Parliamentary Transport Committee

Local authority parking enforcement

Conclusions and recommendations

Pavement parking

1.  We recognise that parking restrictions should reflect local circumstances. However, in areas such as pavement parking, where there is a confusing patchwork approach across the country, local authorities must ensure that they communicate clearly to motorists. The needs of pedestrians must also be considered alongside other road users. (Paragraph 8)

Impact on town centres

2.  Parking policy must be dealt with as part of the wider transport strategy in relation to town centres. We recognise that parking is not the only issue that impacts upon the health of town centres, adequate public transport is also essential. It is important that local authorities work with local businesses to develop innovative parking solutions that work for their area. The Government can help this process by exploring ways of achieving this, including for example by developing business rates relief for businesses that invest in affordable town centre parking solutions. (Paragraph 16)

3.  We also see a role for Government in promoting the exchange of information. The Government should bring forward as a priority its proposed guidance to local authorities on how they can effectively support the high street, businesses and local communities. This should include examples of good practice and case studies of partnerships between local authorities and local businesses. (Paragraph 17)

Workplace Parking Levy

4.  It is difficult for us to judge the Workplace Parking Levy (WPL) scheme in Nottingham because a formal evaluation has not yet been carried out. The evaluation of the WPL scheme is of national interest and if the scheme proves to be successful, we recommend that the Government more actively promote WPL to other local authorities. We welcome the Minister's assurance that the DfT is looking closely at the Nottingham experience and the views of the business community. We expect the Department will follow up on Nottingham's recommendation that the guidance, regulations and legislation for WPL be revisited with a view to making it simpler and fairer to introduce. (Paragraph 19)

Impact on businesses

5.  It is unacceptable that local authorities set enforcement regimes that effectively force some companies to incur Penalty Charge Notices costing hundreds of thousands of pounds a year for carrying out their business. Local authorities must ensure that the need to restrict parking and manage congestion does not stifle the ability of businesses to trade and help grow the economy. However, businesses cannot be completely exempt from parking restrictions. For their part, delivery companies must ensure that their drivers fully understand and seek to comply with the Orders in place. The Government should hold a roundtable discussion with road hauliers and local authorities to identify and then disseminate innovative ways of dealing with this problem. (Paragraph 23)

6.  We also recommend that the Government provide greater clarity on the rules for loading and unloading in an updated version of its Operational Guidance to Local Authorities on Parking Policy and Enforcement. (Paragraph 24)

Raising revenue from enforcement

7.  Where parking charges are set to manage high demand surplus income may be generated. Many local authorities have parking accounts in surplus. However, the nuances within parking finances such as the difference between income from enforcement of fines and income from legitimate on or off street parking charges are often glossed over in the media and by Government. Some local authorities make a surplus on enforcement alone. Our view is that enforcement activity should generally do no more than cover its own costs. Where enforcement activity does unintentionally generate a surplus, local authorities must explain why this is the case. There is a need for a better understanding of parking finance issues and we recommend that the Local Government Association works with local authorities and ensures that they pro-actively and clearly explain these issues in their annual reports on parking (we comment on annual reports in more detail in paragraph 35). (Paragraph 28)

8.  It is hard to justify parking fines that are substantially more than the fines for more serious offences like speeding. We recommend that the Government freeze the maximum penalty charge. The Government should also work with the Mayor of London and local authorities outside London to identify ways in which the burden on the motorist of penalty charges for minor parking violations can be reduced. For example, greater use could be made of differential penalty charges for less serious parking violations. (Paragraph 31)

9.  Local authorities should be mindful of the recent judicial review judgement against Barnet Council. The setting of parking charges in order to raise revenue is not only unacceptable in public policy terms, it is illegal. (Paragraph 32)

10.  We do not believe that a strong case has been made for greater local discretion in how the parking surplus is used. There is already a good deal of flexibility and removing the ring fence would only exacerbate the perception that authorities see parking as a cash cow. However, there is a very strong case for more transparency about how funds are spent. We recommend that annual reports be made mandatory so that information on parking is in the public domain for all local authorities. Such reports do not need to be lengthy glossy documents but should provide a clear overview of enforcement activity and parking finances. (Paragraph 35)

Common sense approach

11.  A common sense approach to parking enforcement should minimise the issuing of Penalty Charge Notices to motorists who make honest mistakes. We recommend that the DfT's statutory guidance should stipulate that local authorities implement a grace period of 5 minutes after the expiry of paid for time on all paid parking places. (Paragraph 38)

Signage

12.  We expect local authorities to quickly rectify poor signage that causes confusion. The public play an important role in bringing such signs to the attention of their local authority. The parking tribunals also have an important role to play in identifying patterns of poor signage in problem areas. We expect the Government to keep us updated on how the revised Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions will address persistent problems in parking signs. (Paragraph 42)

