminalised parking offence, explained clearly as such within the legislation, and it is not an obstruction of the highway for which the police have powers to deal with.
The various councils throughout Hampshire granted SEA status currently issue PCN’s for all the decriminalised parking offences including vehicles parked over dropped foot ways (offence code 27), which further clarifies that they understand that the enforcement of a dropped kerb offence is within their jurisdiction. However, the individual councils will state that they have no powers to remove a vehicle although it may be blocking a resident’s driveway preventing their access or egress. The reason for having no power is because the authority has made a decision not to incorporate the removal of vehicles into their procedures. The CEO, will, if appropriate issue a PCN then leave the scene with the offending vehicle still blocking the driveway or double parked.
Power Provided to Local Authorities to Remove Vehicles Committing Parking Offences
The power provided to local authority Civilian Enforcement Officers to remove or immobilise vehicles is provided under Section 6 of the TMA legislation and Section 5 of The Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986(ref b). These powers were brought specifically to allow local authorities to deal with the removal of vehicles which had been issued a PCN, as they deemed necessary. Many council’s, however, still insist incorrectly that the issue of he blockage due to such a parking offence is a police obstruction matter.
Consequences of the Non-incorporation of Vehicle Removal into Council Parking Policies
At present by councils not offering the service of removing offending vehicles leaves their residents in the situation of having no means of clearing their driveways of unauthorised vehicles, which leads to the residents mistakenly turning to the police for assistance. By keeping this status quo it may be of benefit of the local authorities but a persistent thorn in the side of the police who are called in desperation by the public having obtained no assistance from their local authority to clear their driveway. The police have no powers under the legisation to deal with such matters.
Summary
The reason for the change in legislation was to free the police from enforcing parking regulations allowing them to concentrate on policing matters. However, due to what may be a lack of awareness of changes to legislation and transfer of enforcement powers, coupled with the selection of specific parts of the new regulations to omit from the parking policies of individual authorities, it has created confusion and prevented effective enforcement of the offences as prescribed within the legislation.
From my research I believe that legislation and guidance is clear in that the responsibility for the enforcement and moving of any vehicles within an SEA committing a decriminalised parking offence is the responsibility of the local authority. This is currently the practice in Rushmoor Council in Hampshire along with Birmingham and Brighton to name a few local authorities who operate a towing facility for vehicles that are issued a PCN and are causing an obstruction as a result of the offence.
This tranche of transfer of powers to the local authorities is the first of many. As such I am concerned that if we are not robust in directing these decriminalised parking offences to the correct authority from the outset to be dealt with in full we will be a terrible mess upon the transfer of further powers where local authorities may not act in he anticipation that the police will somehow cover situations which they find awkward or unprofitable to enforce. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:58] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w115
References
A. Traffic Management Act 2004 Section 6
B. The Vehicle Removal and Destruction Regulations 1986
C. The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996
D. The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2009 SI 2009 No. 1116.
E Operational Guidance to Local Authorities: Parking Policy and Enforcement Traffic Management Act 2004. May 2013
Written evidence from Peter Ashford (PE 68)
These representations are made in the capacity of a private citizen with significant first-hand experience, frequently with others, of wide-ranging local authority abuse of parking enforcement powers and the vagaries of both parking appeal tribunals which are shown to be inadequate both in their judicial powers (at the fault of the legislation), in too many instances manifestly inconsistent in adjudicator performance, and also biased in favour of enforcement authorities.
An index of attached evidential exhibit documents is appended at the end.
If the Committee requires additional or more detailed supporting evidence I shall be pleased to provide it.
In response to the Committee’s specific nine questions the comments are as follows:
1. How should councils use their revenue from penalty charges, metered parking, car parks and residents’ parking? Should there be more local discretion over how income is used?
1.1 Metered and permit charging (wholly different from penalty charges) is the price of a legitimate parking provision service which should fund only authority services related to the provision of roads, and traffic management activities.
1.2 The escalation of pricing should not annually exceed the Retail Price Index. Pension income does not exceed an index so neither should such council parking services.
1.3 The pricing level of Pay & Display and of non-business permits should be related to a national standard of modest amounts. The charges in London are disproportionate, unjustifiable and exorbitant to reasonable drivers.
1.4 The provision of business parking permits, such as necessary for builders’ operations on-street should not exceed the cost of administration. There is no justification for an authority profiteering from such activities which are an essential business cost part of community life. All current business permit charges that exceed their administrative cost should be reduced immediately to the administrative cost with legislation as necessary.
1.5 All income from penalty charges should accrue to the exchequer and not to enforcement authorities. The present situation is totally wrong and has inevitably bred abuse and corruption on the part of enforcement authorities which was naively not foreseen in the hasty introduction of decriminalised parking enforcement.
1.6 Outside London the financing of the enforcement authorities’ association PATROL and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal is met with a fee imposed on the authorities of 65p per PCN. These levies by the authorities are wrongly not refunded in respect of wrongly issued PCNs that are subsequently cancelled (the total of which amounts to many hundreds of thousands of pounds).
1.7 A substantial amount of on-street parking should be free of charge in association with short waiting times for the purpose of maintaining a viable “high street”. The ruination of many town centres has many causes but prevention of short-term street parking and deterrent charging has an adverse psychological effect which seems to be not understood by those in authority. It may well be unreasonable to a degree that many drivers are reluctant to walk ¼ mile to the shop they are to visit briefly when they wish to stop briefly outside the shop but are prevented by parking enforcement from doing so but that is the way of human nature which cannot be changed and it is therefore a major consideration not to be overlooked or disregarded trivial.
1.8 Some No-Loading restrictions on shopping streets are indefensible. Too many drivers including some elderly drivers known to me are rightly disgusted at being penalised for stopping at main street charity shops for a few minutes to deliver some bags of donations. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:58] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w116 Transport Committee: Evidence
1.9 Some authorities or districts operate parking enforcement at a financial loss, but the vast majority do so at a profit, some at an obscene level of profit which demands to be curbed dramatically. One authority known personally to me and another known to a colleague of mine deserve the highest praise for much of their excellent services except for their parking enforcement and collection of penalty charges. Their performance in this respect is perverse and there must be many more councils with similar conduct. 1.10 The level of penalty charges is indivisible from consideration of the quantum of penalty income and what to do with it. London operates as a parallel universe devoid of reality in the matter of penalty charge levels. The London penalty rates are wholly disproportionate to reality and are indefensibly ridiculous. They should be no more than outside London and should be reduced immediately. 1.11 The regulatory 50% penalty charge discount is NOT as some naively or disingenuously assert to be a beneficial feature of the penalty regime; it is extensively coercion to pay the demand and not complain by contesting it at a parking appeal. I have personal experience of several penalised motorists (all of whom were almost certain on the facts to have their penalty charges cancelled on appeal) who reluctantly paid the discount demand as they could not financially afford the risk of having to pay the full penalty charge. 1.12 It is too easily overlooked (and will be unconvincingly denied by all authorities) that the true penalty charge is the discounted rate; authorities would be delighted for everyone to pay the discounted rate and not engage in contesting them. The full penalty charge is actually a 100% increase above the true rate. 1.13 The well-established fact of excessive issuing of PCNs which are subsequently cancelled at appeal should result in the authority being required to pay the appellant at least the same sum as the wrongly- demanded; there is no good reason why it should not. 1.14 The extensive incidence of enforcing authorities “Not Contesting” parking appeals after having refused to cancel them beforehand is a gross abuse of power. In every such case there should be a standard additional cost penalty imposed on the authority of not less than, say £100. This would rarely have to be paid as the misbehaving authorities would be forced to put their house in order. At present the operation of a substantial amount of PCN issuing is one of “shoot first and ask afterwards”; the financial benefit being massively and wrongly in favour of the authorities.
