Memorandum submitted by the Freight Transport
Association
This document sets out Freight Transport Association's
(hereafter referred to as FTA) response to the questions posed
by the House of Commons Transport Committee's inquiry into parking
policy in the UK. FTA has limited its comments to those which
have a direct relevance to freight transport operations.
FREIGHT TRANSPORT
ASSOCIATION
FTA represents the freight transport interests
of businesses throughout the United Kingdom. Its membership includes
large blue chip multinationals, major third party logistics providers,
own account operators which carry their own goods, and small hauliers.
FTA has in excess of 10,000 members who between them operate over
200,000 heavy goods vehicles which accounts for approximately
half the UK fleet. In addition FTA members consign 90% of freight
moved by rail and 70% of goods shipped by sea and air. This unique
multi modal mandate enables FTA to speak authoritatively on all
aspects of freight based on the broader transport needs of the
economy.
It is the view of the FTA that in the main local
authorities are carrying out parking control reasonably, fairly
and accountably. However, where parking has become decriminalised,
particularly in the metropolitan areas, there is growing concern
about the increases in the number of Penalty Charge Notices being
issued. FTA has undertaken a considerable amount of work on the
PCN levels in London and the situation is now critical for commercial
vehicle operators as they are shouldering costs upward of £50
million not only for the actual price of the fine, but also the
huge administrative burden in checking PCNs and appealing those
which are felt to be inappropriate or wrongly issued. London lead
the way with decriminalisation and it has been a disaster for
commercial vehicle operators—this must not be repeated in
every town and city that decriminalises its parking enforcement.
FAIRNESS
Fairness of parking controls is also a much
debated point amongst FTA members. There is a strong suspicion
that commercial vehicles receive a disproportionate number of
PCNs in London, indeed results from a member survey in 2002 suggested
that vans and lorries were proportionally receiving 75% more tickets
than private cars. Commercial vehicles could be considered an
easy target as they tend to make regular deliveries to businesses,
week in week out but there seems to be a lack of understanding
as to why these vehicles have no choice but to stop, load and
unload often directly outside the customers' premises. Any guidance
issued to local authorities must contain a clear definition of
loading/unloading—that it is not just the act of actually
taking goods in and out of the back of a lorry. Lorries and vans
may appear to be just parked up, when in fact the driver is more
than likely completing paperwork, checking the delivery/pick-up
or installing the item for the customer.
EVALUATION
Evaluation of a local authority's performance
seems to be variable across the country. Again a standard set
of evaluation procedures and a common set of requirements for
an annual report would make the enforcement process more transparent.
FTA believes there is an opportunity to establish Key Performance
Indicators, against which local authorities can be measured or
a Service Level Agreement as the general public and business are
legitimate customers, more often than not paying to park legally.
Performance is often evaluated by commercial vehicle operators
on the basis of how many PCNs are contested successfully—surely
if a consistently high number of tickets are overturned the public
will lose confidence in the authorities' operation.
ENFORCEMENT
In order to raise the standard of parking enforcement
local authorities must first make their policies and procedures
transparent and accountable. However, as decriminalisation rolls
out across the country FTA members' key concern is that rules,
regulations and enforcement can be very different from one local
authority to another. Consistency of approach will reduce frustration
and confusion and therefore increase compliance and presumably
reduce administration costs all round as appeals will not have
to be processed unnecessarily only to be cancelled by the adjudicator.
APPEALS
The appeals process is something commercial
vehicle operators have become very familiar with over recent years,
and again the key criticism FTA members level is the inconsistency
of approach. In some areas representation can be made after an
initial notification of the offence being committed, in others
only after the Notice to Owner has been issued. Processing times
for appeals are also unsatisfactory. Why should a business which
has to make representation to the local authority within 14 days
then have to wait months for a response? This is unacceptable
and a feasible response time must be proposed in the Statutory
Guidance, say 21 or 28 days, in order to reduce the administrative
burden on commercial vehicle operators in particular. Surely if
there is an undue delay, three months or more, a PCN should be
cancelled automatically.
FTA also supports the identification of the
type of vehicle on the PCN itself at point of issue—clarification
of whether the vehicle is a private car or commercial vehicle.
