Memorandum submitted by British Parking
Association
INTRODUCTION
1. The British Parking Association (BPA)
is pleased that the Committee is to inquire into the current effectiveness
of parking provision and enforcement. The BPA has argued for some
time that parking is part of any integrated transport strategy
whether at national or local level. Parking is a means to an end,
rather than an end in itself and every vehicle journey we make
starts and ends with a parking activity. This paper responds to
the inquiry, addresses the issue of decriminalised parking enforcement,
raises concern about a lack of a national parking policy, expresses
concerns about the DVLA database from a parking perspective and
covers other related issues.
2. DPE, as a result of the Road Traffic
Act 1991, which started in London in 1993, has been in operation
now for the past 12 years. It is therefore timely to review the
process for there has been no objective measurement of the success
or failure of DPE since its inception. This omission needs addressing
urgently. It is also important to undertake urgent work to understand
and make known the link between road safety, the free flow of
traffic and kerb space management and parking control. While it
was and is, sensible to decriminalise these offences or contraventions
and allow local authorities (LAs), powers to enforce local parking
regulations (thus enabling the police to concentrate on fighting
real crime), the public perception of parking management and enforcement
is poor. While some criticism may be justified, the majority of
people and for the majority of time benefit from the improved
management of the scarce road space. Unfortunately much of the
negative perception results from a media attitude that is both
exaggerated and sensationalist in its approach. Nevertheless the
BPA recognised some time ago that this portrayal reflected broad
public concern and therefore developed a three part strategy to
help understand and improve the situation. In particular the BPA
has:
(a) Developed and introduced a new model
form of contract for use by local authorities and service providers
which reflects a modern partnering approach. It is founded on
openness and trust and shuns performance indicators relating to
the number of parking tickets (PCNs) issued.
(b) Established, with our partners City &
Guilds, a Level 2 National Training Certificate for parking attendants
(PAs), which we believe will become, over time, a "licence
to practice" for all PAs, thereby improving the consistency
of training of such individuals across the country, which will
be good for the individual PA, good for the public and good for
the industry.
(c) Commissioned Richard Childs, the former
Chief Constable of Lincolnshire, to undertake an independent review
of DPE and propose ways in which DPE could be improved. A copy
of Richard's report containing a range of recommendations is attached
in PDF form.
3. The Chief Executive of the BPA has been
appointed to a DfT lead working group formed to develop new regulations
and guidance on parking for local authorities, as a result of
the Traffic Management Act 2004. We believe that the issue of
new guidance represents an ideal opportunity to update LAs on
further developments of DPE to ensure that it is applied correctly,
fairly and in a consistent and transparent way. Many of the current
concerns about DPE can and should be dealt with through the new
regulations and better guidance notes. This is an opportunity
that should not be missed and Richard Childs Report covers the
range of issues that need to be addressed.
4. Parking management, regulations and enforcement
are an essential public service, benefiting the whole community.
There is apparent public concern about the way enforcement is
undertaken in some areas and although the majority appears correctly
applied, it is important to take the present opportunity to improve
the effectiveness of DPE to ensure that our streets are safe and
free from congestion for the benefit of all—the main objective
of parking regulations and enforcement.
QUESTIONS
5. Our comments on the specific questions
asked are:
Are local authorities carrying out parking
control reasonably, fairly and accountably? How is performance
evaluated?
6. We believe that most LAs are carrying
out parking control reasonably and fairly, and are accountable
locally to their electorate. Performance is evaluated in a number
of ways but too much emphasis has been placed in the past by some
LAs on the number of tickets (PCNs) issued—often as it is
the easiest indicator to measure. Tickets are a consequence of
enforcement and it could be argued that if the overall number
of tickets issued over time does not reduce (all other things
being equal), then the parking management regime is not providing
a fair and reasonable service. The better authorities measure
the number and average duration of illegal parking acts (contraventions)
and identify the continued reduction as a measure of success.
It must be said, however, that the rate of reduction will slow
as each incremental improvement (reduction in illegal parking)
costs several times more than the previous increment and there
will come a point when the cost is greater than the benefit.
7. There is a perception that many drivers
(encouraged by media comment) see DPE solely as an income generator
for LAs. To change this perception Richard Childs believes that
greater emphasis should be given by LAs to the legitimacy of parking
controls and enforcement (ie that it is undertaken for the right
reasons—to control traffic, etc) and that it is carried
out with greater transparency, so that the public can see what
revenue is generated and how it is used. Consequently, he recommends
and we support the view, that statutory guidance should be used
to require full public disclosure by LAs.