2. What impact will new technology, such as cashless parking, parking sensors and CCTV, have on local authority parking enforcement? I comment here only on CCTV enforcement, in particular the inappropriate and often ineffectual and wrongful operation of it, especially by means of Mobile Enforcement Vehicles (MEVs). The following is extensively extracted/re-phrased from representations recently made to the Home Office in response to a consultation concerning a draft Code of Practice (COP) for CCTV surveillance cameras. I apologise for the fragmentation of this wide-ranging Section 2 response which pressure of time has prevented from being better organised: 2.1 CCTV is the most fruitful area of civil enforcement for technology developments which maximise penalty charge revenues. It operates perversely and obnoxiously on the basis of zero tolerance, and on the basis (in most cases) of doing nothing to prevent contraventions and thereby achieve the primary objective of maximum compliance but wrongly allowing contraventions to occur and persist unimpeded for the purpose of automatically enabling a penalty demand. 2.2 The Home Office Draft Code of Practice for CCTV camera usage (HOCOP) encompasses many different “Principles” some of which concur with the Information Commissioner’s Guidance. Most of those are not remotely complied with by authorities where using CCTV for parking and traffic enforcement. 2.3 A massive amount of civil enforcement operations by local authorities and private land enforcers (Private Parking Companies—PPCs), with and without automatic number-plate recognition (ANPR), is covert and wrongly so, despite unconvincing protestations by operators that they are not. MEVs in particular are not noticed by those whom they are targeting and are sometimes deliberately hidden from view with their camera raised above the obscuring vehicle or wall. 2.4 The required overt manner of CCTV enforcement requires adequate warning signage of CCTV operation which must include details of the enforcement authority or organisation but local authority CCTV is wrongly not advertised with such essential signage despite the bluster of the (usually misinformed) authorities that they are. The only signage lawfully permitted in the highway (per the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 ss. 64 & 65) is, unless otherwise authorised by the Secretary of State, as prescribed by the TSRGD for the time being in force. 2.5 TSRGD 2002 (including amendments) provides certain “camera” signs (the simplest “box brownie” version being widely familiar is permissible only for use as a repeater/reminder sign and only in relation to safety cameras). These and related camera signs were introduced by the TSRGD for the purposes of safety camera operations such as speeding and red-light jumping; CCTV monitoring of parking did not exist when these signs were introduced. There are no lawfully-usable prescribed signs for warning of CCTV enforcement that include the necessary information about the operator. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:58] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w117
2.6 Authorities pretend that their surveillance MEVs are not covert because they have text and logos on them. This specious position mischievously ignores that these vehicles are not seen by drivers either when being observed travelling or at the time of parking when, in most cases, the MEV is not even present. They are noticed only by passing pedestrians. 2.7 Much of civil parking enforcement by means of MEV observation is contrary to the Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance.12 Their cameras and the entirety of their CCTV system are required to be certified as an “Approved Device” the Guidance stating (emphasis added): “The Secretary of State recommends that approved devices are used ONLY where enforcement is difficult or sensitive AND CEO enforcement is not practical”. 2.8 In nearly all urban situations CEO enforcement (ie on foot) is practical no less than it was prior to the advent of CCT enforcement. 2.9 The HOCOP requires CCTV to be employed only where there is established to be a “Pressing Need”. The use of CCTV enforcement where CEO on-foot enforcement is practical cannot possibly be in furtherance of a pressing need. 2.10 The HOCOP requires CCTV surveillance to be employed only by consent of those subject to the observation. CCTV parking enforcement by MEVs cannot be characterised as surveillance by consent as it is extensively despised by the motoring public. MEV enforcement has never been introduced by local authorities on the basis of informed consent; these vehicles are introduced as a fait accompli. Consent of the affected motoring public to MEV enforcement cannot even be assumed by enforcement authorities as it is introduced in exercise of their unchallengeable power which demands a new statutory power usable by the public to oppose it. Southend Council has been recently subject to massive petitioned public objection to their use of MEVs yet it is disregarded. These councils act as a law unto themselves. 2.11 The HOCOP also requires “Proportionality” and “Transparency” in the operation of CCTV surveillance. There is rarely proportionality in the use of MEV parking enforcement for it being contrary to the Statutory Guidance! There can be no transparency when MEVs are frequently parked in covert locations and are almost never noticed by drivers who are concentrating properly on the road ahead, and no transparency in the absence of lawful and sufficient highway traffic signs advertising the CCTV surveillance. 2.12 The use of static CCTV, mostly with ANPR is widely used on private land areas controlled by Private Parking Companies (PPCs). Too many of these operators are or have been managed by or employ persons with criminal convictions. Some are members of and ineffectually “regulated” by the British Parking Association which is merely a trade association. Ineffectuality arises not least when instances of inadequate private parking signage is established by the courts but the BPA is content for the situation to persist for three years before the inadequate misleading or incorrect signage is required to be remedied. 2.13 The most inappropriate and obnoxious technological development in MEV enforcement that requires to be prohibited is the use of satellite mapping of enforcement areas with all of the parking restrictions and times of operation programmed into the CCTV system. A single-occupant MEV drives continuously around the enforcement area and automatically logs every vehicle that is in apparent contravention regardless of the circumstances. Penalty charge demands are then automatically issued to the registered keepers. 2.14 This does not discriminate between blue badge holders who may be legitimately parked, or drivers who have broken down, or a driver briefly stopped because of a vehicle ahead obstructing his progress. All of these situations have arisen as well as a recent case of a driver falsely alleged to have been parked in a Bournemouth (no-stopping) clearway bus stop when he was legitimately moving forward waiting for a gap in passing traffic— including the MEV. 2.15 In such cases it then wrongly falls to innocent drivers to prove their innocence (!) first to the objectionable enforcement authority concerned and then, probably, to a parking adjudicator at some expense annoyance and distress to themselves and their families all to resist a grossly disproportionate and offensive penalty demand often in excess of £100 and far in excess of some criminal penalties. When the victims succeed in having these automatic penalty demands quashed they receive no costs or compensation which, in the interest of justice, equality and proportionality, should reasonably be in the order of £200. 2.16 A driver deliberately stopping on yellow lines or red lines for ½ minute at a quiet time to post a letter in a pillar box causes no interference whatsoever with traffic flow. A driver stopping similarly, as I have myself done, for about one minute when causing no interference whatsoever with light traffic flow to confirm his position on a street map when lost also does nothing whatsoever that can begin to justify penalisation but CCTV observation either static or from a chance passing of a high-tech MEV will automatically lead to a senseless draconian penalty which almost certainly will not be cancelled by the authority. 2.17 This offensive form of CCTV observation and persecution has no place in any civilised society. There is no pressing need for such a misuse of this clever technology simply because it exists and because its high cost can be profitably recovered many times over from the financial persecution of the motoring public. 12 The Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance to local authorities on the civil enforcement of parking contraventions http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/tma-part-6-cpe-statutory-guidance/betterprkstatutoryguid.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:58] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w118 Transport Committee: Evidence
2.18 The use of MEVs (and to a limited extent static CCTV) for parking enforcement is not consistent with any “legitimate aim” or “pressing need” (as also required by the HOCOP) that cannot be adequately met without the uses of CCTV. The use of satellite-connected CCTV systems on MEVs is not proportionate. The deployment of much of MEV operations and particularly satellite-connected systems should be terminated forthwith. 2.19 In a rare instance of council honesty, upon permanently withdrawing the Council’s two MEVs from service the Leader of Richmond on Thames Council stated in the local newspaper as follows: “These CCTV cars have been a menace to people for years and I for one will be glad to see the back of them”. He further said: “Councils should not be in the business of trap now and talk later” and “the tactics used create the impression that councils are interested only in money.” 2.20 The HOCOP requires CCTV surveillance “by consent” but there is no MEV surveillance by consent because there are no consultations with the motoring public. 2.21 The use of enforcement by means of MEV cannot be either a “pressing need” or “legitimate” as required by the HOCOP when MEV’s are routinely arrogantly parked in unlawful contravention of the council’s own parking restrictions and sometimes dangerously. 2.22 Parking and traffic enforcement conducted by means of CCTV either by local authorities or by PPCs relies on the supply of vehicle keeper details registered with the DVLA. The accuracy status of DVLA databases is woefully inadequate and currently the subject of much justified criticism and probable investigation. Gross miscarriages of justice continue to occur to innocent motorists wrongly embroiled in CCTV observations, by ANPR and otherwise, at the fault of the DVLA for their provision of incorrect or out- dated keeper information. 2.23 The non-existence of any adequate and lawful traffic signs permitted to be placed on the highway, as reported above, shows that no adequate information is made available to the motoring public as to the authority responsible for the CCTV enforcement. 2.24 The HOCOP requires the engagement of motoring and other relevant organisations in relation to CCTV enforcement but that will never happen because such representative organisations are hostile to the use and abuse of CCTV for civil enforcement and also because the enforcing authorities and PPCs, and their associations arrogantly disregard all and any objections that could interfere with their lucrative enforcement. 2.25 The HOCOP also requires that those subject to CCTV surveillance are reassured that the CCTV system CCTV system is operated responsibly. That will never happen in view of the litany of enforcement irregularities and abuses frequently reported in the press. It will not happen when PATAS allows hundreds of parking appeals against Westminster City CCTV enforcement because of their flawed CCTV system (or when in a volte face PATAS decides that the still-defective system suddenly is satisfactory). It will not happen as long as private land ANPR-initiated charges are falsely demanded, as often reported, accusing drivers of excessive stays of many hours when they actually made two legitimate short stays. 2.26 The motoring public will never be assured by the frequent instances of cloned vehicle registration marks leading to appalling instances of wrongful attempts to penalise drivers whose vehicles were not involved and had never even visited the location. In too many cases the enforcement authorities refuse to believe the facts and scandalously harass innocent victims. 2.27 Two of the most extreme abuses of CCTV civil enforcement have been recently reported. Possibly the worst abuse of MEV enforcement was revealed by exhibit 1. This shows how, contrary to the council’s parking restrictions, council MEVs wilfully occupy and obstruct a loading bay provided for servicing adjacent shops, force delivery vehicles to wait for unloading at the only place left available, and then initiate PCNs. A more corrupt activity of a local authority is difficult to imagine. It requires severe disciplinary measures to be taken against all officers and also against the council member who seeks to defend it with no intention of having the situation permanently corrected. This is a clear case of entrapment which indicates that the powers of civil enforcement of this council need to be reviewed by a higher authority. 2.28 Exhibit 2 reports similarly corrupt enforcement by Hammersmith & Fulham Council in which their incompetent setting of traffic lights knowingly forces many innocent drivers into unintentional contravention. A video of this junction in operation is essential viewing for Committee members; it demonstrates the corrupt behaviour of this council which deliberately entraps drivers into receiving penalty charge demands.13 This obscene situation demands the prosecution of all council persons responsible for this gross misconduct and a review of the suitability of this council to have any involvement in parking and traffic enforcement. 2.29 As if the situation reported at Bagley’s Lane were not bad enough, the fatuous remark of the Local Government Association requires a public apology and adequate reprimand. 2.30 In short, the motoring public is sick and tired of these gross abuses of civil enforcement and the offensive apologists who approve them. 13 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hqq5HGqDsY cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:58] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w119
2.31 Further to that, press report, Exhibit 3, shows the inadequate argument of Bristol Council in their purported justification for introducing CCTV because of instances of abuse of CEOs on foot. Such instances are regrettable and to be deplored but it is not a justification for CCTV enforcement when, per the Statutory Guidance, CEO enforcement on foot is practical. This was confirmed in the successful June 2012 appeal of Hubbard v Medway Council, case MW06379E where the adjudicator said (emphasis added): Approved devices [ie CCTV] should not be used for routine enforcement. In the Operational Guidance issued by the Department for Transport at paragraph 8.78 the following appears: “The Secretary of State recommends that approved devices are used only where enforcement is difficult or sensitive and CEO enforcement is not practical”. The council recognises is its later submission that it must justify the use of an approved device in Ordnance Street. At page 11 of an additional submission the close proximity of John Fisher Secondary School and instances of verbal abuse to CEO’s are given as the justification in this case. I am not satisfied that this is capable of amounting to an adequate justification. It is unclear why the proximity of a school should be of any relevance to this issue. Also, there is no specific evidence from which one could properly conclude that verbal abuse, which sadly occurs all too frequently in all kinds of locations, is a particular hazard for CEOs in the Ordnance Street area.
2.32 The HOCOP also reminds of the necessity for CCTV operators to be licenced by the Security Industry Association (SIA) with criminality consequent on the absence of such a licence. The CCTV operators of MEVs, at least in some local authorities, are not SIA licenced and MEVs operating in many areas are owned and operated by private companies contracted as service providers to the local authorities. That is the situation in Bolton where MEV drivers are not SIA licenced.