The majority of disputes about PCNs arise because a lorry or van
may have looked "parked up" to the parking attendant,
when in fact the delivery process was continuing in the customers'
premises. By identifying on the ticket the category of vehicle,
the investigation process can be more streamlined and take into
account the reasons why an offence might have been committed as
well as a basis for investigation as to whether provision for
loading/unloading is actually sufficient. At present we are in
the position of commercial vehicle operators reporting that they
have difficulties in finding spaces to stop and load/unload which
are appropriate to the location of the customer, yet there is
no comprehensive way of actually measuring where these "hot-spots"
are. If PCNs did have a code identifying a commercial vehicle
we could start to look in depth at the trends and hot-spots and
deal with them accordingly.
FTA members are also frustrated by the requirements
made by local authorities in terms of the amount of evidence they
have to provide during appeal, and yet if an appeal is turned
down there is rarely any comment about why it was turned down
in that particular instance. The guidance should also look at
the way in which appeals are responded to, whether successful
or not, and recommend that comment is made on a case by case basis.
Although this may seem onerous, if the PCN issuing and appeals
process is working efficiently and effectively then fewer representations
should be being made, as fewer tickets will be incorrect.
REVENUE AND
SURPLUSES
Parking enforcement raises enormous amounts
of money each year and in London suspicion has been raised that
parking enforcement is simply viewed as a money-garnering exercise
by local authorities in order to fund other projects. Commercial
vehicle operators are somewhat of an easy target for enforcement
as they tend to make the same deliveries at the same locations
week in, week out and are, as such, easy to follow. Indeed, some
operators now assume they will receive a PCN every time they deliver
at certain premises, and consider it a bonus when they don't!
This is usually due to insufficient provision of loading/unloading
areas, or because for other legislative reasons (Health and Safety
for example) deliveries have to be made right outside the customers'
front door—brewery deliveries to pubs are a classic case
in point.
TRANSPARENCY AND
REPORTING
Transparency is the key to gaining public support
for parking enforcement—at all times local authorities should
be communicating what revenue is raised, how it is raised (legal
parking payment or PCNs), and how it is being spent.
FTA believes that a comprehensive annual report
from each authority should be a basic requirement of the Statutory
Guidelines, containing details about the appeals procedure, response
times and customer service levels. In order to measure local authorities
against each other they should then be compared against a set
of Key Performance Indicators—however, at present no such
set of KPIs exist. FTA believes this would have a significant
impact on the number of wrongly issued tickets, improve public
perception and encourage compliance. Budgets must not be set on
a target number of PCNs being issued—this does nothing to
ensure that traffic is kept flowing, which is after all they key
objective of parking enforcement.
DRAFT CODE
OF PRACTICE
FOR LOADING/UNLOADING
FTA and a number of other stakeholder groups
have taken it upon themselves to draft and implement a London
focused Code of Practice for goods vehicle drivers/depot staff,
parking attendants and the London boroughs/TfL in order to try
and resolve a number of issues about parking enforcement because
standard guidance is not available. The voluntary Code of Practice,
which is currently in a consultation process, looks at a number
of basic principles which can be adhered to in order to reduce
the number of wrongly issued tickets and improve the understanding
between all parties of just why they are trying to achieve. For
example, lorry and van drivers are simply trying to get the job
done in the quickest and most efficient way, parking attendants
are there to enforce regulations and the boroughs/TfL are required
to keep the traffic moving. The Code also looks at how enforcement
can be made consistent throughout London, for example by encouraging
all boroughs to adopt a maximum observation period—the London
Assembly Transport committee criticised the very different approaches
taken across London where some boroughs give five minutes, others
three and some require no observation. We must avoid this being
replicated across the country as it is helpful to no-one.
INDUSTRY/BUSINESS
COLLABORATION
In order to ascertain whether or not the correct
level of loading/unloading provision has been made, it the correct
locations, local authorities should look to the help of industry/business
partnerships such as the now well-established Freight Quality
Partnership (FQP). FQPs can assess the need for provision in an
objective manner via survey work and on the street assessment,
and this is taking place in some areas, for example as part of
the Oxfordshire FQP in the city of Oxford itself. Again, this
sort of approach should be a basic recommendation of the Statutory
Guidance as it enables a consistent approach to be achieved, and
that joint working with industry and business is also established.
Communicating why parking enforcement is necessary, but at the
same time being mindful of particular hot-spots will resolve much
frustration. Some examples of this sort of regular communication
and discussion of particular locations has worked very well in
some London boroughs—for example Westminster have altered
the loading/unloading provision in a number of streets over the
last year in order to accommodate essential delivery vehicles.
