The need for revised guidance
36. Although the 1995 document was a useful guide,
subsequent experience points to the need for revised guidance
with a more powerful reach. It is widely acknowledged that the
quality of civil parking enforcement operations is too variable
across different local authority areas.[27]
For example, there are many anecdotes of Penalty Charge Notices
being wrongly issued in apparently inappropriate and, sometimes
in absurd, situations.[28]
There are also examples of the unwillingness of some councils
to consider mitigation properly, to exercise their powers of discretion,
and to deal with representations in a timely fashion.[29]
The experience for drivers is much too often frustrating, and
this further undermines the reputation of the parking system.
Whilst not in crisis, decriminalised parking enforcement is certainly
in need of steps to raise performance to a consistently high
standard throughout the country.
37. A major concern among road user groups was that
civil parking enforcement would be rolled-out across the country
containing what they consider to be the mistakes and poor performance
contained in the present arrangements. The Freight Transport Association
commented "London leads 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."[30]
38. The 1995 guidance was good but could be improved
in the light of experience. There are many examples of poor application
of the rules. New guidance is needed to raise the standards required
of local authorities operating civil parking enforcement. Lessons
that have been learned over the past decade in different parts
of the country must be shared systematically with those embarking
on schemes of decriminalised parking enforcement to avoid the
same mistakes being made.
Departmental leadership
39. Since the introduction of civil parking enforcement
powers in 1991, and their first implementation by London authorities
in 1994, the Department for Transport has failed to lead a nation-wide
evaluation of its implementation, although it has part-funded
some of the recent research.[31]
This is a major disappointment. The result is that comprehensive
data to indicate how local authorities have performed in their
duties under civil parking enforcement is not available. A systematic
survey by the Department would have provided an administratively
sound and professional basis for updating the guidance. Indeed,
such an exercise appears to us a prerequisite to new guidance
being issued.
40. The failure to evaluate decriminalised parking
enforcement on a nation-wide basis leaves the Department in a
difficult position in developing revised statutory guidance on
civil parking enforcement. The Department would have been much
better placed to make the most of the opportunity to issue regulations
and new guidance of real use had it undertaken this evaluation.
The Department should have conducted such an evaluation of decriminalised
parking enforcement, and it now needs to consider very carefully
whether it has the basic data to move to issue guidance at this
time, or whether more research is required first.
41. The usefulness and underlying legitimacy of
civil parking enforcement rests in it being carried out to the
highest standard by local authorities. At present our evidence
is that this is not the case. The new statutory guidance and the
regulations will have a central role to play in raising standards
and spreading best practice between councils. Many of the current
concerns about civil parking enforcement can, and should, be dealt
with through the new regulations and better guidance.
42. The Guidance should set down detailed performance
criteria in a number of areas, and these are discussed in the
following Chapters. We hope that these are helpful to the Department.
23 