2.33 The HCOP further shows that MEV drivers are required (as a condition of being SIA licenced) to demonstrate that that are fit and proper persons but that cannot possibly be the case in respect of drivers of many MEVs operating in London boroughs. They have and continue to be photographed parked stationary on zig-zag controlled zones approaching and obscuring pedestrian crossings, obstructing traffic flow by causing buses to swerve off course, and dangerously close to junctions and brows of hills blatantly causing an obstruction. Also parking wholly (yes, wholly) on footways obstructing pedestrian and wheelchair passage. They have been observed and reported jumping red lights (with the enforcement authority taking no action) and have been observed deliberately driving in the wrong direction down a one-way street in a familiar area risking a fatality to a crossing pedestrian.
2.34 The HOCOP refers to the need for an independent standards body that can satisfy the public of the requisite adequacy. However, the performance and documentation provided by the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA) in relation to CCTV Approved Devices for the purpose of civil parking enforcement is (at least has been) arguably lamentable and unconvincing and requires the oversight of some critical independent authority other than the DfT of which the VCA is an agent (as also is the DVLA).
2.35 The HCOP requires the location of all CCTV cameras to be justified but that can never be the case in respect of MEVs when the enforcement authorities systematically abuse their powers of enforcement provided by the 2004 Act to permit their MEVs to disregard the very parking restrictions that these same vehicles cause other drivers to be penalised for. The 2004 Traffic Management Act permits no dispensation or authorisation for such misconduct as the Chief Adjudicator of TPT has publicly stated. This utter contempt for the motoring public and the arrogance of such authorities indicates to many reasonable observers that the enforcement powers afforded to such authorities should be withdrawn.
2.36 In any event, if it is safe and not causing an obstruction for an MEV to park on yellow lines and the like then it must be equally safe and satisfactory for other drivers to do the same. Also, if an MEV can park on yellow lines and the like without causing danger or obstruction so can any other driver which shows there to be no genuine need for those restrictions which must be only for the purpose of generating penalty charge income.
2.37 Parking adjudicators have criticised CEOs for sitting lazily in their vehicles waiting for contraventions to occur and then immediately initiate penalty charge notices instead of crossing the road and moving on the driver who, in more than a few instances, has been unaware that they were about to park in contravention of restrictions.
2.38 The HCOP refers to the necessity of accurate recording of meta data on video records but the DVD records of Westminster City (for example) do not record meta data correctly on their DVD video records (which do not even play as prescribed by the tribunal itself on standard DVD players). Parking adjudicators turn a blind eye to these fatal defects. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:58] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w120 Transport Committee: Evidence
3. How effective are the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for England and Wales and the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service for London? (The Committee will not be considering individual cases and appeals.) 3.1 The provision of different tribunals for London and outside is irrational as is the different manner of financing them. 3.2 Despite the bluster propounded otherwise by London Councils and the PATROL collective of enforcement authorities, these tribunals are not entirely impartial in favour of the authorities in some circumstances. Where appeal decisions affect only the appellant or a few others adjudicators frequently find in a fair and satisfactory way for the appellant or the authority as the cases merit but, where ramifications of an appeal decision will impact on very many motorists and their PCNs, adjudicators will often refuse the appeal to protect the authority (and other authorities that would be affected). 3.3 The extent of different outcomes from different adjudicators in cases based on the same facts is disturbing and justifiably establishes a widespread lack of confidence in the appeals system. Appeals are perceived to some extent as a lottery with good reason. 3.4 When an appellant applies for a review of an adverse appeal decision a refusal usually takes the form of saying that the appeal adjudicator was entitled to reach the decision that he/she did. However, when it is the authority which applies to review an appeal decision, blatant judicial impropriety can and has arisen in allowing a review for the benefit of the authority where the appeal decision was undeniably sound and the application for review was utterly devoid of merit. There have been instances of judicially improper meddling on the part of another adjudicator in a different case in relation to a fully-rational appeal decision of an adjudicator, simply for political purposes. 3.5 Based on the personal experience of a number of appellants and, where applicable their representatives, some adjudicators in person are exemplary in manner and application (whatever the outcome of the appeals) whereas some others, at least at some times, are inappropriately curt with a hostile manner, sometimes with a very evident pre-determined view on the matter in issue inevitably indicating bias against the appellant. There is no practical redress against these situations other than to the Chief Adjudicators who defend their adjudicators in every case. 3.6 These tribunals are effectively a law unto themselves with no judicial oversight as with all other tribunals (except judicial review which is overkill for many objections and financially unavailable to nearly every appellant). 3.7 These tribunals were installed “with the consent of the Lord Chancellor” which to the motoring public is an utterly meaningless situation. They effectively act as a law unto themselves, for better or for worse, they disregard their own published rules and both of them disregard clear statutory regulations. 3.8 There is much that requires to be changed to introduce accountability and transparency into their operation.
4. Should parking policy in London be subject to separate provisions and guidance, given, in particular, its large parking revenue surpluses, its more integrated public transport network and the number of foreign- registered vehicles in the city? 4.1 Most provisions should be universal in the UK. It is massively confusing to many motorists as it is. To motoring visitors London is a foreign land. 4.2 There should be no large parking revenue surpluses. The pricing of parking in much of London is manifestly gross profiteering maintained by vested interests that should be over-ruled, and the penalty charge amounts in London is draconian racketeering. 4.3 The extent of obscene London parking revenues is blindingly-obvious evidence of the gross impropriety of the charges and penalties. 4.4 The excessive amount of penalty charges is inherently exacerbated by the massive influence of for-profit private enforcement subcontractors to the boroughs (and outside London) who are contracted on terms that require targets of PCN quantities which is unlawful but does operate (as evidence has proved). 4.5 The eye-watering sums of money acquired from parking charges and penalty charges has perverted the national situation into one of greed and extensive dishonesty that have no place in a civilised society (which this country has long ceased to be in respects like these).
5. How can local authorities strike a balance between using parking policy to manage congestion and using it to encourage people into town centres? 5.1 There is too much decision making on parking restrictions and policy by local authorities in disregard of the local population and traders. Some enlightened councils are, to their credit, bending to the essential need to “save the High Street” by relaxing parking restrictions and instituting free or low-cost parking charges. The major problem is that much of it is closing the door after the horse has gone. For many commercially-devastated town centres it is too late. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:58] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w121
5.2 It is scandalous as frequent press reports show that consultations are a money-wasting charade where even massive demonstrations of local and trader opinion is flagrantly disregarded in the perverse interests of maximising parking and penalty charge incomes. 5.3 It is refreshing to note that, about a year ago, it was reported that the London Borough of Richmond on Thames instigated genuine consultations in the borough to find what parking restrictions were required by the residents and traders with a view to finding what restrictions could be removed or relaxed without creating traffic problems.
6. How can smaller local authorities use parking provision to manage congestion? Do they need to work regionally and strategically with neighbouring councils? 6.1 This seems an intelligent form of administration. There needs to be substantial harmonisation across regions and smaller areas regardless of organisational arrangements.
7. What role does the Workplace Parking Levy have? Would people be more inclined to use park and ride services if there were a charge to park at work? 7.1 The WPL is yet another tax on the motorists and on employers some of whom are commercially in dire straits and will remain so for many years. Many employees can only reach their work place by car and many use their car/employer’s car as their necessary work tool such as maintenance technicians, sales representatives and other peripatetic workers. For many there is no other option. 7.2 Park-and-ride facilities are a faultless major asset to towns and to visitors but of little or no use at all to many workers accessing their place of employment. Accordingly the WPL is one of the most ill-conceived specious developments cleverly devised punitively to extract every last penny of taxation from motorists. This is in disregard of the fact that many motorists are struggling to finance their motoring costs in the face of draconian fuel taxation and, literally, difficulty in feeding their families at the present time 7.3 Exhibit 4 shows the situation always intended by enthusiastic councils such as Nottingham—to set up the scheme and automatically increase the cash-cow levy/tax at frequent intervals. The increase in Nottingham’s WPL is now to rise by 16%!!, less than one year after its introduction. Whatever justification there could be for the levy and its arbitrary amount the unjustifiable increase of 16% is blatant racketeering; does this misguided council have the intention and means to ensure that the workers’ wages/salaries also increase by 16% to pay for it? 7.4 The above all assumes that the levy will be funded by the workers whom the council deems entitled arbitrarily to reduce at a stroke their wages/salaries by £288—and now £334/year. In many cases it will be the employer who will fund it, not by that amount but perhaps 50 times that amount or more. 7.5 It was only recently reported (information available) that some smaller Nottingham companies are in process of locating their businesses elsewhere outside Nottingham and that some have already done so. 7.6 This perverse WPL money-grabbing notion has infected Bristol during the last year where it was firmly intended to introduce it. Following a massive resistance to it by traders and their associations the Council recently announced its intention to abandon it (information available).
8. Are there steps local authorities can take, while managing congestion, to make it easier for businesses to trade and make deliveries? 8.1 There are too many unnecessary yellow-line-plus-yellow-kerb-stripe prohibitions of No-Parking-and-No- Loading much of it ill decided. Prohibitions of waiting (parking) are extensively essential but frequently not the additional prohibitions of loading. 8.2 By its very nature loading/unloading is a necessary fact of life in streets even where interferences with traffic flow must be minimised so it is fundamentally absurd to ban loading where it will and must take place of necessity. The current situation is one of having a loading prohibition and penalising every offending vehicle which stops for loading as and when it must stop. The only outcome is the taxing of such vehicles by racketeering penalty charge notices. The wrongful use of CCTV observation permits no transgressions even though brief stoppages for loading often caused no interference whatsoever with passing traffic. 8.3 The historic inadequate infrastructure of so many streets is unfortunate but it is the unchangeable status quo as also is the necessity for many vehicles to stop there regardless of restrictions and penalty charges. 8.4 There is the commonplace ridiculous situation of security/cash vehicles stopping at banks on no-loading streets being (sensibly) ignored by CEOs who do not ignore other equally essential vehicles stopped for loading. 8.5 One delivery courier known to me incurs two to three PCNs/week in the course of his delivery business having no possibility of avoiding them. They are paid promptly at the discount rate because he has no time to waste in fruitless challenges with intransigent councils and appeal situations. “Turkey-shoot” taxation and nothing more. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:58] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w122 Transport Committee: Evidence
8.6 I understand that major hauliers (and their associations) incur time and money wasting involvement with the persecution of penalty charges amounting to many hundreds of thousands of £/year from their unavoidable loading (delivery) operations. 8.7 This is a scandalous tax on a legitimate and essential business activity necessitated by the general public consumers. It is akin to the criminal protection racketeering of early New York where rake-offs were demanded for traders to stay in business unharmed. It has to stop.