As previously mentioned, the inclusion of a
commercial vehicle category on PCNs would also quickly show trends
and hot-spots where provision may need to be reviewed.
In terms of the wider impacts of current parking
policy, commercial vehicle operators are simply put at even more
of a disadvantage as their costs rise. Some operators simply do
not want to do business in London for example, or at least certain
areas, because they know the cost of delivering will simply be
too high as PCNs are virtually guaranteed to be issued.
However, operators do acknowledge the benefits
of enforcement. A common problem reported by members is that cars
park illegally in loading/unloading bays, and when provision of
such bays is limited this causes real problems. Therefore having
a good enforcement procedure is to the benefit of all road users
and as such the regulations must be complied with.
Clearly parking policy has a significant role
to play in traffic and demand management for private cars, but
commercial vehicles are essential to all towns and cities. The
old adage is true that the fastest way to close down a town centre
is to ban commercial vehicles. If shops, restaurants and bars
have no product to sell, or run out, customers will think twice
before returning. Equally, getting large vehicles away from pedestrians
is a positive move all round—but proper and appropriate
provision of bays and access must be made elsewhere.
Any Statutory Guidance should also recommend
regular opportunities for business and industry to meet with the
local parking enforcement teams in order to discuss specific issues,
and attempt to resolve them. Some London boroughs already have
such systems in place with six-weekly meetings, or the offer to
commercial vehicle operators to raise issues as and when they
occur. Consistency of approach is also essential.
SUMMARY
The key to gaining public understanding and
acceptance of parking policy is transparency, consistency and
communications. If the systems and enforcement procedures are
carried out correctly, the number of PCNs issued will fall. If
PCN numbers fall, administration costs and frustration levels
are reduced.
As decriminalisation rolls out across the UK,
FTA is concerned that rules, regulation and enforcement will not
be consistent and this causes confusion and frustration, particularly
if two adjacent streets have differing restrictions because they
border a tow local authorities. In London confusion is caused
by the differing length of observation period each borough stipulates—anything
between 20 minutes and nothing at all. As a matter of best practice
local authorities should ensure that their approach to enforcement
is consistent with their neighbouring authorities, and FTA believes
that this should also be included in Statutory Guidance from the
Department for Transport.
Indeed, the issue of best practice is not raised
in the Committee paper, and yet FTA believes that promoting best
practice will also help to overcome problems that cannot just
be dealt with in legislation. In autumn 2004 FTA issued its London
Delivery Pack which aimed to help commercial vehicle operators
understand the legislation and thus comply with it. The pack also
contained a feedback form which drivers could fill in when a PCN
is received in order to document exactly what the vehicle was
doing and what the restrictions on the street in question were
in order that appeals could be better targeted. Utilising such
tools and information on a national basis could have a significant
impact and reduce misunderstandings.
The road freight transport industry needs to
be able to control and manage costs and at the moment PCNs are
an unpredictable expense. If regulations, enforcement and the
appeals process were standardised the process would be simpler
for everyone. So FTA's key recommendations are:
— Clearly define and train local authority
staff/parking attendants on just what loading/unloading actually
entails.
— Identify commercial vehicles via
a specific code on the PCN.
— Ensure any Statutory Guidance sets
out a standard and consistent approach to the formation of regulations,
enforcement procedures and appeals.
— Cut response times to appeals to
a business standard—21 or 28 days.
— Encourage local authorities to work
with business and industry to develop codes of best practice.
— Report annually on the whole parking
enforcement process—explain how revenue was raised, how
many tickets were cancelled, average processing times for appeals,
detail "hot-spots" where high numbers of PCNs are issued
and most importantly state where any surplus will be spent.
— Communicate clearly and regularly
with both business, industry and the general public about why
enforcement is necessary and what it actually achieves.
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
1. FTA parking fines survey results 2002,
2004, 2005
London parking fines—a brief history
. . .
The Mayor's London Plan quotes the GDP of the Capital as over £130 billion, the equivalent of a trading nation. London's business community needs a world class distribution system using a first class infrastructure with loading/unloading and servicing facilities 24 hours a day, seven days a week. In 1999 118 million tonnes of road freight either had its origin or destination in London, 48 million tonnes of that had both it origin and destination in London.