8. The new BPA model contract recommends
a whole series of performance indicators from which a local authority
can choose those that best suit its particular needs. While it
is understandable for budgetary purposes that the number of "expected"
tickets should be estimated, LAs should not use this number as
a performance measure and the practice of offering incentives
to PAs and penalising service providers for not reaching expected
numbers should be made unlawful. The BPA and others are currently
working on developing a compliance formula which, when available,
will help LAs judge the performance and effectiveness of a contractor
or act as a benchmark from which an LA can judge its own performance
over time. A similar formula is also being developed as a "back
Office" Index, as an inefficient back office operation can
have an effect on parking compliance.
What action would raise the standard of parking
enforcement activity? Is Statutory Guidance needed to promote
consistency?
9. The Childs Review and other complementary
studies have proposed ways in which the performance of DPE can
be improved both strategically and operationally. The key however
is the planned statutory guidance and good progress is being made
by the DfT Working Group in developing this. It will be available
for comment later in the year/early next year. The importance
of such guidance cannot be understated especially if, as planned,
it is backed by a Code of Practice for local authorities and other
good practice guides. It is important, however, to recognise that
those who park illegally are acting antisocially and whilst the
work of parking provision, management and enforcement must be
undertaken firmly and correctly, it needs to be carried out fairly
so that those contravening the regulations understand the impact
of their actions and accept any penalty imposed. They need to
be treated fairly, promptly and in a consistent manner.
Is the appeals process fair and effective?
How could it be improved?
10. Yes, in broad terms we believe the appeals
process to be fair and effective but it can always be improved.
Dealing with aggrieved motorists, who feel they have been unfairly
ticketed, through the decriminalised civil process is more sensible
and user friendly than to do so through the criminal route and
the magistrate's court. It is important that the first representation
stage for an aggrieved motorist is through the local authority,
which has the discretion to cancel a ticket. Where grievances
are not resolved at this stage an appeal through the adjudication
service is sensible and conforms to natural justice. However,
there is growing concern that adjudicators appear too often to
go beyond their remit and consider matters of mitigation rather
than just considering the legal facts.
11. Concern had been expressed that not
all LAs deal with representations as quickly and effectively as
they might and again Richard Childs recommends that new Statutory
Guidance cover the whole issue to ensure an improved service.
It is essential that DPE is sufficiently flexible to deal fairly
and quickly with those who have legitimate grounds for complaint
but does not allow others to abuse the system or delay payment
unreasonably—as is sometimes the case now. It is unfortunate
that when the concept of decriminalised parking enforcement was
brought over as a model from the USA, that the "Scoff"
laws were not attached. The ability to enforce against a persistent
evader wherever his or her vehicle is found would be a much greater
deterrent to those who deliberately try to evade justice.
Is it appropriate that local authorities should
keep the revenue generated from parking fines? Is there any evidence
that the opportunity to raise revenue through decriminalised parking
enforcement has inappropriately influenced authorities' parking
policy and enforcement activity?
12. The BPA believes it reasonable to allow
local authorities to keep any surpluses generated from DPE activities
for use locally as it is an incentive to run a cost effective
regime. It is important, however, to ensure that LAs use the money
first to maintain, review and improve lines and signs so that
drivers have every opportunity of parking according to the rules
and avoiding a ticket. While none of the recent studies has found
"evidence" that LAs are manipulating the system to increase
their earning capability, we recognise that this is the public
perception. Existing guidance requires LAs, with DPE powers, to
at least break even financially on parking overall, so the activity
is not subsidised from other council funds. And the Road Traffic
Regulation Act 1984 (as amended) requires any surpluses generated
to be used for dedicated activities such as transportation issues
and in some cases now, environmental matters. As an example, the
London Freedom bus pass has, we understand, been funded from parking
surpluses. The surplus income from DPE for all LAs is substancialsubstantial
and the DfT can provide the committee with actual details. However,
while a few generate a large surplus many do not. We do not object
to surpluses being used for environmental issues but the first
requirement of a LA should be to use the surplus to maintain and
improve its parking facilities and services something we are concerned
is not happening as much as it should.
13. Richard Childs did suggest that while
he did not have any evidence to prove that LAs were manipulating
DPE, it became clear to him during his study that some LAs were
putting their parking managers under significant pressure to meet
financial targets rather than improvements to traffic flow and
safety. This needs to be addressed in Statutory Guidance although
it is recognised that "challenging" targets can be dressed
up in many ways.