9. Are parking signs clear and comprehensible? To what extent are unclear signs and instructions the cause of breaches of parking control? 9.1 Signage is frequently not clear. What is intolerable is that councils routinely deny like automatons that they are insufficient and persist in what is sometimes fraudulent enforcement in their full knowledge that some signage is inadequate or confusing. 9.2 The objective of parking restrictions and enforcement is 100% compliance with zero penalties. Scandalously, there are many instances, several still existing, where changes of restriction or introduction of new restrictions produces a very-evident massive increase in penalty charges which demonstrates very low compliance and a failure of the relevant council to have achieved a normality of compliance. 9.3 Councils that fail to recognise and respond to that failure should be investigated by a national authority with sufficient power (which does not exist in the inadequate regime of civil enforcement at the fault and inference of Government). 9.4 Reprehensibly, such councils instead delight in the bonanza of increased penalty charge income, blame the motorists instead of themselves or the DfT, and disregard and obstruct all attempted interferences with the lucrative status quo. 9.5 Equally reprehensibly, it is almost universally the case that member councillors, instead of challenging the situation and taking notice of critical commentary and advice as they should, staunchly and vocally support the status quo as mouthpieces of their officers. Many such members who have parking enforcement responsibility in their councils flatly refuse to consider representations to them from knowledgeable parking campaigners. Those who purport that the local “democratic process” is the way to govern civil parking enforcement are either mischievous or live in a fool’s paradise. 9.6 There are many proven examples of such wilful enforcement of badly signed restrictions. Exhibit 5 shows such a case where enforcement is arguably corrupt for being in the full knowledge that drivers are misled by insufficiency of signage. 9.7 Another case concerns several years of a total absence of essential Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) signage in the City of Westminster which engrossed a massive penalty charge income in their knowledge that drivers were not informed at all of the restrictions, a manifestly fraudulent situation to say nothing of the unrefunded penalty charge income unlawfully appropriated. 9.8 New parking restrictions imposed by Hampshire County Council in 2006 and inadequately signed by DfT-authorised misleading signage led immediately to an 11 times increase in PCN issuing by Hart District Council. This was sustained at that rate for a very long time afterward during which time the Council lied to motorists who protested and challenged their PCNs by insisting that the signage was perfectly clear. After some years of wrongful enforcement a parking appeal established that not only had the poor signage been misleading drivers the County Council knew in detail that had been misleading and the reasons why. 9.9 There are bus lane restrictions which are not adequately signed and demonstrably show that entrapment of drivers exists where massive penalisation occurs of blameless drivers. In Hammersmith and Fulham thousands of drivers are routinely penalised for having no warning at all at one bus lane restriction until they are already unavoidably in contravention. The Council is aware of this, what is wrong with the signage and that it is contrary to Regulations but they continue to penalise unlawfully. 9.10 Experienced drivers visiting London from afar sometimes find themselves in alien territory. Many trunk roads pass successively through different boroughs where the times of bus lane restrictions are different. I have correctly driven in a bus lane (outside the controlled hours) in one borough and wrongly continued confidently through other boroughs while unwittingly in contravention because their times were different. Having established the times at the outset it is unreasonable to need to read every bus lane sign that is passed not least when there is no awareness of a change of borough, that the times are likely to be different, and because proper driver concentration on other traffic and pedestrians prevents sufficient reading of bus lane signs. 9.11 CPZ signage is extensively inadequate and a wholly-inappropriate form of singing restrictions. It is frequently the case that zone entry signs cannot be read and learned in the few seconds available to do so when following a bus or other high commercial vehicles or when paying attention to adjacent cyclists, passing motorcycles and pedestrians. There are many instances of being in a CPZ but having no knowledge or partial knowledge only of the restrictions when the driver parks. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:58] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w123
9.12 It is also the case that, where restrictions are successfully noted, they are forgotten by the time a driver comes to park possibly a quarter of an hour later after a stressful and demanding journey.
9.13 The inappropriateness of CPZs as a method of (inadequately) signing waiting restrictions was set with simple eloquence at a DfT Seminar in 2004 by the then Head of Traffic Management Division. Exhibit 6 herewith shows her unassailable reasons for the unsuitability of most CPZs was presented as a power-point presentation in a bygone age when the DfT could be seen to have as much interest in the motoring public as in enforcement authorities. Many drivers, of which I have been one, have found themselves to be in a CPZ with no idea what the parking restrictions actually are on single yellow lines (which signify part-time waiting restrictions).
9.14 The use of CCTV monitoring, especially by MEVs in CPZs is an obnoxious form of enforcement. Honest protestations by penalised drivers who were not actually informed of the restriction routinely falls on the deaf ears of the enforcement machine which systematically demands penalty charge payments regardless of a justification.
9.15 The DfT (which can do no wrong) is also alarmingly at fault for authorising non-standard special signage especially at dual purpose (shared-use) bays which are regularly shown to mislead some drivers. The Department ignores criticism of their misleading signage reported by parking adjudicators and also disregards the erroneous content in some of their specially-authorised signage. March 2013
Written evidence from Mike Stokeld (PE 69)
Further to a recent article in the Auto Express. I would like to detail my disappointment of the handling of a PCN into what I believe to be a potential £2 million revenue Generation exercise by Islington Borough Council for one street in London.
The council have put width restrictions into Englefield Rd, N1 of max 6'6".
A company vehicle (min 6'6") drove through the central gap due to glass being in the kerb. Subsequently a PCN came through the Company’s Holding Address.
We are Currently appealing the PCN with the council and PATAS.
During this investigation and a request of FOI. I understand over 16,000 PCN’s had been issued at this location since its concept.
From further information direct from the council (there own evidence) shows obscured signage, limited CCTV coverage.
Once a PCN is issued you are against the clock to return the information. Requests to Islington BC to issue email responses where not adhered therefore triggering the full £130.00 fine.
All during this exercise I fully believe this is a money making exercise with no regard for safety or other concerns of motorist/residents.
You will be able to see from Video footage that the road layout is set in a way to entice “unsure” motorists through the central gap, which in turn triggers a PCN. (££££)
I also would like to complain of the roll of PATAS.
As with any form of appeal there is a need to attend in person. Which for most motorists can cost way more than the fine and I believe that is the scenario the council work towards in this revenue generation.
For example: At any appeal, the Islington BC representative is paid to attend, the Adjudicator is paid to attend, but the motorist whom maybe from many males away has no right to claim basic expenses from Mileage to even Car Parking (more money towards Islington BC), never mind the time off work.
This is a miscarriage, it also serves to allow councils to wilfully issue PCN’s as there is no fiscal comeback only job creation and job retention.
From my dealings with PATAS it would seem that there isn’t a balanced or rigorous procedure to look at all aspects of information. Once again it seems to be another “cosy job” creation scheme based upon an endless “pot of money” from the revenue fines of motorists.
Surely if the Council are wrong in issuing the PCN or are found to be negligent in signage (for example, in tree management that restrict Signs or CCTV) they should at least be made to pay motorist basic travelling expenses. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:58] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w124 Transport Committee: Evidence
So why if 16,000 PCN have been issued in Englefield Road the Council maintained Trees obscure signage and CCTV? The point must be that this money the council are gaining from fines is invested in keeping this road at a standard where future motorists and residents benefit. I am willing to forward through all information on this case if you require more details. April 2013
Written evidence from Clifford Martin (PE 70) On the 20 January 2012 I was served with a penalty notice parking in a disabled parking area in Seamoor Road in Bournemouth when not showing a disabled badge. I challenged this notice on the grounds that the sign was not clear. My interpretation was that non disabled parking allowed was between 18.00hrs and 8.00hrs. I parked at 19.16hrs. I have attached photo 0030 which shows the sign. Other signs are clearer and examples are shown with photos 0037 and 0042. As expected the Council rejected my submission and they obviously did not consider the points I had made. Eventually a Notice to Owner was issued on 29 March 2012 and I issued a response to that NTO dated 17 April 2012. A copy of that response is attached. This response was acknowledged by the Council on 18 April 2012 by e mail. I have had no further response to that submission. It appears to me that the Council are hoping that I will go away! They have no intention of operating a fair appraisal of points that are made in response to their enforcement notices. I believe that these notices are issued in contravention of the Department of Transport guidelines. It is also interesting to note that the sign in Seamoor Road (no 0030) has now been replaced! If you need further information please contact me and I will provide it. One other point that I wish to make is that if an alleged offender wishes to refer the enforcement notice to the Parking Appeals Tribunal it is unlkely that costs would be awarded against the Council if they are found to be in default. This weighs heavily against individuals taking action which incurs cost even if they are found not guilty. Surely that is not fair. January 2013
Written evidence from James de la Mare (PE 71) I have just learned that the Parliamentary Transport Committee is currently undertaking a consultation on Council Parking procedures. I should like to draw the Committee’s attention to a particular aspect of this. I have been a resident of the London Borough of Hammersmith at the same (above) address for nearly 50 years. This is a residential area comprised of modest mid-Victorian houses, many of which have been converted to flats. It is not a high density area in terms of population. For over 40 years I had parked my car nearby. The Council introduced controlled parking about 20 years ago which involved local residents having to buy a parking permit, while visitors had to pay by the hour during the hours in which the scheme operated. They had to buy parking tickets from machines in the street. In September 2008 I returned from abroad and found the usual reminder had arrived to renew my residents permit while I was away. However when I examined the reminder I discovered that the Council had (unknown to me) changed the rules in various ways. The rules which allowed residents to obtain permits were changed in such a way that I was no longer eligible for a permit, although I had previously had one since the inception of the scheme many years earlier and had been parking outside my own home for upwards of 40 years. I immediately enquired into the matter and learnt that (among other things) the Council had attempted to tackle abuse by residents who obtained permits by false pretences. The chief factor which denied me a resident’s permit was that my car was registered at another address I have had in another part of the country for 30 years. The car had always been registered at that address during my ownership of it, as indeed had every other car I had owned during the 30 year period and had used periodically at this address with no previous difficulty, and as a permit holder. I disputed the unreasonableness of the Council’s action at great length and by various means. The Council explained that if I re-registered the car at this address, then I should be eligible for a permit, provided I complied with other changes in the rules. As a matter of principle I was not willing to re-register that or any other vehicle for a wholly spurious (assumed) reason that I might be deceiving the Council. The Council knew very well that I was a genuine council-tax paying resident, and had been so according to its own records for more than 40 years. If I reregistered the car at another address, then I might in due time be placed in exactly the same situation at the original address and then have to re-register a second time if permits were introduced, thus opening the way for a prosecution for defrauding one or other council. It seems entirely incorrect to require private householders to make known to the council many private details that are unconnected with car parking, or to specify where a car in the name of the applicant must be precisely registered when applying for a permit. It is no business of a council to decide on behalf of an applicant where any item of his property, his financial, banking or tax arrangements, his correspondence or family members cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:58] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w125