Incentives

13.  The perception exists that local authorities, directly or indirectly, incentivise Civil Enforcement Officers to issue Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) in order to raise revenue. Local authorities state that this is not the case and the parking industry acknowledges that this would be illegal. We acknowledge that it is difficult to measure enforcement activity without referring to the number of PCNs issued and that it will be very difficult for local authorities to come up with a set of Key Performance Indicators that will convince everyone that there is not an agenda to issue PCNs. Where the number of PCNs issued is used to measure performance - even if only in part and even if not related to any payments - local authorities must be more open with the public. Local authorities should publish details of how performance in relation to enforcement activity is measured in their parking annual reports. Annual reports should also include information, in simple terms, on all the different ways in which parking compliance is measured. (Paragraph 46)

Cameras and other technology

14.  While we welcome the Government's proposal to consult on ending the use of cameras for on-street parking enforcement we recognise that cameras can be helpful for enforcement in some areas where the use of a Civil Enforcement Officer is not practical. However, there must be greater oversight of the way in which local authorities use cameras to issue Penalty Charge Notices. As long as the use of cameras remains legal, local authorities must ensure that they are not used as a matter of routine, particularly where permits or exemptions (such as resident permits or Blue Badges) not visible to the camera equipment may apply. (Paragraph 47)

15.  We support the introduction of cashless parking payment systems that are convenient for motorists and help to reduce the likelihood of users overstaying in a parking place. However, it is essential that local authorities consult widely with local residents and other potential users on the introduction of these systems. They must also ensure that cash options are retained where there is a clear need. (Paragraph 48)

16.  There is a risk that the introduction of new technology, such as parking bay sensors, could discourage local authorities from taking a common sense approach to parking enforcement, as we advocate in paragraph 38. Local authorities that are considering using such technology must ensure that there are safeguards in place to ensure that this does not happen. (Paragraph 49)

Foreign vehicles

17.  We recommend that the Government initiate discussions at a European level on the feasibility of introducing EU-wide powers for the cross-border enforcement of parking penalty charges in a cost effective way. (Paragraph 50)

Representations to local authorities

18.  Local Authorities must be clearer about when the 50% discount does or does not apply to a penalty charge. Motorists should not be discouraged from appealing against tickets. However, we are reluctant to extend the 50% discount through the tribunal appeal process due to the additional administrative burden that an increase in appeals might place on local authorities. We recommend that the Government work with local authorities to set up on a trial basis the introduction of a 25% penalty charge discount for motorists who pay within 7 days of losing their appeal to the parking tribunals. (Paragraph 53)

Appeals to parking tribunals

19.  The Traffic Penalty Tribunal and the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service should continue to embrace new ways of improving access to the appeals service. In particular we would like to see greater use of telephone hearings and online video hearings. (Paragraph 55)

20.  Where possible, local authorities should resolve motorists' concerns about the validity of PCNs at the representations stage rather than waiting for them to appeal to the parking tribunals. We welcome the recent reduction in the proportion of appeals not challenged by local authorities at tribunal. However, the proportion of uncontested appeals is still too high. Where local authorities continue to maintain high proportions of uncontested appeals they should reassess whether their policies for dealing with concerns at the representations stage are adequate. We recommend that the parking tribunals collect and publish data on the reasons for uncontested appeals in order to encourage local authorities to improve their representation and appeal processes. (Paragraph 58)

Refunds from local authorities

21.  Local authorities should be more proactive about paying back money from invalid Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs). Motorists should not have to appeal these PCNs where the adjudicators have repeatedly identified that there is a problem. Local authorities should provide information in their parking annual reports on action they have taken to rectify such problems. We recommend that the Government introduce a statutory requirement for local authorities to take all reasonable steps to refund money received from invalid PCNs. (Paragraph 60)

New grounds for appeal

22.  We recommend that the Government introduce regulations that will enable adjudicators to allow appeals where local authorities have not followed statutory guidance. (Paragraph 61)

Concluding remarks

23.  Parking is a complex business so it is important that local authorities are as transparent as possible in explaining what they are doing and why. Parking enforcement is an issue that provokes strong views from the public. There is a deep-rooted public perception that local authorities view parking enforcement as a cash cow. Greater transparency is essential to ensure that the public can see how local authorities are spending funds from both parking charges and enforcement activity. Local authorities must work harder to dispel any misunderstandings on parking finance. Annual reports are a key part of this and all local authorities should produce them. (Paragraph 64)

24.  The basic framework for civil parking enforcement remains sound. However, we have recommended a number of adjustments that will improve it, for example, the introduction of a 25% discount at appeal and additional grounds for representations. Ultimately, local authorities and others involved in parking enforcement, must keep in mind the needs of road users for whom they are providing parking services. Local authorities must ensure that what they do is reasonable for the people who obey the restrictions and fair for those who inadvertently contravene them. (Paragraph 65)

25.  Finally, while we recognise the inherently local nature of parking, the Government still has an important role in making sure the regulations and guidance are fit for purpose and modifying them promptly when necessary. The Government must also work with local authorities to ensure that good practice and guidance is coordinated and disseminated. (Paragraph 66)