14. As mentioned earlier many of the issues
surrounding the income/surpluses of LAs and how they are used
could easily be overcome by greater transparency by LAs. By giving
full disclosure in their annual reports and on their websites
on the number of tickets issued, the number cancelled, (including
those for mitigating circumstances), the income and surpluses
achieved and how the revenue is used, etc, a local authority could
at a stroke redress much of the criticism, particularly that of
the media. This issue is being picked up by the DfT Working Group
but it is worth restating that any action to remove the current
suspicion and change the perception about DPE must reinforce the
legitimacy of parking control and the need for transparency in
the way finances and other information is handled. In the end
if no driver parked illegally there would be no need for enforcement
and no income from parking fines.
15. Illegally Parked vehicles can be a potential
danger to others or cause an obstruction to everyday traffic,
or more importantly, to emergency vehicles. Parking illegally
is anti-social and needs to be controlled through sensible parking
policies, regulation and enforcement. Without such controls there
would be chaos on our streets. It is for this reason that we see
DPE as the way forward on-street and compliance needs to be improved
through sensible enforcement and better public understanding.
What criteria should be used to determine
the level of parking provision that should be provided?
16. Insufficient attention has been given
in the past to the role of parking in our transport policy and
with some 30 million motor vehicles on our roads today, (most
of which are parked at any one time), the need to manage and ration
parking space, particularly on-street in urban areas, by time,
cost and category of use, is both essential and self evident.
17. The level of parking provision is influenced
by social, economic and political considerations. While it is
clear that there is growing demand as a result of the number of
vehicles on our streets increasing, the requirement for off-street
parking associated with developments has been reduced by Government
for a number of reasons including pressure for more dwellings.
In some developments parking provision has been completely eliminated.
With rising demand there needs to be a balanced approach between
provision and expectation and between the needs of the varying
groups of stakeholders, including those with a disability.
18. Research by the RAC Foundation has shown
that:
— 29% of people have given up their
journey and gone home due to lack of parking.
— 28% of people have searched for more
than 20 minutes for a parking space at their intended destination.
— Only 41% of people actually use their
garage for parking their car.
— 56% of people would consider converting
their garden to parking if they had no access to residential parking.
— 14% of people have parked in a disabled
space due to lack of other parking.
— More than ¾ of those approached
think that parking problems should be addressed by more underground
parking at home, when visiting shops and better public transport.
19. The more cars that are parked off-street,
the safer the community. As a result the current Government guidance
on spaces per unit should be reviewed as part of the development
of a UK wide parking policy that is integrated within the national
transport strategy (see later). Also, whilst the drive to convert
more people to public transport is commendable, until the public
sees a cost effective, on time, agreeable public transport system,
many will continue to use their cars as their preferred choice.
20. As a result, more innovative solutions
need to be considered by Government and others including increased
parking provision at public transport interchanges, to allow part
of a journey to be completed in future by car and not necessarily
the whole of it.
21. It is inappropriate to try and review
the whole issue of parking provision in such a response. We believe
the Committee should study the report of the RAC Foundation entitled
"Motoring towards 2050—Parking in Transport Policy",
published in 2005, as it gives a valuable overview of some of
the issues and some areas of research that should be considered.
Parking is an under researched area of transport strategy and
it needs a joined up Government approach to determine the way
ahead, taking into account social and economic factors. Without
it the issues of parking will continue to grow and become a further
cause of much public anxiety and frustration.
What are the wider impacts of current parking
policy and illegally parked vehicles?
22. There is no comprehensive formal national
parking policy which makes it impossible for the Industry to operate
as effectively as it could and means that local decisions are
not national policy driven. Local authorities develop their own
parking plans (as required by Government), which are based on
a range of factors locally and take into account the needs of
residents, businesses, the disabled and all other stakeholders.
There appears to be little if any co-ordination between adjoining
local authorities yet the parking plan of one can have a major
impact on the neighbouring areas—good or bad. Many of these
"plans" are unknown to the public, are often confusing
and difficult to understand, sometimes appear contradictory and
lack consistency across the country. Motorists often feel frustrated
and bemused between the standards of parking management between
one local authority and another, which often results in aan unintentional
parking contravention. The whole issue needs to be simplified
and whilst we need a local solution for a local problem, greater
guidance is required from Government in the setting of parameters.