may be located or registered, as long as the applicant is a genuine resident in the Borough where he applies for a parking permit. It is not for a council to try to control private matters of that sort. In my own case I have therefore experienced an enormous and debilitating amount of inconvenience, cost and trouble for nearly five years not being able to use my car freely at this address on account of having no residents parking permit. It has fundamentally prevented my normal way of life and many of my social and family activities from continuing. I have found the system of parking control is a revenue earning device by the council, and seemingly every council in London (and probably outside London) collaborates with the rest to devise methods of maximising parking and penalty revenue from the public. The “services” provided to the public in regard to parking are minimal, merely restoring white lines on the street and maintaining ticket issuing machines. It has become a very major scandal. I made a detailed submission to the Local Government Ombudsman in June 2009. This was, as usual, rejected by the Ombudsman, leaving me (and of course any other similar complainant on this matter) with no recourse at all to any regulating authority. There isn’t one, and there should be. There are millions of vehicle users penalised one way or another by councils all over the country with no effective control over this system at all. It has grown like a cancer on society and on our lives. May 2013
Further written evidence from James de la Mare (PE 71a) Thank you for your letter of 11 June in confirmation that my contribution to the Committee’s inquiry is accepted. As my letter of 12 May was only basic, I would ask you to please add the enclosed papers to it in order that the points I made may be considered substantiated. A. The arrangements for obtaining and renewing residents parking permits have been unduly complex and subjected to a culture of difficulty stoked up by council staff for a long time, as is illustrated by my letter of 25 July 2006 to Hammersmith Council (copy herewith at A). B. In regard to the changes introduced by Hammersmith Council in 2008 that deprived me and probably others of a Resident’s Permit, I enclose a copy (at B) of the Council’s present application form which the Committee will note contains requirements that: (1) in Section 4, proof is given that the applicant has a driving licence, which is no business whatsoever of the Council, (2) in Section 5, (proof of ownership) production of the vehicle registration document which in itself is no “proof of ownership” at all, and may very well (as in my case) have a different but perfectly legitimate address on it, (3) in Section 6, details of proof of address by details of council tax payments, which is no “proof” that the applicant lives there, (4) in Section 7, likewise the information asked for is no “proof” at all that the applicant is living at the address, and (5) in Section 8, the applicant is required to declare no less than 15 statements, many of which are beyond any right the Hammersmith Council can reasonably have to maintain and file on its records and which do not relate to parking a car in the street. They relate more particularly to allowing the council to place private information on its computer and then to use it as it thinks fit, when all it really needs to know is that the applicant has a car which he wishes to use at his home. C. I enclose copy correspondence (at C) illustrating the difficulty in resolving the Council’s refusal to grant a Residents Permit (dated 2008, after the rules were changed) which I had with various Council officers and others. I draw particular attention to the points made in my letter of 30 September 2008 to Mr Stephen Greenhalgh, who was then Leader of Hammersmith Council. Mr Greenhalgh is now Deputy Mayor of London with Mr Boris Johnson. Mr Shaun Bailey was a prospective Member of Parliament for this constituency, and is now (I understand) an adviser to the Prime Minister at 10 Downing Street. Mr Greg Hands is MP for the Fulham and Chelsea constituency. The same sort of arrangements as those in force in Hammersmith since 2008 seem to be encouraged and co-ordinated by other Councils in London. However there is no independent body or regulatory authority to which London residents can apply in the event of unfairness or misuse of the rules by council officers or political councillors in “cabinet” posts, unlike disputes over metered parking which can be referred to the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service. In the case of Hammersmith, the public consultation on the changes (which by modern standards should be the norm) was minimal, or more or less non-existent, and never properly publicised before the changes were agreed and then only instituted very long afterwards. Nor were the changes backed by any real body of evidence cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:58] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w126 Transport Committee: Evidence
of need for these changes on grounds of fraud. It was stated that some 2000 residents did not seek to renew Residents Parking Permits after the changes, although the reasons for that were never investigated. I believe that: (a) parking authorities should start from the principle that residents are entitled to park their cars at their residences and be given permits unless there is a compelling and essential reason to refuse, (b) parking charges and Permit fees should be kept to a minimal level by Councils and should not be used to generate income in order to help reduce or replace Council tax revenue, as has happened for political reasons in Hammersmith Borough, (c) proper levels of genuine public consultation should be offered by councils to residents when a substantial change in the parking rules (of any type) is proposed, and (d) fines and penalties should only be proportionate to the seriousness of the alleged offence, and not be used as a revenue device, thus ensuring that a minor infringement of perhaps five minutes over-run at a meter where no obstruction is caused cannot be charged at, for example, 1000 times the actual metered cost of the over-run time. I ask the Committee therefore to consider this submission sympathetically in the interest of the many thousands of London residents whose lives have been seriously disadvantaged by the actions and intransigence of Councils over parking in recent years. June 2013
Further written evidence from James de la Mare (PE 71b) Transport Committee—Parking Consultation Thank you for your letter of 26 June. It would seem very appropriate for the Transport Committee to consider the question of revenue derived from penalties for minor or erroneous road traffic offences in a future programme as that is as questionable as revenue derived from parking offences. Regarding my own submissions to the Committee at PE71 and PE71A, it may interest the Committee to have the following facts about the Hammersmith local authority’s prosecution of parking offences committed in the weeks following its refusal to grant me a residents parking permit while I had no alternative location to park my car. I am a retired person on a small pension. The metered parking charges in this locality which I should have had to pay each day, (six days a week, Monday to Saturday, 9.00 am to 8.30 pm) by not having a resident’s permit would amount to about £20 per day. It would therefore have absorbed my entire pension income. I incurred 17 penalty notices while my car was parked after refusal of a residents permit. On or about 29 April 2009, I received in one mailing, 17 envelopes containing Notices to Owner each requiring me to pay £120. At about the same time I received nine more envelopes containing Notices to Owner as above but sent to the car’s registered address. On or about 8 July 2009, I received in one mailing, 17 envelopes containing Charge Certificates each requiring payment of £120. On or about the period 11 August to 17 August 2009 I received three mailings totaling 17 envelopes containing Orders for recovery of unpaid penalty charges each requiring me to pay £185. In the week 12–15 March 2010 I was sent 14 envelopes by a third party company Marston Bailiffs each containing a demand for payment from me of £198.16. On 4 February 2011 I was sent, in one mailing, another 47 (forty-seven) envelopes each containing a notice of “ANPR Enforcement Action Imminent” from the outside company known as Marston Bailiffs, each requiring me to pay £262,71. All these letters were sent to me while I was in correspondence with Hammersmith Council attempting to resolve the matter and regain my residents parking permit. Eventually I was told that I owed about £5,000 to the Council for the 17 so-called “offences” committed while my car had no alternative location in which to park, but as that exceeded my annual pension income the Council finally decided not to pursue the matter any further. Perhaps you would kindly add this information to my supplementary submission PE71A as it may help inform the Committee of current local authority practice in this kind of situation. July 2013 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:58] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w127
Written evidence from the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation (PE 72)
1. The Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation (CIHT) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the inquiry into Local Authority Parking Enforcement.
2. CIHT is a membership organisation representing over 12,000 people who work in the highways and transportation sector. CIHT members plan, design, build, operate and maintain best-in-class transport systems and infrastructure, whilst respecting the imperatives of improving safety, ensuring economic competitiveness and minimising environmental impact.
The adequacy of current arrangements for parking enforcement and the likely consequences of Government policy in this area.
Introduction
3. Traffic Regulation Orders [TROs] are used by local traffic authorities to regulate parking in town centre areas to preserve the economic vitality of the town, and in any area to manage on-street parking which would otherwise cause congestion or create risks for road users. Dealing with the causes of congestion is part of the statutory Network Management Duty (s16 of the Traffic Management Act 2004) to secure the expeditious movement of traffic. TROs are also important to safeguard areas for parking for blue badge holders, taxis and loading/unloading, as well as to keep parked vehicles clear of designated locations, for example in areas outside schools.
4. The Network Management Duty Guidance requires local traffic authorities to keep their TROs under review to ensure that they are appropriate, adequate and relevant. The purpose of any new TROs will be clearly set out as part of the statutory process. TROs for parking therefore have a purpose and that purpose needs to be protected through enforcement which is fair and proportionate.
5. As long as drivers park indiscriminately, infringing TROs and causing congestion or safety risks to other road users, CIHT supports the need for enforcement. Ideally, whatever resource a local traffic authority expends on enforcement needs to be covered by income from Penalty Charge Notices. CIHT does not support the use of TROs as a revenue raising exercise, nor is it lawful. CIHT notes that there have been many allegations over the years that local authorities have run parking enforcement with a revenue raising objective, but to its knowledge, none of these allegations have been substantiated or proved.
6. CIHT recognises that incentives for employees or contractors to issue PCNs can be counterproductive in terms of negative public perception and therefore supports the performance monitoring of Civil Enforcement Officers by means other than rewarding CEOs for numbers of PCNs issued.
7. It should be noted that in the current difficult economic climate, many local authorities are identifying their TRO budgets as easy targets for cuts. These are not just the budgets for new TROs, but also budgets for the maintenance/renewal of signing and lining, and for reviewing existing TROs.
8. The regulation around parking enforcement is set out in legislation which is now nearly 30 years old. Whilst there have been some changes to the provisions over that period, CIHT believes that it is now time for a fundamental review to take account of wider policy, attitude and behavioural changes. It is disappointing recently that the Government did not see fit to relax the requirement for advertising TROs in local newspapers, when it is widely accepted that there are far more effective, targeted and cost effective means of communication available to local authorities to advertise their proposals. Whilst it is understood that this protects an income stream for the newspaper industry, it leaves local authorities with an unnecessary financial burden in a difficult economic climate.
How should councils use their revenue from penalty charges, metered parking, car parks and residents’ parking? Should there be more local discretion over how income is used?
