Sections 60-79
3 NOVEMBER 2005
60. Why?
(Mr Bell) The reason
is that we consider that the sign in Photograph 27, which I said
has to be on every street and each side of every side street and
I estimate there are well over 100,000 of these in London. We
believe that these are unnecessary. These bans were first introduced
in the 1970s. They have now been in place for over 30 years. They
relate to only a specific section of the motoring population,
that is drivers of large vehicles, and we believe that those drivers
are now very much aware of the overnight parking ban that is in
place. As I said, there are something like 100,000 of these signs,
if you look closely on Page 27 at the sign, it looks fine, but
you will in fact see the bolts holding on to the lamp column are
rusting and fairly soon that sign will fall off the lamp column
and indeed if you go to the next page 27 A, I will not say that
is a typical sign but signs like that do exist and clearly they
are a nuisance. We regard all of these signs first as unnecessary
and second as an environmental nuisance and environmentally unnecessary
and there is also a maintenance element or costs involved in maintaining
these signs which those costs are a burden on the local authorities.
61. Is this a parallel with other bans that
do not require every street to have a sign?
(Mr Bell) There
is one very relevant ban which is a ban on parking on the footways.
Again it is a London-wide ban and that was introduced under a
Greater London Powers Act back in, I think, 1974. That prevents
or makes it an offence or known contravention to park on the footway
unless there is an exempted area. This is a London-wide ban, it
is not signed in any way.
62. CHAIRMAN: Do I recall that the Government
objected to this on the grounds that it would not be the same
as other parts of the Home Counties or is that something different?
63. MR CLARKSON: It is arcane, as I
recall. The Government does not believe it is reasonable to rely
solely on zone entry signs to inform HGV drivers of parking restrictions
which is why the requirement for repeater signs are specified
in the first place nor should there be any special parking arrangements
that contradict national signing requirements. Mr Bell, respond.
(Mr Bell) As we
have just discussed, there is a London-wide ban that does not
rely on signing, but the Department for Transport also makes special
arrangements elsewhere and if I can give you two examples where
schemes are in place which do not conform to national signing
requirements. One is around Oxford Football Ground where there
is in effect a control parking zone and if you go there on a match
day you are not allowed to park in a defined area. This has entry
signs, but it does not have the ordinary parking place signs that
you would have on the street, so that is an area where they have
given special authorisation for that to take place and just another
example if you go to Norwich, you will find that the parking places
on the street in Norwich city centre do not have all of the white
markings that conventionally would apply and do exist in the whole
of London. That is another example where the Department has given
special authorisation for a departure from the national requirements.
64. What does English Heritage say about street
paraphernalia?
(Mr Bell) English
Heritage is very much in favour of reducing street furniture.
Perhaps I may quote from something called Streets for All.
The paragraph is headed "Traffic Signs". It says, "Clutter
can be reduced by eliminating unnecessary signs, equipment, posts
and columns." They have a campaign at the moment which I
think is called ---
65. Save our Streets, is it?
(Mr Bell) That
is right. Perhaps I may give you another quote from a recent press
release of 10 October 2005, which says: "Many towns and villages
have had their local distinctiveness eroded by an array of ugly
and obtrusive traffic signs, posts and bollards that clutter our
streets." English Heritage is very much in favour of reducing
signage or combining signs where possible, so having one instead
of two or three. It is also a campaign that is supported by CPRE,
which is the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, and
CABE.
66. That is the Commission for Architecture
and the Built Environment.
(Mr Bell) Yes.
67. MR CLARKSON: I think that is all
we need to go into unless the Committee have any questions on
this aspect.
68. CHAIRMAN: So the national requirement
would remain that every town in Kent or Hertfordshire would still
have to have the equivalent of this little yellow thing on every
street where they placed a street ban, is that correct?
(Mr Bell) That
would be the case. To be honest, I have no idea how many towns
or cities outside London have a ban like this. In a way what we
are trying to do in London is lead the way and show that things
can be done in a different way and hopefully for very supportable
reasons.
69. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed.