What role should parking policy play in parking
management and demand management?
23. In order to determine how much parking
space each category of road user/parker is allocated, transport
policies need to determine the overall objectives for public transport
and the possible carrying capacities, ease of access to all locations.
Having determined this and the potential change in the patterns
of movement based on economic and domestic activity, provision
needs to be made for those who live in the area, have no public
transport option and for the economic well being of the area.
Unfortunately the demands will vary by hour of the day, day of
the week, time of year as the demand patterns for a seaside town
will be significantly different to a business district in the
heart of a large city. Policy should therefore determine what
the overall objectives are, and then be used as the reasoning
behind the actual parking provision—location, category of
user, charges, and finally the enforcement.
24. It is crucial however that policy is
reviewed regularly, that variations in demand due to redevelopment,
loss of commercial premises, changes in licensing and other regulations,
are taken into account at a local level to ensure that the provision,
whilst still in line with policy, maximises the available space
for the changed demand as far as possible.
25. Parking policy also needs to consider
the wider issue of public safety and security for those using
parking facilities. The British Crime Survey suggests that 20%
of all crime relates to vehicle crime and 20% of this on average
is committed in car parks. Thus 4% of all crime is car park related.
To redress this issue ACPO in partnership with the Home Office
and BPA have developed the Safer Parking Scheme aimed at providing
a safe and non threatening environment for users. While the scheme
now incorporates some 2000 parking facilities, greater take up
by the public sector is essential if the scheme is to grow and
flourish. We believe that the committee should suggest to the
appropriate government departments, such as ODPM/DfT/ Department
of Health that they encourage greater take up of the Scheme by
local authorities, health authorities, etc.
How can public understanding and acceptance
of the need for parking policy be achieved?
26. It is clear that there is a great deal
of public confusion about parking policy, provision and enforcement.
We all appear to support the need for parking control, for traffic
management, and enforcement of the other driver who is being selfish.
However, we generally consider that we should be exempt from the
rules as "we" are not the problem, it is him or her!
Whilst the consequences may not be as damaging or as costly as
drink driving or not wearing a seat belt, illegal parking should
be considered to be as selfish. Regrettably there are too many
drivers who are also too selfish or too keen to flout the law,
to register, maintain, insure or tax their vehicle—to the
potential detriment of others.
27. The supposed lack of understanding leads
to frustration, stress and a great deal of abuse of parking attendants
on street. In order to improve public understanding and acceptance
it is important, once the changes to the current DPE regime have
been agreed and the new regulations and statutory guidance finalised,
that a major public communications campaign is undertaken to make
motorists and others more aware of the need for parking controls
and enforcement and the potential detriment to others of their
often selfish actions.
28. The British Parking Association is planning
to develop a "consumer's guide to parking", to coincide
with the publication of the new Statutory Guidance, in order to
help public understanding of the issues. We hope that Government
will support this initiative as part of a wide ranging public
communications campaign.
29. There are two other major concerns we
wish to share with the committee:
TRAFFIC SIGNS
30. Traffic and parking regulations are
given effect by traffic signs and markings. In the UK signs are
prescribed precisely in Traffic Signs Regulations and General
Direction TSRGD (SI 2002/3113) and if a sign or marking does not
comply with TSRGD then the regulation has no effect. We believe
that it is important that, particularly for parking, where drivers
are expected to comply with regulations, that the precision of
signing is preserved and enforced. Where a driver is at risk of
a financial penalty, or worse, signs cannot be "about right".
31. However, understanding the present system
does seem to cause many people a problem. DfT funded research
indicates that many drivers do not understand existing signs.
Incorrect use of signs and markings suggests that some professionals
responsible for introducing and managing parking regulations also
struggle to comprehend the present system.
32. Regardless of the lawfulness of the
signing that is used it clearly is a cause for concern if a significant
number of motorists, and some professionals, are unable to comprehend
correctly the regulation that is in force. We believe that this
issue should be addressed by an objective study of sign comprehensibility
and, if the study shows there is a problem; sign design should
be revisited and simplified, or driver education should be improved
or both.
DVLA AND OVERSEAS
REGISTERED VEHICLES
33. Parking Offences and increasingly moving
traffic offences are enforced by first identifying the offending
vehicle and then subsequently tracing the keeper/user. The inability
to trace vehicles back to their user because of deficiencies in
the vehicle registration process has a number of consequences.
