Memorandum from The AA Motoring Trust
Traffic in and around Britain's towns and cities
has to be managed. Where the demand for parking is greater than
the supply, it must be regulated—and the regulations must
be enforced. All fair-minded people understand this, and most
motorists do not condone unlawful parking. But fair-minded people
also expect to be treated fairly and honestly, as valued customers
of local services provided by their local council. Parking needs,
and parking infringements, should not be handled with the cynicism
that characterises some local authorities, particularly in London.
The formidable revenues that parking now generates—around
£1 billion annually—now seems to be the driving force
for some, perhaps many, authorities. Enforcement is being increasingly
outsourced to contractors who employ the parking attendants and
operate the back-office functions. There seems to be little accountability
by the boroughs for the actions of their contractors. Bad practices
and disregard of the rules of operation are an unwelcome consequence.
The BBC Whistleblower undercover investigation,
in particular, suggested that no one in the London borough investigated
appeared to be in control or to be accountable for the deplorable
actions uncovered. The BBC investigation may or may not have been
the tip of an iceberg, but there are other examples of bad practice.
Random and untargeted wheel clamping and towing
away. These draconian measures are not aimed at the vehicles of
persistent offenders, motorists who ignore penalty notices, or
who cannot be traced. Parking attendants can easily identify these
vehicles if the data is stored in their hand-held computers. Regrettably,
it is not. As a result, persistent offenders and "dodgy"
vehicles get away with it time after time, and a motorist who
rarely offends suffers a penalty out of all proportion to the
offence.
Initial appeal processes are ignored. Some boroughs
automatically reject any plea of mitigating circumstances, but
then fail to appear at an independent appeal hearing to defend
their decision. The worst borough in London was guilty of this
in 74% of formal appeals in 2003-04; the best failed to defend
just 6%.
Bailiffs hounding innocent motorists. They are
presumed guilty but are actually the innocent victims of car cloning
or false registration that leads to inaccurate DVLA records. There
are cases of penalty charge notices continuing to be sent to the
address of an innocent motorist despite the borough being told
and re-told that there has been an error.
Public confidence in the ability of local authorities
to carry out parking functions has been severely dented over many
years. The AA Trust supported the bold step of allowing local
authorities to take control of parking on their streets, but the
enormous revenues that this generates, and the pressure to collect
even more, now risks alienating the residents and visitors whom
the authority should be serving.
The AA Trust believes that the following key
steps must be taken to restore confidence and achieve accountability:
— The watchdog role of the independent
adjudication service should be expanded to allow it to investigate
allegations of malpractice and misadministration, and to take
action where necessary.
— All authorities should be required
to publish an annual parking report and accounts, highlighting
key indicators that will benchmark their performance.
— Each authority should review its
parking policies and provisions to ensure that they are proportionate,
necessary, and meet the needs of residents, visitors and businesses
in the area.
— Authorities found by the independent
adjudicator to have wrongly ticketed a vehicle, or who fail to
defend their decision to refuse an initial appeal, should be required
to pay the motorist compensation proportionate to the penalty
charge.
— Wheel clamping and towing away should
be restricted to the vehicles of persistent offenders, "dodgy"
vehicles, and vehicles causing a hazard or obstruction (with congestion
charging, for example, wheel clamping or towing away is reserved
for those vehicles that have three or more unpaid penalties).
— Motorists' claims that they are innocent
because misinformation has deliberately been given to the DVLA,
or because they are a victim of car cloning, should be thoroughly
investigated, and bailiff action should be authorised by a senior
officer of the authority only after the real guilty party has
been identified.
— The "no win—no fee"
pursuit of unpaid or un-served parking penalty notices by debt
recovery agencies and bailiffs should be reviewed: local councils
must bear responsibility for action taken in their name and bailiff
action should have to be authorised by a senior officer of the
council.
The AA Trust believes that there is a very strong
case for a thorough review of the powers of local authorities
to make, administer and enforce parking regulations, and to retain
revenues from parking payments and penalties. We believe the Inquiry
by the Select Committee is the first step in this review process.
RESPONSE TO
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
Are local authorities carrying out parking control
reasonably, fairly and accountably? How is performance evaluated?