9. The use of revenue from Penalty Charges is set out in statutory guidance: — To cover the cost of the enforcement resource. — To cover the cost of adequate maintenance of the signing and lining required for the TRO to be enforceable. — To review the need for TROs. — The improvement of transport provision in the area to the benefit of road users.
10. CIHT does not believe that any more local discretion about the use of this revenue is required. It is important that there is a demonstrable link between any revenue surpluses and improvements to transport provision. There is already enough suspicion in the minds of the public about the use of enforcement revenues without introducing greater flexibility about how those revenues can be used. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:58] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w128 Transport Committee: Evidence
What impact will new technology, such as cashless parking, parking sensors and CCTV, have on local authority parking enforcement? 11. In general terms, people have a better experience parking their vehicles if they have good information which will lead them to a parking space that suits their need and if they have clear information at the place of parking about the charges, how they need to pay, and what conditions apply to them parking at that place. CIHT believes, therefore, that technology has a large part to play. 12. Payment methods—coins, cards or pay by phone—should make it as easy as possible for drivers to pay for parking. Pay by phone gives drivers the possibility of getting a text warning that the paid for time is about to expire and for paying for more time remotely. Ease of payment therefore leads to improved compliance. Local authorities need to consider carefully the impact of removing the option to pay by cash when introducing cashless parking, as compliance might improve with those who find payment by electronic means convenient, but get worse with people who struggle with using cashless methods. Cash still remains the most convenient and simple method of payment for most users, particularly for the relatively small sums involved in most cases. 13. CCTV is a tool in the armoury for local authorities to enforce TROs in particular circumstances. For example, some areas can become “no go” areas for Civil Enforcement Officers because of the risk of verbal or physical abuse. School zig-zag markings are almost unenforceable without CCTV. By their nature, these markings are spread out across the whole local authority area. Experience shows that compliance is good when a CEO is present on site, but the markings, which are critical to the safety of children outside schools, are often abused by drivers if there is no CEO in sight. CCTV in itself is an effective deterrent.
How effective are the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for England and Wales and the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service for London? (The Committee will not be considering individual cases and appeals.) 14. CIHT has no direct experience of either service. However, such a service must be impartial and consistent in the decisions it makes. There is a concern that adjudication decisions are inconsistent at times. Although it is noted that there are avenues for appealing decisions on both sides, CIHT would welcome additional measures to help achieve greater consistency in the decisions that are made. 15. CIHT believes that the services are effective in giving motorists a mechanism to be able to hold local authorities to account to prove that a contravention actually occurred in an area of complex regulation.
Should parking policy in London be subject to separate provisions and guidance, given, in particular, its large parking revenue surpluses, its more integrated public transport network and the number of foreign- registered vehicles in the city? 16. CIHT believes that a common approach to parking policy should be applied across the UK wherever possible, and there needs to be good reason based in sound evidence to apply a different policy in London to elsewhere.
How can local authorities strike a balance between using parking policy to manage congestion and using it to encourage people into town centres? 17. Parking policy needs to be seen in the context of and as part of a local authority’s overall transport policy, and not in isolation to it. Different places have different transport needs and different balances between public and private transport. The role of the local authority is to understand the transport needs to support a vibrant economy at a strategic level, and within the context of that overall transport strategy, to balance the various needs of road users at specific locations, whether it is to manage congestion, improve road safety, provide for pedestrians, for cyclists, for loading and unloading, buses, taxis, blue badge holders etc. 18. As an example, an overall transport strategy might use car parking charges or restrictions to discourage or prevent all day parking in a town centre with limited car parking capacity where alternatives, such as Park and Ride and/or good public transport are available. Thus, parking in the town centre is prioritised for shoppers and visitors, rather than for all day commuter parking which might otherwise impact on the economic vitality of the town. Durham is an example where this has been achieved successfully by balancing city centre parking and park and ride charges.
How can smaller local authorities use parking provision to manage congestion? Do they need to work regionally and strategically with neighbouring councils? 19. Section 16 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 sets out the Network Management Duty, which is both to secure the expeditious movement of traffic on a local authority’s road network, but also to facilitate this on other’s networks. Thus there is a basic duty for local authorities to work with neighbouring authorities in securing the objectives of the duty. A small local authority could apply for Civil Parking Enforcement powers in conjunction with a neighbouring authority if it could not make a CPE scheme viable on its own. However, most authorities have already implemented CPE. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:58] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w129
What role does the Workplace Parking Levy have? Would people be more inclined to use park and ride services if there were a charge to park at work?
20. Commuting costs for private car users are often subsidised by employers who do not pass on the real cost of providing parking for their employees. Commuting costs for public transport users are generally not subsidised with the employee bearing the full cost. If private car users bore the full cost of their commute, they may well make different decisions about how they travel to work. The extent to which employers would absorb the levy within their business costs rather than passing it onto employees to pay will determine its effectiveness in encouraging modal split.
21. Park and Ride clearly has a role to play in a local authority’s transport strategy. If it is more expensive for commuters to park at work than it is to use a Park and Ride service, then it is likely that Park and Ride would become the mode of choice as long as it is convenient. Park and Ride services need to have priority access to the road network to ensure that they do not suffer the same congestion that car commuters experience, otherwise they will lose their attractiveness. Furthermore, it must be recognised that Park and Ride may encourage longer car commuting into Park and Ride sites rather than merely promoting modal shift.
Are there steps local authorities can take, while managing congestion, to make it easier for businesses to trade and make deliveries?
22. It is incumbent on local authorities to keep their TROs under review. In developing any new proposals for TROs a local authority should ensure that all of the facts are known, before determining solutions. TRO proposals are unlikely to please everybody, but a local authority needs to understand all of the competing demands for road space and kerb side access when designing new schemes, before it can balance those demands in the design of new proposals. Pedestrianised areas need particular attention to understand the needs of businesses for deliveries etc. Proactive and detailed informal consultation is therefore required when formulating new proposals.
Are parking signs clear and comprehensible? To what extent are unclear signs and instructions the cause of breaches of parking control?
23. CIHT believes that in the main signs are clear and well understood by motorists. However, it is acknowledged that in maximising the use of road space, some TROs can become complex, and therefore the signing can be complex, and may not be readily understandable. It is therefore possible that this may be a factor in the contravention of a TRO. Local authorities should be aware of the hot spot locations and take any mitigation into account when considering a challenge to a PCN, but also to investigate ways of making the TRO simpler and the signing clearer. June 2013
Written evidence from Barbara Wilson (PE 73)
After reading in the Daily Telegraph (1/6/13) comments made to the Commons Select Transport Committee by Edmund King, President of the AA. I felt compelled to send to you my experience (ongoing) with Lincolnshire County Council—see 3 attachments.
Mr King is quite correct that the default position by Parking Services has become one of risk over doubling the fine—challenging you if you dare to appeal, and in my case saying we will rely solely on our evidence— any you provide will be ignored.
You go to full appeal at your risk of doubling your fine. I find it irresponsible that only Parking Services evidence will be considered by them. Parking Service Officers dismiss complaints over their procedures (as opposed to the fine per se) and operate like tin Gods. I still cannot get the name of a lower order employee who persistently refused to give his name, preferring an illegible scrawl. The fact that might be seen as rude was beyond their understanding. The whole attitude is “Take it or leave it—we shall do as we please”. No Government or Council should be proud of the arrogance with which Parking Services seem to operate nationwide. It has been privatised in Lincoln and clearly become a money making exercise—there is public uproar in the City over it.
In my case I am sure the PS are operating illegally (see my correspondence) but they dismiss your evidence against them via procedural hoops to jump through. This has dragged on three months. June 2013 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:58] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w130 Transport Committee: Evidence
Written evidence from Ronald Bradstreet (PE 74) With regard to the report on Parking Policy and Enforcement (7th report 2005–06 Vol 1), my experience lately is that little has changed. I live in a village, Shillington, Bedfordshire and I have had dealings with Bedfordshire Police concerning people parking at a junction in the village which is well used. Drivers turning into the junction in one direction do so with virtually no forward vision due the vehicles parked on a corner. A detailed report, including photographs, sent to the Chief Constable, received no reply. A complaint sent to the local Police Neighbourhood Team received a reply requesting more details, which I provided, but since then I have heard nothing. At a meeting with the Parish Council recently the Chief Constable said the Police view was that parking problems should be treated as a “community” matter. I gather this means we should ask the offenders to move their vehicles. Most residents treated this as a sick joke. It would appear to be almost impossible to obtain a reason from the Police for their lack of action. Central Bedfordshire, on the other hand, are totally co-operative and enforce their yellow lines well. The Police only deal with parking causing obstruction and danger, but this covers important areas of the parking law and should be properly enforced. Ironically, a skip placed on a corner is causing a hazard, according to the Highways Department and must be moved. At the same junction, according to the Police, a vehicle parked in the same place is not causing a hazard and can stay. How can that make sense? How can the Police be made more co-operative or is there any way the “stationary” part of the obstructive parking can be transferred to the Local Authority, who would handle it much better? I do feel something needs to be done. June 2013
Written evidence from Ronald Bradstreet (PE 74a) Further to my recent email, as I understand it, tomorrow’s business includes a debate/discussion about local authority controlled parking. I feel it is essential that the point be made that, although my argument does not strictly come under that heading, the present manner in which parking is controlled is totally unsustainable. The local authorities were recently given the power to control all but dangerous and obstructive parking which, in my experience, is done responsibly and effectively. The report published 2005–06 highlighted the police ineffectiveness in parking enforcement. The police still seem to be ineffective. This leaves the ridiculous situation where yellow lines are enforced effectively, but elsewhere cars are left parked in dangerous positions or causing obvious obstruction and nothing is done about it regardless of complaint to the police. Due to the constantly increasing number of vehicles parked on the public highway, since yellow lines cannot be installed everywhere, the number of vehicles improperly parked with no police enforcement is also rising continuously. Where and how will this end. Leaving the matter will solve nothing. Changing the police attitude would be a mammoth task. Surely the best answer is to place ALL parking under local authority control. I feel sure the local authorities could handle this and do a far better job than the present hotch-botch that exists. I hope most sincerely an answer of some sort will emerge from this. July 2013
Written evidence from Keith Bush (PE 75) I understand that the Transport Select Committee is currently investigating local authorities enforcement of parking controls, and that the committee is due to meet with representatives of local councils in early July. I wish to bring to your attention the unethical practices of Lambeth Council, in their routine removal of vehicles after 30 minutes of the issue of a parking ticket. Several years ago, my car was removed from Parkthorne Road, London SW12, which is a quiet residential street in Balham. I had unwittingly parked in a residents bay that had a 10–12 am parking restriction. The background to my case was that I had stayed overnight at a friends house in Parkthorne Road, and had been unaware of this restriction. My car was ticketed at 10.01 am, and at 10.32 a removal team descended like vultures to take my car away on a transporter. I was unable to prevent the car being removed since I was told that once the car had been loaded onto a transporter, it could not be taken off. I then had to retrieve my car from a council pound in Millwall, at great inconvenience and cost. I was required to pay £260 for the release of the car. I also missed a hospital appointment as a result. I appealed against the fine to both Lambeth Council, and then to PAFS, but with no success. Neither appeared to be interested in the ethics of the case, only the legality. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:58] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w131
It appears that Lambeth Council were relying on a relatively new 2008 law which enabled them to remove vehicles after 30 minutes of the issue of a parking ticket. My investigations at the time revealed that no other London Council apart from Kensington & Chelsea were adopting similar practices. My objections were not against the £60 parking ticket, but against the overhanded practice of the removal of my car. I again emphasise, that this was a quiet residential street and not a major highway. Parkthorne Road is neither near a railway station or shopping area, and one might even challenge why on earth a parking restriction is required in any event? This is a clear cut case of a council abusing their authority in an effort to earn secondary revenue. It has nothing whatsoever to do with parking control. I shall be grateful if you will look into this further, and also raise the issue at your forthcoming committee meeting with representatives of the local authorities. I am copying this email to my MP, Theresa Villiers, who I was in contact with at the time but who was unable to help because of a “conflict of interest”. She was Minister of Transport at the time. June 2013
Written evidence from Ken Davies (PE 76) PARKING RESTRICTIONS AND ENFORCEMENT I live in a small market town within the Calderdale Council area of West Yorkshire and I wish to draw attention to the problems that the town suffers due to the parking restrictions in force and the enforcement.