— For Local Authorities many millions
of pounds in income are foregone because offenders cannot be traced
and large amounts of public money are wasted in trying to track
down such vehicles.
— The exchequer also loses many millions
of pounds from uncollected fixed penalty notices issued by Police
forces, who also spend a great deal of abortive time and money
in following up offences.
— Some of the worst offenders, often
disqualified and driving without insurance and other documents
flout the law with relative impunity because their vehicles are
not registered and not traceable unless stopped on the street.
34. Inevitably the financial and social
consequences of these activities are met by other law-abiding
citizens. Although these issues are well known and widely understood
particularly in the parking industry we are not aware that the
true costs of the weaknesses in the current vehicle and driver
records system on wider public finance and law and order have
ever been subject to an independent evaluation. We recommend that
the Audit Commission should be requested to carry out an investigation
of the weaknesses of the present system and the wider financial
consequences of these shortcomings.
35. Local authority parking services lose
a large amount of income each year because foreign registered
vehicles cannot be tracked to enforce a parking penalty and so
the drivers sometimes do not pay for the parking that they use.
This problem is in part caused by casual visitors who spend a
few days or weeks visiting the UK and the scale of monies involved
is such that entrepreneurs have set up companies to collect this
money on a commission basis.
36. Of greater concern is the fear that
there is a significant, and growing, number of vehicles carrying
overseas registration marks which have been brought into the UK
and are in long-term use by residents and visitors for far longer
than the six months that are allowed without registering the vehicle
here. Notwithstanding the offence of failure to comply with vehicle
registration requirements there is also a concern about the wider
legality of these vehicles.
37. Mainland Britain has about 25 places
where motor vehicles can enter and leave the country (other than
as cargo) and it should be relatively simple to establish a computer
system which would log vehicles entering the country so that:
— Those staying beyond six months could
be flagged so that if identified on street by the Police or parking
officers they could be dealt with.
— Vehicles leaving the country could
be checked for outstanding offences or charges and if appropriate
given the opportunity to resolve any outstanding issues before
leaving.
38. We believe this is an urgent problem
that needs resolving.
CONCLUSIONS
39. Most people want to park freely where
they like, when they like and for as long as they like. In a small
island like ours this is not possible, particularly in built up
areas, and thus we must manage the use of the highway for the
benefit of all. The BPA believes therefore that DPE is the way
forward so far as parking (and other minor traffic enforcement)
is concerned, providing it is undertaken, fairly, legitimately
and in a transparent way.
40. However, ultimately it must be to everyone's
benefit to get as many cars off street as possible, to improve
safety and avoid them causing an obstruction. Yet, the provision
of space to park vehicles, especially commercial vehicles, is
slowly reducing.
41. As a society we need a longer term parking
strategy that is linked to the Government's overall transport
policy that recognises concerns about supply and demand. This
can only be undertaken by Government in consultation with all
stakeholders.
RECOMMENDATIONS
42. The BPA recommends that the Transport
Committee:
— Supports the preparation by DfT of
new DPE parking regulations and guidance in accordance with the
recommendations in the Childs report.
— Encourages Government to review of
the effectiveness of DPE against the original criteria identified
by the legislators.
— Encourages Government to review the
whole issue of "signs and lines", to consider their
comprehensibility and if necessary develop a new system that is
easier for people to understand.
— Recommends to Government the development
of a national parking framework as part of the integrated transport
strategy.
— Recommends that the Audit Commission
investigates the weaknesses of the current vehicle and driver
records system to identify any shortcomings and the financial
consequences to the public sector of this and recommend improvements.
— Invites the DfT to review the problems
of parking contraventions for overseas registered vehicles and
the issue of the non payment of parking and other fines.
— Parking policy also needs to consider
the wider issues of public safety and security for those using
parking facilities. The British Crime Survey suggests that 20%
of all crime relates to vehicle crime and 2,054 of this on average
is committed in car parks. Thus 4% of all crime is car park related.
To redress this issue ACPO in partnership with the Home Office
and BPA has developed the Safer Parking Scheme aimed at providing
a safe non-threatening environment for users. While the scheme
now incorporates some 2,000 parking facilities, greater take-up
by the public sector is essential if the scheme is to grow and
flourish. We believe that the committee should suggest to the
appropriate government departments, such as ODPM/DfT/Department
of Health that they encourage great take-up of the Safer Parking
Scheme by local authorities, health authorities, etc.
| 
