| |
NEW PARKING REGULATIONS DUE MID 2008
THE CIVIL ENFORCEMENT OF PARKING CONTRAVENTIONS
(ENGLAND) GENERAL REGULATIONS 2007 No. 3483
THE REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF VEHICLES (AMENDMENT) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS
2007 No. 3484
THE CIVIL ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS (WEARING OF UNIFORMS) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS
2007 No. 3485
THE CIVIL ENFORCEMENT OF PARKING CONTRAVENTIONS (APPROVED DEVICES)
(ENGLAND) ORDER 2007 No. 3486
THE CIVIL ENFORCEMENT OF PARKING CONTRAVENTIONS (GUIDELINES ON LEVELS
OF CHARGES) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2007 No. 3487
NEW
PARKING REGULATIONS
Final
Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA)
NEW PARKING REGULATIONS DUE MID 2008
1. Explanation
1.1 This explanatory memorandum has been prepared by the Department
for Transport and is laid before Parliament by Command of Her Majesty.
1.2 This memorandum contains information for the Joint Committee
on Statutory
Instruments.
2. Description
2.1 These three sets of Regulations and two Orders (all of
which apply only to England) have been made and laid by the Secretary
of State for Transport. They should be read together with the Civil
Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and
Appeals Regulations 2007 (S.I. 2007/3482) (“the Representations and
Appeals Regulations”), which were subject to the affirmative procedure.
This package of statutory instruments is designed to implement Part
6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 in relation to the civil enforcement
of parking controls by civil enforcement officers acting on behalf
of local authorities, rather than under the criminal law by police
officers or police traffic wardens.
2.2 The set of draft Regulations should be read as a whole,
and with the Representation and Appeals Regulations. The draft Regulations
set out procedures to improve national consistency by giving new powers
to authorities outside London currently only held by those in London.
The draft Regulations also set out new clamping procedures, camera
enforcement, differential parking charges and certain increased discount
periods.
3. Matters of special interest to the Joint
Committee on Statutory Instruments
3.1 The Joint Committee will note that regulation 13(4) and
(5) requires an enforcement authority not to immobilise a vehicle
in a parking place until the “appropriate period” has elapsed following
the giving of a penalty charge notice (“PCN”, i.e. the parking ticket
or notice informing the motorist that the local authority considers
that a contravention has taken place and a penalty charge incurred).
The “appropriate period” is 15 minutes in the case of a vehicle with
three or more penalty charges outstanding (as defined by regulation
2(2) to (4)) and otherwise 30 minutes. Section 79(6) of the Traffic
Management Act 2004, however, requires a period of 15 minutes. In
including this provision the Department has acted on the views expressed
following the public consultation and decided that 15 minutes is a
minimum and that section 79(6) does not preclude the prescription
of a longer period.
4. Legislative Background
4.1 Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 confers powers on
the Lord Chancellor and “the appropriate national authority” (in England,
the Secretary of State) to make regulations providing for a national
legislative framework for the civil enforcement by local authorities
of contraventions of parking and bus lane restrictions and some moving
traffic contraventions, such as box junctions and banned turns. Part
6 and the regulations will replace existing provisions in the Road
Traffic Act 1991 (with regard to parking), the Transport Act 2000
(with regard to bus lanes) and London local legislation.
4.2 The purpose of these instruments is to implement Part 6
of the Traffic Management Act 2004 so far as it relates to parking
contraventions. They will in due course be followed by regulations
to implement Part 6 in relation to bus lane and other moving vehicle
contraventions.
4.3 The effect of the package of parking instruments will be
to replace the present system of decriminalised parking enforcement
under Part II and Schedule 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1991. The instruments
will be supplemented by Statutory Guidance issued by the Secretary
of State, to which local authorities will be required to have regard,
although they will not be obliged to follow it.
4.4 The most important element of the package is the Civil
Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations
2007 (“the General Regulations”), to be made by the Lord Chancellor
and the Secretary of State. The General Regulations and the Representations
and Appeals Regulations should be read as a whole. It has been necessary
for the subject matter to be split between two instruments because
the powers to make regulations relating to Representations and Appeals
are exercisable by statutory instrument subject to the affirmative
procedure, whereas the General Regulations fall to be made under negative
procedure powers. The other negative instruments contain provisions
ancillary to the two principal sets of regulations.