Some authorities perform well, giving priority
to providing a high quality service. Others have seriously tarnished
the image of parking enforcement, however, raising doubts about
the wisdom of allowing them to continue with parking control.
Overall, local authorities across Britain gross around £1
billion a year from parking. It is a huge business, but in some
areas it seems to be out of control.
We draw the attention of the Committee to the
London Borough of Westminster, which has carried out a root and
branch review of its parking operations in the light of heavy
criticism of its operations over several years. The Borough has
— scrapped all forms of targets, incentive
schemes and performance-related pay for parking attendants;
— re-briefed and retrained parking
attendants, stressing the importance of observing loading and
unloading rules;
— updated and published its parking
rules to try to ensure transparency and fairness;
— carried out an audit of every street
in the Borough to ensure the regulations are both necessary and
proportionate, removing hundreds of metres of yellow lines and
providing additional parking space;
— relaxed the rules on clamping and
towing away; and
— ended archaic rules on meter feeding
and the "return within the hour" rule.
Westminster has responded sensibly to criticism
of its parking administration. It is unfortunate for residents,
visitors and businesses that other boroughs have not done the
same: bad practice continues routinely, on a day-to-day basis.
For example, authorities do not respond quickly enough to enquiries,
fail to adequately maintain signs and road markings, and allow
attendants to issue harsh or unjustified penalty notices.
The AA Trust believes that insufficient action
is taken against authorities that break the rules, in extreme
cases, by fabricating evidence or failing to comply with Department
for Transport requests to amend signing to make it conform. It
is also unacceptable that some authorities continue to make serious
errors regarding the legality of their decriminalised parking
schemes.
The best way that authorities' performances
can be evaluated is through the annual adjudication statistics
they produce. Limited information also stems from high profile
cases that reach the media, and from whistle-blowing. This is
unsatisfactory and more needs to be done to measure and publicise
how well or how badly local authorities are performing. Every
authority should be required to produce an annual report and accounts,
which should include the outcome of initial representations.
What action would raise the standard of parking
enforcement activity? Is Statutory Guidance needed to promote
consistency?
Statutory guidance is essential to ensure consistency
and higher standards. There should be much greater monitoring
of compliance with the guidance, using annual reports to benchmark
each local authority against the others. Sanctions must be available
if an authority is found to regularly or seriously breach the
guidance.
The independent adjudication service should
become a statutory watchdog with powers to review excesses by
local authorities. The adjudicators should refer their reports
to the Department for Transport for action.
Local authorities should be penalised when they
fail to deliver fair and consistent enforcement, in particular
when a motorist is able to prove innocence at an independent adjudication.
Some authorities have a very poor record of not defending appeals
by failing to produce evidence. Compensation should be awarded
as a norm when local authorities' errors are exposed and motorists
have been wrongly penalised and are inconvenienced by having to
protest their innocence.
Is the appeals process fair and effective?
How could it be improved?
The independent adjudication process is a very
successful element of the decriminalised parking regime. However,
the AA Trust has serious reservations about the quality and efficacy
of the initial appeal process operated by some authorities; many
appeals that are dismissed at the first level are successful at
the adjudication stage. The worst London borough failed to defend
its initial decision in 74% of cases taken to adjudication, whereas
the best failed to defend 6%. It is a disgrace that a borough
can so blatantly disregard an initial appeal, and then fail to
defend their decision. The adjudicator should be given powers
to award significant compensation in such cases.
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?
The AA Trust has no difficulty with the principle
that local authorities should keep surplus parking revenues to
improve parking or transport, and there can be little doubt that
revenue must play a significant part in defining and operating
a parking strategy. The authority will at least want to break
even, so that parking is not subsidised by cuts in other services.
Prior to the 1991 Act, the extent of parking
regulations was dictated largely by the ability of the police
and traffic wardens to enforce them. However, with decriminalisation,
parking restrictions can, and in many cases do, cover an extensive
area and generate revenues from pay and display and parking meters,
the sale of residents' parking permits, and from enforcement.
Whether or not parking restrictions are necessary is a local matter
for the local community to decide. There is clearly scope for
unnecessary parking regulation in the absence of clear accountability
and transparency. Parking guidance should provide for regular
reviews and for consultation locally so that the regulations can
be shown to be necessary, and can be amended to suit changing
local circumstances.
