Effective road and traffic management

Written evidence from Chris Leithead (ETM 45)

In 1990 when I was the senior officer In the Headquarters Traffic Branch of the Metropolitan Police I was directly responsible for the introduction of decriminalised parking enforcement. This was not originally part of the Road Traffic Bill and was very hastily introduced during the Committee Stage in the House of Commons.

Let me say from the outset that I think it is basically a good system, local authorities are best placed to determine their traffic management problems, the appropriate regulations to deal with those problems in the level of enforcement necessary to achieve compliance. The replacement of Fixed Penalty Notices with Penalty Charge Notices has improved the collection of penalties and In addition to this the system provides for individual motorists to contest the legality of the penalty.

What it does not do is have any method for overseeing the operation of each local authority. The speed with which decriminalised parking enforcement had to be introduced into the Road Traffic Bill did not allow for this, and in fairness, such a need was not apparent at the time. However, experience has demonstrated there is a need for such oversight.

In addition to my work with the London Boroughs in introducing decriminalised parking enforcement I have worked with local authorities throughout the United Kingdom. I doubt if there is anyone in the country that can match my overall experience.

I was employed by Bath and North East Somerset Council (BANES) to place their Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) on a digital map base. While undertaking this work it became apparent that they had failed to carry out the assurances they had given the Secretary of State in order to obtain a designation order and as a consequence all their TROs were incapable of lawfully enforcement. I sent my findings to the Chief Adjudicator who wrote to BANES to say that she thought I, "had a point". I wrote to the senior officers of the Council suggesting that under the circumstances they should cease enforcement until they could undertake it lawfully. They refused.

As motorists were being unlawfully penalised I asked the Avon and Somerset Police to investigate but they informed me it was not in the public interest so to do.

Because they had failed to carry out the assurances they had given the Secretary of State I contacted the relevant official in the DfT. I believed that because the Secretary of State had given a designation order on receipt of certain assurances that the failure to carry out those assurances should result in the revocation of a designation order. I was told that was not possible. I pointed out that because of the failure a large number of motorists were being unlawfully penalised. I was told that was purely a matter between the individual motorists and the adjudicators. I pointed out that this is beyond the scope of individual motorists and that if every motorist affected wrote to the adjudicators the volume of correspondence would bring the system to a halt. I was told this was not a matter of concern to the Secretary of State and that there are no circumstances under which he would intervene. I said, "Are you telling me the Secretary of State would prefer there to be unlawful enforcement than no enforcement?" She replied, "yes". While I have no doubt that is the general policy of the Secretary of State that all local authorities enforce lawful TROs, the failure to intervene when informed of a problem means that in particular cases the Secretary of State accepts that it is preferable motorists be unlawfully penalised than there be no enforcement.

This was the policy under the previous government and has been confirmed by the current Secretary of State, that notwithstanding the failure to meet the Secretary of State's requirements it was now purely a matter for locally elected Councillors and the local media.

I am far from certain that locally elected Councillors have the necessary technical expertise to oversee the operation of their Council. I also believe that it places too onerous burden on them to carry out this work efficiently. Nor am I convinced that airing a local authority's failings through the local media is in anyone's best interests or even effective.

When the London Evening Standard reported that a motorist who successfully challenged the lawfulness of a Penalty Charge Notice the London Councils made it clear they would not refund other motorists who has similarly received unlawful Penalty Charge Notices. The Secretary of State did not intervene on behalf of the other motorists.

Although I have highlighted two separate instances I am aware that these and similar problems exist elsewhere throughout the United Kingdom.

It is clear that the Secretary of State does not see it as necessary to ensure that a local authority is lawfully making and enforcing parking regulations and sees that is purely a function of local authority elected members and beyond the technical expertise of his staff. He gives no indication how elected members would gain the necessary technical expertise. All my experience indicates that there is a need for a Parking Inspectorate. Such a body would fulfil a very useful function, firstly, it would contain the necessary technical knowledge to provide a centre of excellence to which local authorities could refer for assistance to ensure they were operating lawfully and efficiently and, secondly, in providing reassurance to the public that the local authority was operating lawfully and efficiently.

Both this and the previous Secretaries of State have rejected such an approach which more than anything else would be an important step in preventing what is perceived to be the "war on motorists". I do not believe that any local authority deliberately sets out to make unlawful TROs nevertheless they do so. As elected representatives are you prepared to allow your constituents to be penalised unlawfully? It is possible for any motorist to contest the penalty on the grounds that the TRO is unlawful but how many motorists have sight of the TRO let alone the necessary knowledge?

The Parking Inspectorate would in no way compete with the current arrangements for adjudication but would complement them. Funding would come by way of a levy each local authority's parking account proportionate to the size of each authority.

I believe that it is intrinsically wrong for a Secretary of State to make a requirement and then if that requirement is not met effectively say it does not matter. This is more egregious of the requirement is to ensure motorists are lawfully penalised and the consequence is that they are unlawfully penalised.

I am writing to all MPs in the hope that action be taken to ensure that motorists can be satisfied that what is basically an excellent system is being operated lawfully to achieve sensible traffic management objectives and is not being used simply to generate revenue.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should I be able to assist you further.

January 2011