Examination of Witnesses (Questions 320
- 325)
WEDNESDAY 14 DECEMBER 2005
MS CAROLINE
SHEPPARD AND
MR MARTIN
WOOD
Q320 Clive Efford: Do you have a
view on incentive schemes for parking enforcement officers, and
do you have any evidence of any link between incentive schemes
and the issuing of inappropriate penalty charge notices?
Mr Wood: I have very strong views
about incentive schemes and that is that there should not be any.
Anything that encourages people to issue tickets other than on
their absolute merits is to be deprecated and potentially is very
dangerous. I have no specific evidence of any links between any
such schemes and—
Q321 Clive Efford: Then why would
you oppose them?
Mr Wood: I would oppose them because
of the potential. The fact that as a member of the public you
are aware that there are these incentive schemes is certainly
not going to improve confidence in the impartiality of the enforcement
process.
Ms Sheppard: Obviously compliance
plays a big part in this. Inevitably if an area has not been enforced
and then it is enforced quite vigorously, people do comply. A
lot of people, having got their ticket, are warned off, and that
is how it goes. In some areas obviously the ability to issue the
same number of tickets actually diminishes, particularly in smaller
areas outside London. We have got plenty of evidence of councils
issuing less tickets year by year. Obviously the incentives are
problematic where there is compliance. We have seen a case where
tickets have been issued at three in the morning out of the blue,
although a parking contravention probably occurred, but it is
back to proportionality again and obviously it does have an effect
on that[3].
Q322 Clive Efford: Is there any evidence
that local authorities at times do not apply enough discretion
when dealing with businesses that need to park where there are
parking restrictions in order to carry out their daily business?
Mr Wood: Adjudicators deal with
each individual case on its particular facts. If there is a case
where the adjudicators consider there are compelling mitigating
circumstances which they consider warrants the cancellation of
the ticket then they will refer it back to the council. I am not
aware that adjudicators would be referring back cases where there
was effectively a clear breach of the regulations and there was
no particular justification. Merely carrying out unloading for
business purposes would be unlikely to be regarded by many adjudicators
as compelling mitigation for effectively breaching the parking
regulations. That is a matter of council policy.
Ms Sheppard: There are streets
in Manchester and there is one in the City of London where, for
example, there is no loading at any time and therefore I do not
know how you get goods and service supplies in and out. The other
down side of that is that the blue badge holders are not allowed
to park where there is a loading ban and so if they need to go
into premises in a street where there is no loading at any time
it means that you cannot get your disabled driver to avail themselves.
Councils must decide where to apply their own regulations, but
they really should be reviewing all of this when they take on
decriminalisation and ensuring that the regulations are fit for
purpose.
Q323 Clive Efford: We just heard
from Mr Bracey of the Brewery Logistics Group that one company
that set about challenging every single penalty charge notice
had 37% of them overturned and yet Mr Wood has just said he takes
a blanket approach in that if there is a breach of the parking
regulations, the fact that they are conducting their business
is not a mitigating circumstance. The two do not seem to sit together
in my view.
Mr Wood: I do not know what he
meant by that. It may be that the council decided to allow them
on representation. The adjudicator's role and only power is to
apply the law. If there has been a breach of the parking regulations
we have no power to allow it because of mitigating circumstances.
Ms Sheppard: I would like to clarify
that point because I am sure what happened in the case that was
described to you is that they were lawfully engaged in loading
and unloading. With many of the tickets they may have been loading
where there is a loading ban and those would not have been overturned
because that is a breach of the regulations. If they were on a
part where there is not a loading ban and they subsequently proved
that they were loading and unloading then that would not have
been a parking contravention and the case would have been upheld,
and I am sure that is probably the case.
Q324 Clive Efford: That is a very
high proportion of penalty charge notices issued in error, is
it not?
Mr Wood: Not necessarily in error
because the parking attendant may not have the information to
show that loading and unloading was going on.
Q325 Clive Efford: How is the person
driving the vehicle meant to know? If the parking enforcement
officer does not know the regulations then who does?
Mr Wood: I am not saying he does
not know the regulations. He may not have known as a matter of
fact that loading and unloading was going on. The driver may have
been out of sight. It may only emerge at the representation stage
that the brewery is able to satisfy the local authorities that
loading and unloading was going on. It should not be assumed that
every time a parking ticket is overturned at the representation
stage it was wrongly issued.
Ms Sheppard: Certainly not, no.
Chairman: You have been very helpful.
You have conjured up the most fascinating world. We shall consider
your evidence very carefully. Thank you very much for coming.
3 The point is that if there is in a contract a target
for the number of parking tickets issued, once motorists start
complying, the contracted parking attendants have to look for
ever more trivial contraventions to keep up the numbers of tickets
issued. Back
| 