4.5 The draft General Regulations cross-refer to the Representation
and Appeals Regulations. A copy of the Representation and Appeals
Regulations is attached so as to show the effect of the cross-references.
All the instruments will be brought into force on 31st March 2008.set
out new clamping procedures, camera enforcement, differential parking
charges and certain increased discount periods.
5. Territorial Extent and Application
5.1 These instruments apply to England.
5.2 They do not replicate legislation which already exists
in another part of the United Kingdom.
6. European Convention on Human Rights
6.1 The Rt Hon Rosie Winterton, Minister of State Department
for Transport, has made the following statement regarding Human Rights:
“In my view the provisions of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions
(England) General Regulations 2007 are compatible with the Convention
rights.”
6.2 As the other Instruments the subject of this Memorandum
are subject to negative resolution procedure and do not amend primary
legislation, no statement is required in respect of those instruments.
7. Policy background
7.1 The first aim of the new framework will be to replace the
unsatisfactory state of the statute law on the civil enforcement of
parking. This has hitherto rested on Part II of the Road Traffic Act
1991 and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 in relation to parking
places in Greater London. A series of orders extended this legislation
to other parking contraventions in designated “special parking” areas
in London and to certain areas outside London designated by order
in relation to all types of parking contravention. Each order, applying
in London or elsewhere, contained modifications of both the 1991 and
the 1984 Acts in their application to the designated area. Such modifications
will no longer be necessary.
7.2 Secondly, although it is largely based on the old system
of enforcement, the framework includes many changes of detail. Some
of these derive from modifications to the Road Traffic Act 1991 made
by London local legislation.
7.3 A public consultation (“Better Parking – Keeping Traffic
Moving”) on the draft Statutory Guidance, draft Regulations and on
the Partial RIA was conducted from 12th July 2006 to 25th September
2006. The consultation document set out the Government’s position
on civil parking enforcement and sought views on 20 specific issues
set out in the document.
7.4 The document was sent to all Local Authorities in England,
85 other organisations (including the key stakeholders, members of
the working group and the Council on Tribunals), and specific individuals
who requested the consultation. There
were 112 responses, 77 from Local Authorities, 13 from the public
and motorists groups and 22 from businesses and other interested parties
7.5 Those who responded agreed with the lines taken in the
consultation document on the vast majority of the issues and the policies
on these will remain as suggested in the consultation.
7.6 There was widespread support for the Partial Regulatory
Impact Assessment. 75% of respondents agreed that the Partial Regulatory
Impact Assessment represented a fair analysis of the policy.
7.7 There was support for differential penalty charges whereby
the more serious contraventions attract a higher penalty charge than
the less serious ones. Some Local Authorities thought that there might
be confusion among the public on this issue, but 70% of non-LA respondents
did not believe that there will be confusion and that this policy
is fairer. Differential charging is given effect in the Civil Enforcement
of Parking Contraventions (Guidelines on Levels of Charges) (England)
Order 2007. The contraventions which attract the higher level of penalty
charge are described in the guidelines appended to the Order by reference
to Version 6 of the “Standard PCN Codes”. These codes are in practice
used by local authorities enforcing decriminalised parking for the
purpose of issuing penalty charge notices and of classifying contraventions.
7.8 There was support for the 50% discount to be available
for 21 days where the PCN was issued by post on the basis of camera
evidence. This longer time was proposed to allow for the uncertainties
of the post. Local authorities were concerned that the two tier discount
period could lead to confusion. However, 87% of the public were in
favour and overall support was positive.
7.9 Responses on three of the issues suggested that the proposals
were not appropriate and the minister agreed that they should be revised.
82% of respondents said that a grievance unit should not be set up
and the Secretary of State agreed that local authorities should not
be asked to set up a new parking grievance/complaints unit. 74% of
respondents said that the police should not be given the power to
also enforce parking in areas where the local authorities have been
given this power, and this was also agreed. Finally, it was agreed
that the time before a vehicle in a parking place can be clamped or
removed should be 30 minutes after the PCN is issued rather than the
60 minutes proposed. This was not a yes/no question, but the majority
if those who responded thought 30 minutes was more appropriate. The
appropriate period is still 15 minutes in the case of a vehicle with
three or more penalty charges outstanding.