70. MR CLARKSON: Thank you, Mr Bell.
The witness withdrew
MR PATRICK TROY, sworn
Examined by MR CLARKSON
71. MR CLARKSON:
My last witness is Mr Troy who will speak to Part 6 which
is objected to by the Government on the basis that it is already
covered or will be covered. I will introduce Mr Troy. You are
Head of Traffic Enforcement for Transport for London and this
submission is on behalf of the Enforcement Task Force, which is
a partnership working group composed of the Association of London
Government, Transport for London, the Metropolitan Police Service
and other enforcement agencies in London. Let us do exactly as
other witnesses have, please, let us go to Clause 25 through to
33 and explain what it is the Bill is seeking to do, Mr Troy.
(Mr Troy) Certainly.
The heading of this part is "Non-Payment of Penalty Charges".
We have come to use the term "persistent evaders" to
define this particular problem and what we mean by a persistent
evader is somebody who regularly and frequently finds a way round
the existing legislation which is designed to ensure that when
penalty charge notices are issued they are paid by the keeper
of the vehicle. The primary purpose, as I think you have already
heard, of decriminalised enforcement in this case is to achieve
an improvement in compliance with traffic regulations and by so
doing we can see the benefits certainly in London of reduced congestion
and improved road safety, improved bus priority and so on. What
we have found over several years now of operating the legislation
is that there is an obstacle to that objective and that is people
who attempt to find a way around the system, usually by them not
registering their vehicles properly, not giving the correct address
or registering their vehicles perhaps falsely.
72. Is that a cloning exercise that is done
as well?
(Mr Troy) There
are attempts at cloning or ringing vehicles.
73. Can you just say in a couple of sentences
what the new clause actually does to deal with that?
(Mr Troy) At the
present time the legislation allows authorities to remove a vehicle,
if it is a known persistent evader, to a pound.
74. In summary, a persistent evader has huge
outstanding fines.
(Mr Troy) That
is right, yes. In a pilot that we did last year we found that
any particular persistent evader had an average of 12 penalty
charge notices outstanding, but that ranged from three up to several
hundred. The purpose of the legislation is to empower the London
authorities and Transport for London to remove any vehicle that
is known to be a persistent evader whether it is parked lawfully
or unlawfully - the word "stationary" is used in
the legislation - and impound or immobilise that vehicle in order
to recover the outstanding penalty charge notices on those vehicles.
75. Does that car have to be illegally or legally
parked when it is picked up under current legislation?
(Mr Troy) Under
current legislation it has to be illegally parked.
76. So if I have a huge number of outstanding
notices and currently park it legally, is there any way I can
be brought to book?
(Mr Troy) No, there
is no way you can be brought to book in the sense that your vehicle
is not registered correctly. If your vehicle is registered correctly
then there is a very clear process which works very effectively,
but if your vehicle is not registered correctly - and these are
the people we are talking about - then there is no way of recovering
those penalty charges.
77. What do the clauses do?
(Mr Troy) The clauses
would enable the London authorities and Transport for London to
remove a lawfully parked vehicle or immobilise that vehicle, or
indeed both, and not to return the vehicle to its keeper until
all the outstanding penalty charge notices are paid.
78. MR AUSTIN: What is the definition
of persistent?
(Mr Troy) The definition
we have put into the clause is any vehicle which has more than
three outstanding penalty charge notices. We have defined outstanding
very carefully because what we do not want to do is regard any
keeper as a persistent evader if they are in the process of making
a representation or an appeal against the penalty charge notice.
So they only become a persistent evader if they have received
their fourth penalty charge notice and have gone beyond the point
where they could have made an appeal.
79. What would happen if somebody bought a
vehicle in good faith and did not realise there were outstanding
charges, is there a safeguard?
(Mr Troy) Yes,
there are a number of safeguards that we have built in to this
because that is a possibility. Firstly, there would be two checks
done by authorised officers who identify a persistent offender.
We are talking there about a parking attendant on the street who
finds a vehicle that he knows is on the persistent evader database.
He will conduct a DVLA check to ensure that the vehicle is still
owned by that person. You may say if it is not registered correctly
we might not know who the keeper is. It is still in the same vehicle
keeper status so we know it has not changed hands in the recent
past. The attending removal or clamping vehicle will conduct the
same check to ensure that those two checks have been done. The
third thing is that in the unlikely event that a vehicle is removed
to a pound or clamped and someone happens to have purchased that
vehicle the day before, we have built into the clause the provision
of a bond or surety so that the attending keeper can recover their
vehicle, pay a bond and the issue of keepership can be sorted
out within a very short period of time after that. We are conscious
that this might happen in the middle of the night and we need
to ensure that there is provision for an innocent party.
| 