To meet the requirements of this volume of goods, loading/unloading facilites as well as parking penalties must be reviewed. The current indiscriminate issuing of Penalty Charge Notices to delivery vehicles, even when they are obviously loading/unloading is seriously affecting operators delivering to the Capital. The inadequate provision of unloading facilites exacerbates the problem.
In the year 2000-01 the number of parking fines issued in London broke the 4 million barrier, and has not steadily climbed, but leapt up from then on in.
|
In 2002 FTA undertook its first survey of members to assess
just how much commercial vehicle operators pay each year in fines
in London, which locations incur the most PCNs and the reasons
why fines are issued.
In early 2004 FTA re-visited the issue and discovered that
over the last 12 months the number of parking fines issued to
commercial vehicles in London had risen by 78%.
Summaries of the results of both FTA surveys follows:
FTA parking survey—autumn 2002
|
Over 160 responses were received, from a diverse range of FTA member companies ranging from supermarkets, food and drink and pharmaceutical companies to local authorities, high street shops, building companies and small firms such as garden centres and removal firms. In short, these companies operate anything between three and 1,000 vehicles of sizes varying from cars and vans to 40 tonne lorries.
These respondents are responsible for the day to day running of over 12,000 vehicles delivering goods to homes and businesses throughout the capital.
|
Q1. How much do you pay in parking fines in London per
year?
— Total fines incurred per annum in London by respondents:
£804,878.
— One respondent had particular problems with parking
fines. The fleet of 1,000 vehicles received approximately £325,000
in fines per annum.
— 3,663 had much higher than average parking fines,
£97,000.
— If Band A parking fines are increased by 50%,
which is one of the proposed options, these figures become:
Total—£1.2 million per annum.
— Practically every single respondent to the survey
has received parking fines in London, many receive them on a regular
basis.
— The main criticisms of the parking restrictions
are:
— parking attendants are not understanding about deliveries;
— there are insufficient loading bays;
— cars are often parked illegally in unloading bays;
and
— vehicles often have to park a significant distance
from delivery point.
— Interestingly, if 8% of the total number
of vehicles in London are commercial vehicles (as the
national car:commercial vehicle ratio would suggest)
then they receive a disproportionately high number of parking
fines—in effect, 75% more fines than cars.
Q2. What are the worst locations?
The top five worst areas in London in which to make deliveries
are:
— Camden (including WC1, WC2);
— Kensington and Chelsea;
— Hammersmith and Fulham.
Q3. How do parking restrictions affect your ability to
deliver goods?
— Nearly 80% of respondents said that their ability
to deliver goods has been affected by the parking restrictions.
— 25% of those believe the parking regulations severely
restrict their ability to carry out deliveries efficiently and
effectively.
Comments from respondents on London parking:
— "Very little discretion used by wardens.
Loading bays not in right places or used by cars."
— "We expect to get a ticket every time we
deliver to London W1, if we don't it's a bonus!"
— "Consistently late with deliveries, trying
to find spaces, expense with fines, drivers carrying heavy staging
across road due to lack of parking facilities."
— "The restrictions narrow the opportunity
for deliveries and there are few loading bays. Glass is a difficult
and dangerous product to deliver and traffic wardens , despite
nature of product, are not co-operative."
— "To put it into simple terms, every time
we attempt to deliver anywhere in London a PCN is generally issued
against the vehicle."
— "It is sometimes impossible to deliver without
incurring a fine"
— "We have great difficulty in delivering to
the `just in time' ethos our particular industry has. For us the
future looks bleak and expensive"
— "The red route hours of operation and directions
that can be used when leaving the depot to leave London before
7 am can put an additional 30% on distance travelled and journey
times."
— "The restrictions have had a significant
effect on costs for several years now and this is still increasing.
Scaffolding is particularly problematic as in most locations the
lorry needs to be parked next to us the whole day. Time and money
is needed for parking bay suspensions and dispensations mounts
up and often when we arrive on sit there is an illegally parked
vehicle in our way."
— "Most deliveries are to high street locations,
with current parking restrictions we end up receiving at least
three tickets a day."
— "The restrictions cause unsocial working
hours as drivers attempt to avoid restricted hours. Loading bays
are normally blocked by cars and drivers have to park outside
as "Constant battle trying to stay one step ahead of the
traffic wardens. May invest in a vehicle tracking system in order
to show when and where a vehicle enters the zone."