7.10 There have been a number of minor changes to the details
of the Regulations. These changes cover points that weren’t specifically
consulted on. The main change is that local authorities will not be
able to recover the money for all past PCNs from persistent evaders
that are clamped or removed. The Minister took this decision in response
to the 2nd London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill.
This Bill has proposed a system for tacking persistent evaders in
London for which there is no primary legislative power in the rest
of the country. After a trial in London the Minister will consider
whether to implement the provisions in the rest of the country with
new primary legislation.
7.11 More detailed responses to the questions can be seen on
the departmental website: http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/archive/2006/contma/pdfbetterparkingreport
7.12 The main changes to the current parking enforcement system
by this package of proposals are:
Changes in terminology:
• Decriminalised Parking Enforcement to be called Civil Parking Enforcement
• Parking Attendants to be called Civil Enforcement Officers
• Special Parking Areas and permitted Parking Areas to be called Civil
Enforcement Areas
Changes to Regulations:
• Enforcement cameras (“approved devices”) to be certified by the
Secretary of State;
• 21 day discount for PCNs sent by post with evidence from an approved
device;
• Where authorities choose to clamp the current 15minute period before
a vehicle in a parking place can be clamped or removed is changed
to 30 minutes after the PCN is served. However, the vehicles of persistent
evaders may be clamped after 15 minutes.
• Differential parking penalties to different contraventions depending
on the seriousness of the contravention.
• Details of procedures for representations and appeals on PCN
• Place a 6 month time limit on authorities issuing a Notice to Owner.
New powers for authorities outside London currently only held
by those in London
• Send PCNs by post with camera evidence or when the civil enforcement
officer is prevented from serving it at the time by obstruction, violence
(or the threat of it) or driving away;
• Enforce dropped footways;
• Enforce double parking;
7.13 Statutory Guidance and detailed Operational Guidance will
be issued to local authorities and stakeholders in association with
the Regulations. The Statutory Guidance will set out the policy framework
for Civil Parking Enforcement, and how enforcement should be approached,
undertaken and reviewed. Section 87 of the TMA stipulates that local
authorities “must have regard” to the Statutory Guidance. The Operational
Guidance is a detailed document which informs English local authorities
who have not yet done so of the scope and procedure for taking over
the enforcement of parking regulations from the police. It also advises
all English local authorities of the procedures that the Government
recommends they follow when enforcing parking restrictions, and provides
the framework for a consistent nationwide approach to parking policy
and enforcement and a point of reference for members of the public,
as well as for the local authorities.
7.14 The main changes to the Statutory Guidance are:
• Authorities no longer need to be able to show that enforcement is
self-funding to apply for powers
• Authorities should publish parking policies;
• Authorities should make and publish guidelines on the flexible use
of discretion when a contravention has taken place but in mitigating
circumstances.
• More emphasis on staff training;
• Authorities are encouraged to use CCTV or other photographs as additional
evidence to the CEO’s statement that the contravention occurred.
• Discouragement wheel clamping vehicles except those of persistent
evaders;
• Where a vehicle is parked in contravention and in an obstructive
manner the vehicle should be removed rather than clamped.
• Where an informal challenge made against a PCN within the 14 day
50% discount period is rejected, authorities should re-offer 14 day
discount period.
• Need for monitoring.
• Authorities should review their parking policies on a regular basis
in consultation with local stakeholders and, once finalised, these
should be made publicly available.
• Authorities should publish certain financial and statistical data
in an annual parking report.
• Authorities should make it clear that performance and rewards/penalties
should never be based on the number of PCNs, clampings or removal.
8. Impact
8.1 A Public Sector Regulatory Impact Assessment for this set
of instruments is attached to this memorandum. The old Regulatory
Impact Assessment format has been used rather than the new Impact
Assessment format. This is because one Regulatory Impact Assessment
was produced to cover both the affirmative resolution parking regulations
(“the Representations and Appeals Regulations”) and the negative resolution
parking regulations. The affirmative regulations were laid in Parliament
in July 2007 when the old Regulatory Impact Assessment format was
still in use. No significant financial implications have been identified
for members for the public or the public sector.