What criteria should be used to determine
the level of parking provision that should be provided? What role
should parking policy play in traffic management and demand management?
The prosperity of town-centre shops, restaurants
and leisure facilities depends on the spending power of car-owning
families. Inadequate or expensive parking deters visitors, to
the detriment of the town's prosperity and life. This was recognised
nearly 20 years ago in a report by the Royal Town Planning Institute,
which stated: Over the years a few local authorities have as a
matter of policy sought to deter car-borne shoppers to their town
centres. In most cases such policies are now recognised to be
detrimental to the long-term vitality and viability of town centres.
In its annual report some years ago Boots noted:
If town centres are going to compete on equal terms and maintain
retailer and customer loyalty, they will have to provide a retail
environment to match what is on offer from the out-of-town centre.
Car parking provision and its enforcement are
part of the mix that is essential to sustain town centres. On-street
parking for short-stay visits is particularly important, and proper
enforcement to ensure regular turnover of spaces contributes to
a town centre's attraction. While shops might be the life-blood
of a town during the day, however, it is leisure facilities—the
arts, restaurants and bars—that make for its vibrancy at
night. Parking policies and provision need to reflect that change,
and the fact that at night people may want to park closer, and
for longer periods, to the place they are visiting. Failure to
cater for this change can turn a town centre into a no-go area
for many people.
Integrating the car into public transport services
though the provision of quality, reliable and inexpensive park-and-ride
services can provide a viable alternative, taking pressure off
the demand for parking in the town centre. But to be successful,
the perceived consumer attraction of the town must outweigh its
access and parking restrictions and costs. This is the fundamental
reason why park-and-ride works well in heritage cities such as
York, Exeter and Oxford, but is not as successful in other towns
where adequate on- and off-street parking in the centre is needed.
There is also a growing tendency, as part of
a transport and town planning strategy, to discourage parking
provision for new housing development in town and city centres.
While some people may be willing to buy a property with no parking,
many others will perceive it as a negative point that discourages
town centre living, particularly if on-street parking demand by
residents exceeds supply.
What are the wider impacts of current parking
policy and illegally parked vehicles?
Parking management is essential in controlling
the use of scarce road parking space. It is still a major tool
in the traffic management engineer's and land-use planner's armoury:
most people understand the general logic of parking control acting
as a demand valve that is possibly more effective than road-user
charging. They understand less well some of the methodology behind
the introduction of various types of controls such as yellow lines
and parking zones.
Local authorities still fail to convince people
of the need for restrictions, explain how they will work, and
for whose benefit they are being introduced. This is why the motivation
behind parking control and enforcement is questioned. Failure
to publish data and information means that the public will continue
to be cynical about the motives for parking control.
Vehicles may be illegally parked deliberately,
because of an oversight, or because of misunderstanding of the
parking rules at that location (confusing signs, worn yellow lines,
etc). The penalty, however, can go beyond a simple charge—clamping
and towing away are draconian consequences that go well beyond
what any fair-minded person would see as being reasonable for
making a simple mistake. It is illogical and grossly unfair that
someone who unwittingly contravenes the parking regulation is
as likely to have their car towed away or be clamped as someone
who persistently offends, or does not pay the penalty because
they cannot be traced. These sanctions need to be reviewed urgently
to ensure that their use is targeted at the irresponsible minority
who deliberately flout the law.
How can public understanding and acceptance
of the need for parking policy be achieved?
By and large, people do understand that traffic
in and around Britain's towns and cities has to be managed. They
also understand that when the demand is greater than the supply,
parking needs to be regulated, and the regulations need to be
enforced. But fair-minded people also expect to be treated fairly
and honestly by their local council, as valued customers of local
services. And it is at this point that the system often breaks
down and many people feel a sense of injustice, even outrage.
Local authorities make the regulations, enforce
them, and receive the income, which most often is well in excess
of their costs. It is up to local authorities to persuade their
residents that the parking restrictions are fair and sensible,
and to enforce them sensibly, sympathetically and proportionately.
It is a fact that in many proven cases failure in this simple
task has created the hostility that many people now feel. If parking
regulations are made transparent, it will help public understanding
of the need for them, and so help to gain their acceptance.
| 