A. Resident Parking Scheme The area in which I live in the town is subject to a TRO set up in 1997 restricting parking to residents. The residents have petitioned Calderdale Council for the removal of the TRO because they judge it to be unnecessary, it is too restrictive and the enforcement severe. There does not appear to have been an appraisal of the need for a TRO since it was put implemented 17 years ago. The current residents do not see any threat to their ability to park on the streets. The Council state that there are 254 properties affected by the TRO however we dispute that figure and are seeking clarification under the Freedom of Information Act. I made contact with 180 householders in the area and over 95% stated they want the Resident Parking Scheme removed. The Calderdale Policy document states that a full formal consultation with residents should take place. All that happened was that a simple yes/no questionnaire was put through letter boxes of the properties in a plain brown envelope similar in appearance to standard junk mail. (There was no external indication that it was from Calderdale Council or that it contained an important questionnaire) Residents were asked to make their own arrangements for the return of the questionnaire. There was no prepaid postage envelope. No other consultation has been carried out. Within the area there are residents who have difficulty with the English language particularly Polish workers employed in a local factory and Pakistani people. There was no offer to assist them in understanding the letter and form. The letter accompanying the form also stated that if the Parking Permit Zone was removed that those residents who had paid for parking permits would not get their money back! The Parking Services Manager reported that since only 106 questionnaire forms had been received (less than 50% of the ones put through the letter boxes) the request for removal of the Resident Parking Scheme was rejected. The residents dispute this. Of the 180 householders contacted 146 are adamant they returned the questionnaire form through the Royal Mail, handing into a local Council office or taking it directly to the Parking Services office in Halifax. The Council will not enter into any discussion of this discrepancy. The Council will not consider objections that the response rate quoted does not take into account some 20 vacant properties and therefore there is no qualifying resident. Calderdale Council officers will not engage in a discussion. Standard letters are not even acknowledged. The only recourse I have is to seek information by issuing a formal complaint or making a request under the Freedom of Information Act. Where is openness and transparency? Resident Parking Schemes should be for the benefit of the residents of the area and not for financial reasons. In this area the charging for parking permits is equivalent to most households to an increase of 5% in the council tax and was introduced under a report entitled “Parking Income Generation Study”. In fact in this area the reason would appear to be to reduce the options for visitors to the town centre/market area so that they have to use the Park & Display car parks. In my experience Resident Parking Schemes are enforced in a very inflexible manner against particularly: — delivery people especially those delivering or removing furniture, white goods etc which take more than a couple of minutes to accomplish the task; cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:58] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w132 Transport Committee: Evidence
— carers (including visiting nurses) for elderly people; and — vehicles dropping off or collecting elderly people, infirm people and children who require assistance such that the driver enters a house. Disabled people with blue badges enabling them to park elsewhere in the town for up to 2 hours cannot stop outside their own or a friend’s house within a resident parking scheme without displaying a parking permit even to offload shopping or for a disabled person to be assisted into a house.
B. Town Centre Parking Charges Todmorden has long established in-door and out–door market areas. The market traders and the local shops are struggling in the current economic situation. Charging for parking in the adjacent car parks is a deterrent to shoppers especially when supermarkets less than a mile away provide free parking. There is a case for charging for long stay car parking but as with supermarkets there should be no charge for up to two hours parking. There should also be adequate free parking for the market traders who are already paying a rent for the stalls. As it is even a simple visit to the post office necessitates a car park charge. Calderdale Council seems to be driven by desires to generate income and for uniformity of car parking restriction throughout its area. It does not take account of the differences in the needs of the towns within its area. There has to be positive action to reduce the constraints on visitors to the town centre otherwise the town centre shops and the market will wither away. The reduction in central government support for local authorities has led to a search for other income generation methods. Car parking charges are seen as an easy way of doing that.
C. Parking Policies in General Parking policies, restrictions and enforcement are being decided by large councils who over rule the local concerns and interests. They seek to impose a blanket strategy for simplicity whereas local conditions may require a different approach. Town councils of market towns should have the opportunity to decide and undertake the parking policy within their own town for the benefit of the wellbeing of the economy of the town. July 2013
Written evidence from Cheryl Lee (PE 77) I would like to write to you regarding the parking permits upon Industrial and Cambridge Street Todmorden. I am sure you are aware of the controversy surrounding how residents are unhappy with the permit system. Living within a deprived area and being forced to pay to park in front of my home I feel is appalling. I am not guaranteed to be able to park in front of my own home it just means I can park somewhere on the street. I do not benefit from cheaper car insurance from the scheme, I can not see any benefits to having the scheme. All I can see is that over the next three years, the cost to park or even have a visitors permit for work men etc ... will rise. A councillor argued that visitors to the market may park in fount of my home if the permit was removed, firstly I would like to say that having charges on the market car park has killed our market. The market is empty as traders no longer come due to the parking charges, and 60p an hour to park in our small town is absolutely laughable. This is Todmorden not Halifax or even Hebden Bridge. The councillor also mentioned and compared Todmorden to skirt coat green and the huge scheme surrounding the hospital which is due to come into place. I was shocked that he could compare the two as that area surrounding the hospital suffers greatly from visitors and staff parking and that scheme is being met with objections it is an affluent area with many doctors and teachers living there unlike industrial street. The parking within Todmorden needs to be re-address by another body to make it fair. July 2013
Written evidence from Michael Kenney (PE 78) Para 1: I should like to explain the effect of parking enforcement from the point of view of a small shopkeeper in a non-high street position. I am sorry that this letter reaches you too late to be included in your 8th July discussion but I was unaware of the meeting until I found mention of it in this week’s Autocar magazine. Hopefully you will find my comments helpful at some stage of your deliberations. Para 2: My shop is one of eleven in a parking parade on a busy main road between Hampstead and Camden, North London, where parking is a 20 meter four car Pay & Display bay. Para 3: My main problem is a lack of parking for customers due to the failure of Camden Council to properly enforce parking regulations. Customers often report that they have been trying for weeks to visit my shop but every time they pass, the Pay & Display bay is occupied. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:58] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w133
Para 4: As I write, the bay is occupied by: (a) A 5cwt van belonging to the owner of a vintage clothing shop. It displays a disabled badge and occupies the space all day. The Metropolitan Police have checked and found that the badge is registered to the driver’s 80-year old mother, who never visits the shop. The police have referred the matter to Camden Council’s Head of Disabled Parking Permit Enforcement, who has taken no action save to tell the driver that it was me who reported her to the police. (b) A 4 wheel drive “Chelsea Tractor” belonging to the franchisee of a national chain of sandwich shops. She is “allowed” to park all day free of charge as a reward for letting parking attendants use her shop as a “hide”. They can then target motorists who think they are safe to nip into a shop for a packet of cigarettes or a snack. (c) A new hatchback driven by the doorman of a fast food restaurant. He displays a disabled permit because the car is registered in the name of a disabled relative who he apparently ferries around in his spare time. This is a legitimate part of the Motability Car Leasing Scheme, of which the Prime Minister, David Cameron, is patron. For a nominal sum, Motability lease a car to a disabled person for three years and the benefits are free insurance and servicing and a disabled badge. The company started some years ago by adapting cars to be driven by the disabled but now they have the Government subsidised leasing scheme and devious car salesmen have been using it to “sell” cars to anyone with a disabled relative (See attached Sunday Times article). The result is hundreds of thousands of people who can now drive to work and park free in the nearest Pay & Display bay. (d) A hatchback belonging to the owner of a bar & restaurant. She has a disabled permit and carries a NHS crutch whenever she is outside. As she runs a busy restaurant and regularly uses the car for Cash & Carry shopping, she appears capable of parking in a side street 50 yards away but chooses not to.
Para 5: When I reported the van owner to the police they arranged a one-day blitz. Three uniformed officers stood by the Pay & Display bay with the Council Disabled Permit Enforcement officer. None of the above mentioned vehicles parked in the bay that day and, apart from catching a motorist driving whilst on the phone, the police had an unsuccessful day. Unsurprisingly, the next day the usual vehicles were back in “their” bay.
Para 6: What is wrong? (a) The police are aware of the flagrant misuse of disabled parking permits but, unless an office sees a driver jump out of a car and do cartwheels on the pavement, he has no opportunity to query the use of a disabled badge. (b) The police could nonetheless make better use of a disabled permit blitz day by using plainclothes officers or at least by sharing a sandwich bar “hide” with sneaky parking attendants.
(c) Parking attendants have ample opportunity to enforce disabled parking permits but this is not part of their job. Perhaps it should be.