8.2 A Regulatory Impact Assessment was prepared for the Traffic
Management Bill as a whole and is available at http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/aboutria/ria/thetrafficmanagementbillregu5592?version=1
9. Contact
Marilyn Waldron at the Department for Transport can answer any queries
regarding the instrument. Telephone: 0207 944 2468. E-mail: Marilyn.Waldron@dft.gsi.gov.uk
11th December 2007
Final Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA)
1.
Title of Proposal
1. Proposals to implement the parking provisions of Part
6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004.
2. Purpose and intended effect
Objectives
2. The Government’s aim is to strengthen the existing system
of Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE), which will become known
as Civil Parking Enforcement (CPE), by providing a regulatory framework,
associated Statutory Guidance and detailed Operational Guidance
to enforcement authorities. The objectives are to ensure that:
(i) There exists a common and harmonised regulatory framework
for the enforcement of civil parking contraventions by enforcement
authorities across England;
(ii) There is a high level of public understanding and acceptance
for CPE
(iii) Enforcement authorities have the necessary enforcement
powers to secure a high level of public compliance with traffic
regulations, which should lead, in turn, to reductions in congestion
and improvements in safety and network management; and
(iv) CPE powers are exercised in a fair and reasonable manner
by enforcement authorities
Background
3. As the volume of traffic on the roads increases, the need
for effective parking enforcement becomes critical to the successful
management of congestion and road safety.
4. At present, all London authorities and 1771 enforcement
authorities in England outside London operate Decriminalised Parking
Enforcement (DPE). Under DPE, parking regulations are enforced by
parking attendants employed, directly or indirectly, by enforcement
authorities. This reflects the need for the police to concentrate
on core policing priorities. As part of the system, parking attendants
issue Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) to the owners of vehicles they
believe to be parked in contravention of traffic regulations. Representations
against a PCN can be made to the issuing authority and if this is
rejected there is a right of appeal to an independent adjudicator.
The enforcement is funded by income from parking charges and penalty
charges rather than the local or national taxpayer.
5. The Road Traffic Act 1991 and regulations made under the
Act2 supply the current national legislative framework for DPE.
London local authorities have built on the 1991 Act using local
legislation, taken additional enforcement powers and altered certain
aspects of the enforcement process3. To support enforcement authorities
in their exercise of DPE powers, non-Statutory Guidance was issued
by the Department for Transport/Welsh Office4.
6. With the help of stakeholders and a working group of experts,
the Government has reviewed the existing system of DPE to identify
how it could be improved through the issue of Regulations, Statutory
Guidance and Operational Guidance. A list of the stakeholder groups
invited to attend a workshop and members of the Working Group are
shown in annex A and B of the Regulatory Impact Assessment.
7. Part 6 of the TMA provides a single framework in England
for the civil enforcement of parking, bus lanes, some moving traffic
offences and the London lorry ban. The Government intends to implement
the provisions in Part 6 in stages, beginning with parking. Under
the TMA, Decriminalised Parking Enforcement will become known as
Civil Parking Enforcement. Parking attendants will be known as Civil
Enforcement Officers (CEOs).
8. To bring Part 6 into force, the Government will need to
commence the relevant Sections of the TMA, make regulations that
provide the detail of the legislative framework for Civil Parking
Enforcement and issue accompanying Statutory Guidance. Once the
TMA has been brought into force, Part 6 and the regulations will
replace existing provisions in the Road Traffic Act 1991 (with regard
to parking). Any actions that commenced under the RTA 1991 or local
Acts will continue to be enforceable.
9. Statutory Guidance will be issued along with the Regulations.
The Regulations and Statutory Guidance will cover England only and
it is expected that the Welsh Assembly Government will make corresponding
Regulations and issue Statutory Guidance for Wales. The Government
will also publish non-statutory Operational Guidance for England
and Wales. This will supersede the Department’s Circular 1/95.
10. The Mayor of London will need to consider revising his
Transport Strategy so that the parking aspects in it are consistent
with the new Regulations and Guidance.
