The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Mr.
David
Wilshire
Bacon,
Mr. Richard
(South Norfolk)
(Con)
Bone,
Mr. Peter
(Wellingborough)
(Con)
Dobbin,
Jim
(Heywood and Middleton)
(Lab/Co-op)
Goodwill,
Mr. Robert
(Scarborough and Whitby)
(Con)
Kemp,
Mr. Fraser
(Houghton and Washington, East)
(Lab)
Kidney,
Mr. David
(Stafford)
(Lab)
Kramer,
Susan
(Richmond Park)
(LD)
Leech,
Mr. John
(Manchester, Withington)
(LD)
Love,
Mr. Andrew
(Edmonton)
(Lab/Co-op)
Morley,
Mr. Elliot
(Scunthorpe)
(Lab)
Moss,
Mr. Malcolm
(North-East Cambridgeshire)
(Con)
Ruane,
Chris
(Vale of Clwyd)
(Lab)
Stuart,
Ms Gisela
(Birmingham, Edgbaston)
(Lab)
Tami,
Mark
(Alyn and Deeside)
(Lab)
Turner,
Dr. Desmond
(Brighton, Kemptown)
(Lab)
Winterton,
Ms Rosie
(Minister of State, Department for
Transport)
Wright,
Jeremy
(Rugby and Kenilworth)
(Con)
Mr. E. Wilson,
Mr. A. Jenner, Committee
Clerks
attended the
Committee
First
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Monday
19 November
2007
[Mr.
David Wilshire
in the
Chair]
Draft Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007
4.30
pm
The
Minister of State, Department for Transport (Ms Rosie
Winterton):
I beg to
move,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Civil Enforcement of Parking
Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations
2007.
The
Chairman:
Before the Minister continues, I must explain
that this is an exceedingly narrow matter and however much Members may
be tempted to explain that they were not justified in receiving a
parking ticket last weekend, this is not the place to go into more
general matters of that
sort.
Ms
Winterton:
May I say what a great pleasure it is to serve
under your chairmanship, Mr.
Wilshire?
The
regulations have been discussed in the other place already, where they
were widely welcomed on both sides. The regulations are part of a
package of guidance that will put into place new procedures for parking
enforcement by local authorities in England. Regulations for Wales will
come before the House later this
Session.
I am
sure that right hon. and hon. Members will be well
aware of the importance of good traffic management in terms of
improving road safety, reducing congestion and minimising the impact of
road traffic on the environment. The Traffic Management Act 2004 gives
local authorities a specific duty to manage their networks, and fair
and effective parking enforcement has a role to play in that. The
regulations will help them to do that in a fair, transparent and
effective manner, with the overarching objective of keeping traffic
moving safely. Essentially, the regulations tidy up legislation which
stems from the Road Traffic Act 1991. That means that a single code for
England will apply to all civil enforcement areas, with only minimal
differences between London and
elsewhere.
The
regulations set out the procedures for disputing a penalty charge
notice, a vehicle immobilisation or a vehicle removal. Obviously, there
may be instances where a vehicle might be restrained or removed in
error or where a charge might be served in errorperhaps because
a driver might be delivering or collecting goods, with a valid permit
displayed, or because the owner who receives a payment reminder was not
the owner at the time of the contravention. We want to put in place
measures to challenge penalty charge notices, vehicle immobilisation
and vehicle removal, if
necessary.
The
procedures for representations and appeals largely replicate those in
the 1991 Act, and the regulations deliver the continuation of simple
and straightforward
procedures for representations to the issuing authority and appeals to
the adjudicator that are easily accessible to the
public.
I should say
that the regulations have been prepared with the help
of a working group comprising representatives from local authorities,
the British Parking Association, the police, motoring groups, and the
parking adjudicators. The regulations have been subject to extensive
consultation, although few representations were actually received. We
have also had the benefit of expert and robust advice on our proposals
from the entirely independent
adjudicators.
The
penalty charge notice will state on it the procedures for
representations and appeals, as promoted by the Transport Committee.