(d) One would expect that shopkeepers and especially owners of takeaway food restaurants would want to leave Pay & Display bays for their customers. But since the behaviour of the average shopkeeper is dictated more by law enforcement than by common sense, then it is surely up to Parliament to re-organise the law enforcers.
(e) Next to a table in a local greasy spoon restaurant is a photo of David Cameron dining with Mary Portas. I feel certain she didn’t bring up the subject of the Motability Car Leasing Scheme and it’s adverse effect on high street parking! She talks a lot about the lack of high street parking spaces but is probably unaware that part of the problem is the widespread misuse of existing spaces and that her lunch companion on that day is indirectly involved in this through his link with Motability!
(f) Pay & Display bays outside shops should perhaps be replaced by free parking for up to 20 minutes (adequate for most shopping) and be enforced by CCTV to avoid corrupt practices and provide evidence where the badge holder is not in the vehicle.
(g) The 20metre Pay & Display for our parade is supposed to be for four vehicles but careless/ inconsiderate parking reduces this to three or even two. I have asked Camden Council to divide this into four bays but I am told that this is not Camden policy. A simple division of the bay into 5 metre spaces would be a way to enforce more economic use of the available space. July 2013 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:58] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w134 Transport Committee: Evidence
Written evidence from Tony Wyer (PE 79) I was watching the transport select committee on TV on 14 June 2013. I was annoyed by the representative for the British motorcycle association’s attitude to parking on pavements especially that for the visually impaired. I have wrote to you before on parking on pavements and its effects on disabled, elderly and parents with buggies and children, but the government decided it should be up to local authorities. The disruption to those mentioned is a nightmare for access to the built environment. I have been campaigning for access to the pavements for some 20 odd years going through Gwyneth Dunwoody and only this year have the police decided that parking on the pavement is an offence that can be enforced by a fixed penalty notice or court for persistent offenders. This problem is a national problem not just local, and needs a central government (national) solution (ban parking on pavements) and you have to ask for permission to be able to park on the pavement if there is enough room, as London does. I have enclosed some proof of what we have to put up with on a daily basis and this is representative of anywhere in the country. What happens in my area now is I photo anyone parking on the pavement and email the photo and vehicle details of where they are parked to my local PSCO who takes action. We have cleared about four streets so far without any of the problems I had when I put stickers on cars. I have been told by my PSCO that another area of Warwickshire has just started the same procedure. A couple of the photos are related to access around road works and shows the actual situation we have to put up with rather that what the transport minister says happens. If you check with Nadhim Zahawi MP he will tell you about the solution that needs to be followed that would take up less room on the road and make movement for wheelchair users a lot SAFER. This is another area that needs looking at sometime. I know you are a busy person but would hope that you can find the time to take on board the problems a lot of people have in moving round the built environment. June 2013
Written evidence from Mike Macey (PE 80) I would like to contribute to the debate concerning the Enforcement of Parking Regulations. I have read with interest and not a little concern the oral submissions made in June 2013 to the Committee of which you are Chair. My background is that of an external consultant working within the sector for over 14 years, mainly, but not exclusively, for London Local Authorities and their service providers. Perhaps more importantly I have written a number of Best Practise Guidance Notes for the BPA and was part of the small team which worked with the DFT to produce the TMA 2004 Operational Guidance. I am a Chartered Accountant and have maintained a strong statistical and evidential interest in parking matters and contributed articles regularly to the parking magazines. My concerns regarding the oral evidence are that the weight of forthright and strongly expressed opinions do not necessarily reflect an accurate knowledge of the subject matter. I was also concerned that some key issues were not raised, perhaps because of the lack of knowledge by questioners and few recommendations for change seemed to be forthcoming that would make a genuine difference. I could indicate where I feel that inaccurate statements were made but perhaps a number of recommendations or indications of systemic weaknesses might assist in the overall context of the review.
1. TMA Operational Guidance When this was introduced it was essentially a “pilot” document covering extensive new areas and it was hoped (or even intended) that this would be updated in the light of experience and flagged as the model for best practise. This has not been the case. Whilst understanding the desire not to be prescriptive or over-regulatory the lack of teeth or external supervision has allowed many local authorities to ignore much of what was an excellent benchmark. There is no means by which under-performing councils can be brought to task. Mention was made of the lack of annual reports on performance and other service delivery aspects, which prevents accountability or transparency in operational matters. Criticism is made or inferred of CCTV operations, which in my view are cost effective and produce some of the best possible evidence available for PCN issuance. Indications were made publicly by DFT at the time that further operational guidance for CCTV orations would be issued but this has not happened. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:58] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w135
Other aspects where deficiencies continue are referred to below. There has arguably been a lack of consistency where this can be achieved.
2. Statistical Performance In the absence of an Annual Report it is almost impossible to measure the adequacy of LA performance. It is possible to access some data via the respective adjudicators’ reports, better outside London than within London eg Reasons for appeals by PCN contravention code. The ranking of LAs by say DNC, %age appeals etc has also historically been much better presented outside London. Operational Guidance set out some tough service delivery targets for responses to letters submitted by drivers or owners. It is rare to establish how well these targets are being met. Not long ago I waited three months for a reply to a challenge, the target is ten days. For an out of London council to apply for Decriminalised Enforcement powers, the DFT requires a very detailed case to be made, estimating many performance measures and costs to ensure that the parking account will not be in deficit. Frequently these estimates are proved inaccurate, there is no post facto assessment and often as was stated during the oral evidence the account turns out to be in deficit. This can mean that the enforcement is cut back to meet a financial balance and the objects of better traffic flows and other benefits anticipated are never achieved. There is no mechanism to review externally the “true cost” or benefits of the activity relative to the charge rates set nationally. Of course it could even be that the authority was incompetent as well but there is no follow through. I note that a review of existing PCN charge levels is being considered. I did produce some interesting statistics on this for the BPA as believe that the existing charge rates are too low for a number of reasons. The question of increasing parking charges is an emotive one, and I question the adequacy of the data on which such decisions are taken. LB Barnet (in)famously took out all parking meters within a 3 week period, introduced phone parking, stated that one could also find a shop offering scratch cards (very few initially) and quadrupled charges for visitor passes and significantly increased all other charges. The car parks are frequently empty, I have not used a council car park or bay since the change and I am a Barnet resident. I believe that their income will probably have dropped; it is after all a question of supply and demand and the main losers have been local shops and tradesmen. Did they undertake full modelling of the decision based on say bay occupancy, risks of income reduction; what reasons did they produce for not undertaking a pilot scheme? People can no longer hold charity coffee mornings because of the exorbitant cost of a visitor voucher for example 12 Full day visitor vouchers: £49.92; 12 Half day visitor vouchers: £26.40. As you no doubt know there is a Judicial Review of their stated objective to raise revenue, which is illegal, but surely when such increases happen it should be possible to assess the reliability and extent of the financial and operational data on which such a decision has been taken. I could also be cynical and say that such decisions are rarely taken when the council elections are about to take place—another example of Councillor interference that is not welcome.
3. Quasi Legal Issues There is one key area that Operational Guidance set out, but which has been largely ignored or circumvented. This relates to the outsourcing of the back office process or responding to letters relating to PCNs. Operational Guidance states that this is illegal. However many councils have outsourced the first letter (challenge), two or three including Westminster Council and TFL have outsourced the second stage letters (Representations) as well. There is a clear conflict of interest; LB Barnet are issuing PCNs to cars parked outside their own houses on a dropped kerb installed by the house holder. Despite sending in a letter of authority for the car to be so parked the challenge has been refused and it is now necessary to risk a doubled penalty and go to adjudication. The letter was, I believe, written by the same company as issued the PCN so one suspects that there is little incentive to cancel as it might affect their performance level. The issue of people paying up rather than pursuing a valid claim is a problematical area. Circumstantial evidence would indicate that this is true. There are a number of websites offering support at a relatively low costs but in my experience many of these provide little real advice but mainly extend the time and effort involved without gaining a great deal of success. The decisions by adjudicators have been described as rough justice with most taking less than twenty minutes to be decided. This has led to some criticisms that owners get away with some bad decisions but overall the system works well. However LAs can ignore their decisions—perhaps because of the possible flaws; the adjudicators have no power to question LAs on why there are so many Did Not Contest cases. How much of this is lack of staff or cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-10-2013 14:58] Job: 032524 Unit: PG01
Ev w136 Transport Committee: Evidence
relevant experienced staff, how much is wilful avoidance, how much created deliberately by owners withholding information and releasing it at the point of adjudication and so on. Twice I have disputed PCNs to adjudication stage with “my” council and on neither occasion did the LB Barnet contest the case. I believe that I was right in both cases but this action allowed the LA to continue what might be incorrect practises. On one occasion for example to support the PCN they sent me a copy TMO containing parking charges that differed from those displayed on my wife’s car park ticket. They refused to answer my question trying to establish whether it was the wrong TMO or more likely, since they did not reply, that the car park charges were illegal and so would every PCN issued have been. By refusing to answer an adjudicator’s request for further and fuller details in this case the LA “escaped” any legal requirement to comply or explain, or correct a potentially serious error. Witness Statements (formerly Late Statutory Declarations) are a further area of concern. TEC process these regardless of their merit. If the excuse for evading the process is clearly a lie they are still allowed to proceed and it is largely left to the Adjudicators to express a view on the merits of the case. If the Owner claims never to have received the NtO but the LA has a completed NtO form and letter in its possession clearly signed by the same person they are still “allowed” to proceed. There is recourse by the LA for perjury but I know of no cases pursued on this basis. It would be ideal if a sensible recourse could be established.
4. Other Issues One common source of problems is the inadequacy of the DVLA records. By their own admission in public documents they have a “gone away postal rate of 8%”. They issue a completely fictitious statement that their records have a 95% or better level of accuracy. Bailiffs and councils will confirm that it is considerably worse than that. This level of accuracy is only achieved I suspect by including other items of data in their records rather than just referring to the address. I believe that BPA have been working on this aspect with DVLA. At one LA in London I established that the reject rate on applications for owner details could be in double digits. There is an underlying problem of drivers forgetting to advise them of a change of address. There is a penalty that can be levied (up to £1,000, I believe) but I suspect that there are valid reasons for not enforcing this. This has severe implications however for the recovery of debts, non-receipt of statutory notices and possibly inappropriate bailiff actions. I hope that this provides some further thoughts for exploration as part of the consultation. These are personal views and do not reflect any organisation with which I may have been associated. July 2013
The Stationery Office Limited 10/2013 032524 19585