APPENDIX 26
Memorandum submitted by Mr Simon Aldridge
Are local authorities carrying out parking control
reasonably, fairly and accountably? How is performance evaluated?
The overall objective of parking enforcement
is to improve compliance with the parking regulations, thereby
complying with the local authority and the Mayors wider transportation
objectives. It follows logically that successful enforcement should
result in improved compliance which should be monitored and measured
to enable the coherent application of fair and consistent enforcement.
Key Performance Indicators should be adjusted to reflect changes
in traffic levels/compliance as monitoring measurements show changes
in traffic flow/compliance/road safety.
Camden Council monitors its contractor NCP?s
performance for example by listing the number of PCNs issued and
comparing that with its Expected Level of Activity ELA (target)
then makes minor adjustments on account of bad weather. No mention
of compliance rates or external factors such as congestion charging
effect on traffic levels.
How are Expected Levels of Activity reconciled
with massive traffic level changes in central London as result
of Congestion Charging? The only councils to make adjustments
promptly was Corporation of London who dropped issue by 30%, Westminster
has also recently dropped its ELA significantly. Camden has increased
its ELA by 25% to 1 April 2005, and Islington PCN issue is up
300% in five years.
What action would raise the standard of parking
enforcement activity? Is Statutory Guidance needed to promote
consistency?
Make the Code of Practice on Parking Enforcement
statutory. Make the Parking Attendants Handbook statutory.
Harmonisation across London Boroughs for regulations,
to reduce confusion and the ensuing unintentional violation of
regulations.
Make it illegal for contractors or councils
to give incentives to attendants with champions league tables
and prizes/Argos points in reward for tickets issued.
Is the appeals process fair and effective? How
could it be improved?
Public unaware of rights and risks, whole process
weighted unfairly to council's advantage, to formally appeal a
PCN one must accept the financial risk doubling—a fact which
causes many members of the public to pay rather than risk an appeal.
Councils should be under equal time and financial
responsibility as members of the public, if a formal appeal is
made the council should have 30 days to respond in conclusion.
If a PCN is cancelled due to PA or Local Authority errors there
should be a financial liability associated with such actions,
the public has a right to be protected from the over zealous application
of enforcement powers.
LGO Special Report—Parking enforcement
by local authoritieshttp://www.lgo.org.uk/pdf/parking-enforcement.pdf.
The LGO considers councils are acting unfairly and fettering the
use of discretion, also unreasonably or unfairly deterring motorists
from making representations on other than the statutory grounds.
Appoint a truly independent adjudication authority
with the power to fine councils where due process has not been
observed, and make councils take on board and act on adjudicator's
findings. The current system at PATAS is effectively elected by
the Association of London Government and paid for by the very
Parking Tickets which PATAS is supposed to be there to independently
adjudicate upon.
Parking Attendants whose PCN's are repeatedly
cancelled at appeal or adjudication should be forced to retrain
and then qualify in a trustworthy qualification in order to be
allowed to continue working in public arena.
Make Councils realise the legal implications
of the enforcement process and the implications this has on the
notices and wording which councils use to extract money from the
public. Develop professional training standards which might ensure
common practice and policy application on the streets.
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 decriminalized parking
enforcement has inappropriately influenced authorities, parking
policy and enforcement activity?
Personal experience indicates comprehensively
that traffic management objectives long ago became a smokescreen
for the accidental by-product of firm enforcement = fiscal surplus.
CPZs are rolling out like dominoes through the A-Z of London Boroughs,
displacement of vehicles through CPZ implementation creates a
climate ripe to be exploited by the next Borough/Ward.
The 500% increase in issue of PCNs in London
since decriminalisation of Parking enforcement was taken up by
the London boroughs 10 years ago suggests quantity not quality
is the primary motivation these days.
The Anthony Culligan report on Camden PCN statistics
illustrates the early morning blitzing on affluent residential
areas by postcode by parking attendants keen to catch out early
morning and end of day contraventions most often probably catching
residents with residents permits who due to over sale of permits
to spaces available by often three to one leads to unavoidable
occasional contraventions as there simply aren't enough spaces
to go round.
JOINT REPORT
OF THE
PARKING ADJUDICATORS
2002-03
http://www.alg.gov.uk/upload/public/attachments/217/TEC_adjudicators_report.pdf
"We have decided this year that we should
highlight two core principles. First, we return to the topic of
fairness. In our reports we deal with a range of issues. However,
in commenting on particular matters, it is important not to lose
sight of the overriding principle that Local Authorities are under
a general duty to act fairly in exercising their powers of enforcement.
We also comment on enforcement as a legal process.
There still appears to be a lack of understanding that enforcement
is a legal, not merely an administrative, process and of the consequences
of that for the enforcing authority. Cases decided this year referred
to in the report are set out more fully in the Digest of Cases
at the end."