The circumstances under which a representation and an appeal can be
made have been widened to include specific instances in which the
enforcement authority has not followed the correct procedures. That
includes such things as an authoritys failure to observe the
correct time limits or to include the right information in notices, or
a case in which a local authority had served a penalty charge notice by
post when it was not authorised to do so. That includes such things as
an authoritys failure to observe the correct time limits or to
include the right information in notices, or a case in which a local
authority had served a penalty charge notice by post when it was not
authorised to do so. The adjudicator will have the power to return a
case to the local authority for reconsideration when a
contravention has taken place in mitigating
circumstancesperhaps when a driver has had to pull over because
somebody in the car suddenly felt ill or when the cheque for a
residents parking permit had been banked by the local
authority, but the permit had been lost in the post. The adjudicators
will be able to ask the local authority to reconsider the
case.
It might be
helpful for me to clarify a point that was raised in the other place
about whether a local authority is bound to reconsider a case referred
back to it by the adjudicator. I assure hon. Members that under
regulation 7(5) the local authority must reconsider such a case. If the
authority does not make a decision within 35 days, it is deemed to have
accepted the adjudicators recommendation and must cancel the
notice to owner.
The
regulations have been widely welcomed by local authorities and the
public and I hope that they will be welcomed by all members of the
Committee, who I know have a great interest in parking. It has taken a
lot of hard work to balance the needs of local authorities for
a strong and effective enforcement regime and the
needs of motorists for one that is flexible and fair. The regulations
are based on the successful regime put in place by the Road Traffic Act
1991, but have a few key changes that will help deliver a fairer and
more transparent system of effective parking enforcement by local
authorities. I commend the regulations to the
Committee.
4.37
pm
Mr.
Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con): I am
particularly pleased to be serving under your chairmanship,
Mr. Wilshire, as we were both members of the Transport
Committee when the weighty tome, Parking Policy and
Enforcement, was
produced.
Parking
enforcement is a necessary evil. Without some form of control we would
be faced with chaos and anarchy. Roads would be blocked by
thoughtlessly parked vehicles and emergency vehicles would be
impeded in their vital work. That said, a balance must be struck between
the need to enforce parking restrictions and the latitude and
flexibility needed to recognise the practicalities of life. The
Minister mentioned the example of somebody being ill in a
car.
Parking
authorities outside our large urban areas often adopt a more
user-friendly approach. Others, particularly in London it seems, are
more predatory and set targets for their wardens, for example of 1.6
tickets per hour. Wardens who meet the targets reportedly are rewarded
with extra overtime and the services of those who fail to deliver can
be dispensed with. Local authorities in some cases have come to rely on
the income from parking and fines. Camden, for example, derives
£20 million of its income from such means. One of the key
performance indicators in its contract with NCP was the number of
tickets issued, although more recently it maintains that this should
not be observed and will be removed from future
contracts.
That
is the context in which some local authorities are
inclined to issue a large number of tickets that could be turned over
at adjudication. I am pleased that the Government have responded to the
Select Committee report, which condemned targets. However, we still
have the situation in which councils have budgetary predictions for
parking revenue. Another criticism in the report was that councils are
not using discretion. The recent example of vehicles that were blocked
in by a fire appliance being ticketed illustrates that point well. It
is little wonder that in this environment, large numbers of tickets are
challenged. Having visited the adjudication service and witnessed the
appeals process, I welcome the regulations, which extend the rights to
expand the decriminalised type of
regime.
I have one or
two questions to which I hope the Minister will respond. My own
experiences are rather limited. Living in north Yorkshire we can often
park without a problem. However, my wife recently had a ticket
overturned for very sensible
reasons.
The
Chairman:
Order. The Minister stayed on the tightrope, but
I am afraid, Mr. Goodwill, that you are about to fall off
it. I would be grateful if you could stick to the
point.
Mr.
Goodwill:
First, one ground for appeal is that a
contravention did not occur. The Minister may well know that there have
been a number of problems around the country, not least in Scarborough,
where a decriminalised application has been held up because the signage
or the lines were not deemed to be within the regulations. Could the
Minister let us know whether she considers that to be one of the cases
where the contravention did not occur? In such cases, if someone went
out with a tape measure and the very thick rule book, I suspect that
many of our local authority parking regimes may be found to be failing
in the detail.
What
responsibility does the council have to reimburse motorists whom have
been ticketed in an area where another motorist was ticketed but who
successfully appealed to the adjudicator because that particular area
or street was not in compliance with the regulations? Would the local
authority have a responsibility either to advertise the fact that
people whom had been fined in that area could apply for a refund or to
issue refunds?