Rationale for Government Intervention
11. The existing legislative framework and supporting Guidance
for DPE has been successful in helping authorities to better enforce
their traffic regulations. Nevertheless, the experience of DPE so
far has shown that there are some areas where it would be beneficial
to amend the existing legislative framework. Some of the changes
result from experience in London, where enforcement authorities
have obtained additional powers from local legislation.
12. The new framework is also required because:
(i) There is evidence that there is scope for improving the
public’s understanding of and confidence in the DPE system. This
could be achieved if enforcement authorities make information about
their policies and operations available publicly; and
(ii) The Department of Transport/Welsh Office’s Guidance
on DPE for authorities outside of London has remained unaltered
since it was originally issued in 1995. By updating this Operational
Guidance it would be possible to strengthen areas where some enforcement
authorities are not complying with their responsibilities correctly.
It will also draw upon experience that has been gained since 1991
to improve the CPE system. This updated Operational Guidance, along
with the Regulations and Statutory Guidance, will be published in
2007 to provide detailed information to enforcement authorities.
3. Consultation
Within Government
13. The main elements of the Government’s proposals to strengthen
DPE were worked up during the preparation, and passage through Parliament,
of the Traffic Management Bill. In the course of this work, the
Department for Transport (DfT) worked closely with other relevant
policy Departments including the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office
and the Communities and Local Government. Colleagues in the Welsh
Assembly Government and
Scottish Executive were also consulted on these proposals as they
were developed.
Public consultation
14. In 2002, DfT consulted local authorities and a number
of representative organisations about proposals to give non-London
local authorities the additional powers that had been taken by London
authorities since the Road Traffic Act 1991. The responses showed
clear support for this approach.
15. Following the successful passage of the Traffic Management
Bill in 2004, the Government has given further consideration to
proposals to strengthen DPE. DfT held a stakeholder workshop and
a number of meetings of the working group involving representatives
from a wide range of parking stakeholders, including local authorities.
A full list of the organisations invited to participate in the workshop
is at Annex A. Organisations represented at the Working Group are
listed at Annex B. Preliminary consultation with these key parties
took place before the full public consultation
16. A public consultation on the draft Statutory Guidance,
draft Regulations and on the Partial RIA was conducted from 12th
July 2006 to 25th September 2006. This consultation set out the
Government’s position on CPE and sought to establish views on 20
specific issues that were set out in the consultation document.
17. This was sent to all local authorities in England, 85
other organisations (including the key stakeholders and members
of the working group), and specific individuals who requested the
consultation. There were 112 responses, 77 from local authorities,
13 from the public and motorists groups and 22 from businesses and
other interested parties
18. There was widespread support for the Partial Regulatory
Impact Assessment and 75% of respondents agreed that it gave a fair
analysis of the policy.
19. Those who responded agreed with the vast majority of
the issues, and the policies on these will remain as proposed in
the consultation.
20. Responses on three of the issues suggested that the policy
was not appropriate and the minister agreed that the policy be revised
in light of these points. 82% of respondents said that a separate
parking grievance/complaints unit should not be set up and it was
agreed that enforcement authorities should not be asked to do this.
It was also agreed not to give to the police the power to also enforce
parking in areas where the enforcement authorities have this power,
as 74% of respondents said the police should not be given this power.
Finally, it was agreed that the time before a vehicle can be clamped
or removed in a parking place would be 30 minutes after the PCN
is issued rather than the 60 minutes proposed in the consultation.
This was not a yes/no question, but the majority if those who responded
thought 30 minutes was more appropriate.
21. There have been a number of minor changes to the details
of the Regulations. These changes cover points of principle that
weren’t specifically consulted on. The main change is that enforcement
authorities will not be able to recover the money for all past PCNs
from persistent evaders that are clamped or removed. The Minister
took the decision to remove this provision to protect innocent drivers
and also in response to the 2nd London Local Authorities and Transport
for London Bill. This Bill has proposed a system for tacking persistent
evaders in London that is not possible to implement in the rest
of the country at the present time because there is no power in
primary legislation. After a trial in London the Minister will consider
whether to implement the provisions in the rest of the country with
new primary legislation.
22. The responses are too detailed to be set out in any great
depth here. More detailed responses to the questions can be seen
in the consultation summary on the departmental website.