ADJUDICATORS ANNUAL
REPORT 2004
http://www.alg.gov.uk/upload/public/attachments/320/Item_11_TEC_Report_on_PATAS_21_Oct_0
"The Parking Adjudicators have made just
one recommendation in their annual report to the Transport &
Environment Committee for this year: `That all Local Authorities
should have in place arrangements for addressing feedback received
from the Adjudicators and taking such action on it as may be appropriate'."
JOINT ANNUAL
REPORT OF
THE PARKING
ADJUDICATORS TO
ALG TEC
http://www.alg.gov.uk/upload/public/attachments/321/Item_10_Appendix_A_21_Oct_04.doc
However, the responses from Local Authority
respondents suggest that there may be misunderstanding about the
role and status of the Adjudicators amongst a significant minority
of Local Authority staff: 18% did not understand that an appeal
is a judicial process. There may well be a connection between
this and the view that the Service is not necessary. The reality
is that the Service satisfies the constitutional imperative of
the citizen's right to their liability for a penalty imposed by
the State to be determined by an independent tribunal. Similarly,
the view that it is the Adjudicators' role to work with Councils
may indicate a lack of appreciation of the need for the Adjudicators
to be independent of the Local Authorities. The concern about
consistency of decisions is not a new issue, and appears to derive
from a misunderstanding about the nature of the judicial process:
that on matters of fact each case stands on its own.
FIRST ANNUAL
REPORT BY
TFL CONGESTION CHARGING
CHIEF ADJUDICATOR
2004
http://www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/Annual
Reports.asp
Rather a lot of recommendations to secretary
of state about the way congestion charging has been operating
. . .
What criteria should be used to determine the
level of parking provision that should be provided?
Independent review of parking regulation compliance,
combined with scrutiny of council accounts which traditionally
claimed the majority of income came from Meters/P&D bays,
however Anthony Culligan FOI report on Camden's income shows 10%
from meters 90% from PCNs, with the vast majority of PCNs issued
being for overstay at a meter/P&D and only two out of 500,000
being issued in 2004 for obstructive parking offences . . . (also
BT received some 3,500 PCNs in Camden alone in 2004).
What are the wider impacts of current parking
policy and illegally parked vehicles?
From my perspective the majority (80%)of the
public park or attempt to park legally, only a small minority
(20% perhaps the same 20% unregistered at DVLA and therefore effectively
outside the reach of decriminalised parking enforcement) park
illegally anymore as the certainty of instant PCNs means no one
is deliberately willing to risk it anymore, we are no longer just
faced with robotic parking attendants—we must also be aware
we are being monitored by CCTV and may receive PCNs through the
post. The vast majority of PCNs are issued for incredibly petty
overstay offences on meters/P&D bays.
Whatever the on street situation, enforcement
contractors still have to work towards unrealistically high targets,
quotas and Expected levels of Activity.
As quality of enforcement falls and quantity
rises, the public perceives enforcement to be more to do with
revenue raising than traffic management, this has a knock on effect
into society as essentially we feel we are being unfairly penalised
by the very authorities which are supposed to serve us.
In the absence of any meaningful PR from Association
of London Government's Technical and Environmental Committee (ALG
TEC) or the Local Authorities themselves it is only natural for
the public and media to come to its own sensible conclusions that
parking enforcement is being used primarily as a means of generating
revenue.
In the wider picture distrust in one sector
of enforcement leads to degeneration overall of public perception
and trust of natural justice.
What role should parking policy play in traffic
management and demand management?
There is a need to balance the controls with
a fair, effective and transparent operation of the whole process.
For the system to be perceived by the public as anything other
than a tax farming exercise in London will require the overall
addressing of the question of discretion within the system. Until
it can demonstrate & proves itself to be a fair system I will
remain doubtful as to the motivations of the councils such as
Camden whom I personally have received well in excess of 100 PCNs
from since 2003, of which 95% have been cancelled on appeal due
to the Loading exemptions within all traffic management orders.
The question remains why do the Attendants feel the need to issue
so many PCNs to goods vehicles so obviously legally loading which
in my experience are wholly appealable? The answer is that many
companies find it is far cheaper in the long run to simply pay
up and avoid the aggravation of appealing 100s of PCNs, regular
visits to PATAS, and indeed to County Courts.
How can public understanding and acceptance of
the need for parking policy be achieved?
As recommended by NPAS chief adjudicator, publish
parking account in detail, publish PCN statistics in detail.
Further publish all enforcement protocols/service
instructions to a standard set so the public can be reassured
of the right way to avoid penalty. Publish Enforcement contracts.
Revise the Parking Attendants Handbook, which ALG TEC claims to
maintain along with the COPPE, and make that publicly available
information.
Make the guidance to local authorities on civil
enforcement of traffic contraventions statutory. This national
guidance should help ensure consistency across the country in
the way civil enforcement is carried out and by making it statutory,
authorities will have to have regard to it.
29 September 2005
| 