FTA parking fines survey—February 2004
The survey conducted in 2004 was responded to by over
30 companies operating in excess of 4,000 vehicles in London.
The questions asked focused on the increased cost and number of
fines received in 2002 and 2003, how this has impacted on the
cost of administration and the number of fines which are appealed
against and won. The question asking which are the worst locations
for incurring fines was repeated, and further information on the
reasons for fines being issued was also sought.
According to the respondents:
— The number of fines issued in 2003 was 75% higher
than in 2002.
— The cost of fines increased 290%.
— The cost of administration to deal with fines
and appeals rose by 141%.
The top five locations for incurring PCNs was slightly different
this time round, with Westminster heading the table instead of
Camden, which was shifted into second place:
— Kensington and Chelsea;
— Hammersmith and Fulham.
Despite the huge rise in the number of fines being issued
and this cost impact this has on companies delivering into London,
it seems that many are now making a concerted effort to appeal
as many PCNs as possible.
Finally, the top five factors which result in parking fines being
issued were cited as:
2. inflexibility of traffic warden;
3. no loading bay provided;
4. delivery being made on a red route; and
5. loading bay already occupied.
Summary of answers to "What actions have you taken to
reduce the cost of parking fines?"
— We no longer deliver to customers within the Red
Route Zone unless the customer has a large enough loading bay
and can guarantee it will be available for us. We make arrangements
with the customer to deliver to another branch and let them deliver
into the Red Route Zone.
— We have refused to serve difficult customers but
if you serve a group you have to serve all the group.
— Trying to get parking bays suspended.
— We have transferred to night operations the deliveries
that can be accommodated in these hours. In some instances the
charge is offset to the customer if they are not prepared to change
their requirement times.
— We do not collate data on fines collected but
as it happens we do not get many. Essential service vehicles operating
within the City of London area carry dispensation notices.
— We now give out cash to drivers to place in parking
meters wherever possible which has helped to decrease the amounts
of fines received but costs us circa £2.6k to £3k per
annum.
— We inform customers that if we are fined whilst
attempting their delivery we will pass the charge directly on
to them.
— Printing copies of legislation and putting them
in the windscreen. Try to leave staff with vehicle.
— We try and avoid deliveries within London like
the plague but obviously the reality is that you are almost certainly
going to be issued with a PCN regardless of where you deliver.
— Give drivers a petty cash float to put in meters.
Many occasions we can't find empty bays large enough to fit our
vehicles in.
— Started employing person to manage this single
aspect 16 hours per week.
— We contest most of the fines and have found that
some of the time they get cancelled.
— We gave tried to increase the number of appeals
due to the nature of goods we are collecting (hazardous) and we
have tried to pass on the cost to customer but have been unsuccessful
in some bids due to price increase caused.
— Repeated request to enforcement bodies for site
visit to agree not taken up/personally investigate all PCNs/Visit
hotspots, photograph/should be able to claim costs, damages/closed
a/c at Melcombe St/Glentworth St because financially unviable
as result premises changed hands and use.
— We try to be aware of the parking restrictions
but officers are becoming more inflexible.
— Gone to second man operation on certain deliveries
to keep vehicle moving.
— Try to educate drivers. Tried to do deliveries
out of hours.
FTA Parking Survey—January 2005
FTA carried out a short survey in January 2005 asking specifically
about the PCN appeals process in London.
In total 358 responses were received.
Q1. On average how many vehicles a day do you send into
London?
Total—8,153 vehicles a day are sent into London by
the respondents to the survey.
Q2. Has the problem of parking fines in London eased in
the last year (January 2004-January 2005)?
Please indicate by circling one of the following numbers
where 1 = not at all, 2 = slight improvement, 3 = improved, 4
= much improved and 5 = significantly improved)
Q3. Please indicate what percentage of parking penalty
notices issued in London were challenged by your company last
year
|
| None | 1-30%
| 31-40% | 41-50%
| 51-60% | 61-70%
| 71-100% |
|
| 84 | 153 |
18 | 19
| 12 | 21
| 51 |
|
Q4. What percentage of challenges referred to in Q3 were
successful?
|
| None | 1-30%
| 31-40% | 41-50%
| 51-60% | 61-70%
| 71-100% |
|
| 98 | 129 |
32 | 19
| 14 | 13
| 20 |
|
| 