4. Options
Option 1: Do nothing
23. This option assumes that the Government does not commence
the parking provisions in Part 6 of the TMA and does not issue new
Regulations or Statutory Guidance on CPE. As a result, the existing
system of DPE would remain in force and would continue to garner
relatively low public support, which may lead to increases in congestion
and reductions in road safety.
Option 2: Replicate existing legislation and Guidance in Regulations
and Guidance made under the TMA
24. This option involves commencing the parking provisions
in the TMA, making Regulations that copy in their entirety the framework
established by the Road Traffic Act 1991 and its associated Regulations,
and putting existing Guidance on parking enforcement on a statutory
footing. It is unlikely that this would improve public understanding
and support.
Option 3: Issue Regulations and Statutory Guidance that build
on the existing system of DPE
25. This option would also involve commencing the parking
provisions in the TMA. It would entail making regulations that build
upon and enhance the current legislative framework giving to enforcement
authorities outside London the same powers as London local authorities,
so that the enforcement framework is the same throughout England.
It would also include issuing Statutory Guidance that would establish
the key principles and minimum standards which all authorities would
be expected to meet. Detailed Operational Guidance (in the form
of an updated version of Local Authorities Circular 1/95) would
also be issued. We believe that this option would improve the fairness
and clarity of the system and encourage more authorities to take
on the responsibility of enforcing, as well as making, parking policies
and local regulations (as recommended by the House of Commons Transport
Committee).
5. Costs and Benefits
Sectors and groups affected
26. All options would affect all enforcement authorities
that currently operate DPE or intend to operate DPE in the future,
and the firms who are contracted to carry out the on-street enforcement,
or provide the tools to operate the system, as well as consumers
who park on-street and in enforcement authority owned car parks
within the authorities’ boundaries. There would be no material differences
in the impact on other businesses, voluntary organisations and charities
or people in different social groups. However the operation of parking
enforcement will have an impact on all individuals who use the road
network.
27. Under option 3, the new powers will allow enforcement
authorities outside London to provide enforcement with "approved
devices" (these powers are already in place for local authorities
inside London). The businesses that supply or design the equipment
systems used for parking enforcement would be required to obtain
certification from the Secretary of State before their equipment
could be used. This certification is needed to ensure that devices
provide correct and tamper proof evidence to a common standard.
There would be no charge for this certification and the information
that the Secretary of State is likely to require to support a request
for certification (the details will be set out in the Operational
Guidance) would be very much along the lines of tests that any reputable
manufacturer/designer of a system would do to satisfy themselves
that it meets the high standards required for law enforcement. Furthermore
this will create a new market and therefore is a benefit to businesses.
28. There are existing requirements about the wearing of
uniforms by parking attendants and it is likely that the provisions
will be carried forward largely unchanged in all three options.
So there will be no change in the impact that they would have on
the businesses that currently supply uniforms for parking attendants.
29. The procedures to be carried out in connection with the
removal and disposal of vehicles are likely to be very much the
same in all three options and will to a large extent replicate what
is already in place, so there will be no change in the impact that
they would have on the businesses that operate these services on
behalf of enforcement authorities. The discouragement of clamping
and removal for vehicles except those of persistent evaders may
reduce in the long term the number of vehicles clamped and removed
on-street and in enforcement authority owned car parks. This could
potentially have a negative effect on clamping companies and may
lead to an increase in costs per unit. It should be noted that these
Regulations and Guidance will make no change to wheel-clamping or
removal of vehicles parked on private land, which is currently unregulated
and causes a significant number of complaints from members of the
public.
Race equality impact
30. There are no Race Equality impacts to any of these proposals
Environmental quality impact
31. It is unlikely that there will be any significant and
quantifiable environmental impacts from any of the options. However,
option 3 is designed to improve the system of civil parking enforcement.
An efficient parking system may play a part in improving road safety
and reducing traffic congestion and associated emissions and therefore
we would expect some positive qualitative impacts.
Analysis of costs and benefits
Option 1
32. As it would not involve changes to the existing DPE system,
this option would not impose any new costs. But neither would it
deliver any benefits over and above those derived from the existing
DPE system. There are a number of disadvantages to this option.