Secondly, I hope that the
Minister will touch on the area of cloned vehicles, because many people
go to adjudications because they say that the vehicle concerned was not
theirs. If the owner of a vehicle that has been cloned lives in Preston
and the offence took place in London, in most cases that is fairly
straight forward to prove. However, there are many problems if the
person who cloned the vehicle lives in the same town. With regard to
the issuing of plates in such circumstances, has the Minister any plans
to prevent such cases getting to the adjudicator?
Thirdly, the Select Committee
report touched on the publication of information from
councils on the number of adjudications that were successful or the
number of appeals that were granted by the council itself. That varies
dramatically from council to council. I understand that it is not in
the comprehensive performance assessment, which councils provide and
which are assessed by the Government. I know that the Government are
moving towards fewer indicators and less reporting backI
suggest that that is not before time. Within the regulation, could more
prominence be given to data on the number of overturns and lost appeals
so that the motoring public and the voters in local authority areas
would be able to judge how well their council was performing or whether
they were being more predatory than
regulatory?
Fourthly,
how many councils so far have applied successfully for decriminalised
regimes and how many are in the pipeline? Obviously, the regulation
will apply to those decriminalised
regimes.
Another
issue that I did not see addressed in the regulations, but which I may
have missed, concerns cases where the local authority brings evidence
to the adjudication. Would the local authority be committed to state
how many times a particular motorist had appealed or been successful?
In criminal law, if a person has been convicted of an offence such a
burglary, in most cases it is not permissible to give that evidence
before the court. Will it be permissible to give the number of
instances when a motorist has avoided a fine? I make that point because
it is quite easy for a motorist whom has been ticketed in a car park to
approach other motorist who are about to leave and try to get hold of a
valid parking ticket to submit as evidence that they had bought a
ticket but that it had fallen on the floor of the car. Most local
authorities would be happy to accept that that happened once or twice,
but if it becomes a serial offence, that would be good grounds for the
local authority to turn down the appeal. If the adjudicator was aware
that that motorist had had perhaps 10 similar instances over the
previous six months, that would have quite a bearing. Therefore, in
that adjudication, would the council be allowed to present evidence of
previous offences that it had
allowed?
My next
question relates to the 14-day discount. The 50 per cent. discount is a
very good way of ensuring that motorists pay promptly but people who
appeal will withhold that payment, particularly if they feel very
strongly that the ticket has not been legally issued, or that there are
reasonable mitigating circumstances. There is nothing in the proposal
that indicates whether local authorities should be empowered to
reintroduce the 14-day period when the adjudication is lost. That seems
a bit piecemeal and the person who has appealed their ticket and lost
that appeal may have to pay the full fine despite the fact that they
withheld the original
payment because they felt that they had a sensible case. I may have
missed it in the regulation, but it would seem sensible for the 14-day
clock to start ticking at the point when the appeal is lost and that
they should still be eligible for the
discount.
I may be
pulled up for digressing but although the Minister mentioned that the
regulations apply to decriminalised and criminal local authority
parking infringements, private parking areas and areas where clamping
would take place are not covered by these
regulations.
The
Chairman:
Order. The hon. Gentleman
anticipates my ruling entirely.
Mr.
Goodwill:
Thank you, Mr. Wilshire.
However, I am sure you realise that it is a problem that many citizens
throughout the country do not understand the difference between local
authority and privately administered parking areas and in many cases
feel they have been
mugged.
We support the
regulations in the hope that they will help to usher in a more
motorist-friendly parking contravention regime, building on the wider
extension of decriminalised parking regimes that are already improving
the administration of difficult areas. We shall be pleased to support
the Minister in her quest to improve the
situation.
4.45
pm
Susan
Kramer (Richmond Park) (LD): I will be extremely brief. My
colleagues in the House of Lords have made a number of comments but we
are overwhelmingly in support of this measure. As the Minister will be
aware, it is unusual to find someone who has received a parking ticket
who does not believe that there were mitigating circumstances. Could
she explain what kind of guidance will be available so that local
authorities and the adjudicator are not inundated with a range of
spurious claims?
What
kind of review mechanism is in place to ensure that as general guidance
is established on how the adjudicator will view these cases it is then
communicated to local authorities more generally and to the public so
that we get a reasonably consistent and reliable approach to parking
enforcement. Motorists should not be left with a mystery on their hands
trying to work out whether something is permissible in one area that
might not be permissible in another.
4.48
pm
Ms
Winterton:
I thank the Opposition parties for supporting
these regulations. I will try to address most of their points; although
there is quite a long list I will do my best to get through
them.
First,
I want to tackle the issue of local authorities
enforcing these policies to make money. Hon. Members should be clear
that any surplus from parking revenue can be used only for specific
transport-related purposes; it cannot be hived off elsewhere. Most
parking revenue is from parking charges, not from parking penalty
charges. The statutory guidance says that local authorities
should use parking enforcement policy and we want them to do that,
particularly to keep traffic flowing, to improve road safety and to
take account of the impact on the environment, which is extremely
important. About 229 local authorities are currently taking over civil
enforcement of parking from the police and another 40 are in the
pipeline.
The hon.
Member for Scarborough and Whitby also raised a
number of issues about what criteria the adjudicator should be adhering
to. We need to be clear that, although the Department obviously issues
some central guidance and the adjudicator makes some decisions, it is
also up to local authorities to make some decisions. Therefore, to
define all the mitigating circumstances would start to become quite
difficult, because some mitigating circumstances would be perfectly
obvious and we also want adjudicators to examine mitigating
circumstances. However, there may be some circumstances that we can
steer people towards considering. For example, if somebody suddenly
became ill in a car, obviously that is something that we would say is a
mitigating circumstance. There may be some instances where we would
want the adjudicator to have the discretion to make what we would all
consider to be a reasonable decision.
Mr.
Goodwill:
Having been to the adjudicating service and seen
cases take place, I think that the Minister is absolutely right to
steer away from listing mitigating circumstances. As the adjudicator
has made clear to us, rather than simply considering the facts of the
case the adjudicator often has a gut feeling about the honesty of
individuals in the cases brought to them. Therefore, two cases with
similar facts could have different adjudications, because of the way
that an individual comes across at a particular
hearing.
Ms
Winterton:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment,
which also relates to some of the points that he made earlier about
what evidence can be presented. As he has just said, the adjudicator
may sometimes have an instinct about somebodys honesty. It may
also be the case that the local authority will say, Well, we
would like to present some evidence, which would show some of
the instances that the hon. Gentleman has set out. Once again, it is
quite important that we allow the local authorities, as well as the
adjudicators, to put forward and hear the evidence that they consider
to be appropriate.
We
also need to be clear about the issue of the responsibility to
reimburse. Legally, having paid the penalty charge notice, a motorist
has, in a sense, accepted that a contravention took place.
Moving on to the issue of the
discount, it would be up to the local authority to decide if it is
appropriate in particular circumstances to reintroduce the 14-day
discount. However, we must also be clear that we would not want to see
a situation where there is an incentive to go to appeal, in order to
delay matters, but the discount would still apply. The local
authorities would want to examine closely all the
implications of maintaining the discount in all circumstances, even
after a case has been to appeal, because the discount is an incentive
to ensure that a case is dealt with as quickly and cost-effectively as
possible. Therefore, the discount is another issue that we would like
local authorities to address.
Regarding the issue of cloned
vehicles, the penalty charge notice would go to the keeper of the
uncloned vehicle and in most circumstances they can easily demonstrate
that their vehicle was elsewhere at the time of the offence. It is
obviously important that the police are always alerted to the issue of
cloning.
With regard
to the number of penalty charge notices that have been challenged, at
the moment less than 1 per cent. of penalty charge notices go to
appeal. In most circumstances people recognise the
issue.
With regard to
the points made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park
(Susan Kramer) about the guidance on mitigating circumstances, we need
to ensure that we are not over-centralising this. Local authorities are
already dealing with cases on a regular basis. We would look at any
further guidance in the light of circumstances, but at present we feel
that they can deal with matters quite easily. However, I am sure that
people will look at our debates to see what we had in mind when passing
this legislation.
I
hope that the issue of wheel-clamping on private land, which we cannot
discuss, does not get too mixed
up with these regulations. This is about a fair and effective
enforcement of parking policy and I suspect that everyone in this room
would agree that not all private wheel-clampers are looking at fair and
effective policies. We all feel very strongly when we see some of what
goes on. I just managed to slip that
in.
Having said
that
Ms
Winterton:
I do feel very strongly about it. I would like
to thank the Committee for their supportive comments about the
regulations. I hope that I have managed to answer most of the
questions. If I have not I shall endeavour to write to hon. Members. I
commend the regulations to the
Committee.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Civil Enforcement of Parking
Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations
2007.
Committee
rose at three minutes to Five
oclock.