33. By not implementing Part 6 of the TMA the changes would
not be made that are necessary to ensure that authorities conduct
their parking enforcement in a transparent, fair and proportionate
manner. This would lead to continued press and public antipathy
and accusations that parking enforcement is only about raising money
rather than enforcing transport objectives. Furthermore authorities
outside London currently lack certain powers that have been given
to London authorities through local legislation. These are important
to the efficient running of CPE and include the power to:
(i) Serve a PCN by post where a CEO is prevented from fixing
a PCN to a vehicle or handing it to the driver. This will tackle
the problem in the current system of parking attendants being unable
to serve a PCN as a result of a motorist driving away or making
threats against the attendant.
(i) Issue a PCN on the basis of information provided by an
“approved device” (currently a camera plus the associated system).
This will help authorities target enforcement activity on sensitive
areas (e.g. in “no stopping” areas such as red routes and clearways)
and areas where there is a high level of short-stay contraventions
such as dropping off children at school.
(ii) Ensure specified items of information appear on PCNs
so that vehicle owners understand how they can go about paying a
penalty charge, the process for enforcing a PCN and their right
to appeal to an adjudicator;
(iii) Place a 6 month time limit on the issue of a Notice
to Owner.
Option 2
34. Authorities would face additional enforcement costs resulting
from the exercise of the new powers conferred on them by the TMA.
However, these costs could be funded from any additional parking
income.
35. This option would deliver some benefits to road users
in terms of improved traffic flow and safety. These would derive
from the greater levels of compliance with traffic regulations that
authorities’ additional enforcement powers could be expected to
bring about.
36. However this legislation is out of date and is not built
on the experience that has been garnered since the beginning of
DPE. Since the RTA proposed decriminalised parking enforcement in
1991 much has been learnt about the most efficient ways to carry
out enforcement and by simply replacing existing legislation with
that made under the TMA, it would not update the system.
37. During the consultation on the Traffic Management Bill
in 2002 it was established that key stakeholders supported the adoption
of regulations under the TMA and that there should be a further
process of consultation to establish how best to update decriminalised
parking in the light of experience. There are no powers in RTA 1991
to make regulations that would allow these necessary changes to
be made. Therefore option 2 would not fulfil our stakeholders’ requirements.
Option 3
38. There is no requirement to take on CPE powers if an authority
does not wish to. Enforcement authorities who opt into CPE would
face the following additional costs under option 3:
39.
(i) Implementing costs:
a. Enforcement authorities who do not yet operate DPE:
i. If an enforcement authority chooses to take on CPE powers
then they will need to apply to DfT for these powers (as they have
to at present for DPE powers). As with taking on DPE powers at present,
an enforcement authority will need to cover the start up costs of
taking on this power. However, an enforcement authority will not
face any higher costs in bringing in CPE than they would have faced
to bring in DPE.
b. Enforcement authorities who already have DPE powers (at
present all London authorities and 177 enforcement authorities in
England outside London):
i. There will be some up front costs for the transition from
DPE to CPE. These costs include training, IT, stationary, uniform
and promotional costs. There are also costs involved in the time
it will take to understand the implications of the Act and to change
the processes and procedures.
ii. Up front costs for the transition from DPE to CPE have
been estimated for us by a number of enforcement authorities who
would be affected by the new Regulations. Estimations vary from
£8,000 to £54,000. These costs vary because large enforcement authorities
with more employees will have more training costs for their employees,
more uniforms to change for their CEOs, and may have a larger amount
of stationary to replace. IT costs also varied from nothing (some
enforcement authorities estimate that the IT changes will cost nothing
or be very minimal since they could do these when they were due
to have an IT upgrade) to £20,000.
iii. However, these will be covered by the income the authority
gets from the parking charges and parking penalty charges. Therefore,
this is cost neutral to the authority.
(ii) Running costs:
a. Enforcement authorities that do not respond positively
to the enhanced regime (either through pursuing over-zealous enforcement
decisions, or though inefficiency) may face additional adjudication
costs resulting from more appeals on the ground that there was procedural
impropriety, or mitigating circumstances. This is unlikely to be
the case for authorities that follow the Regulations and Guidance.
As enforcement authorities improve their service and provide better
trained staff to deal with appeals, the number of appeals to the
adjudicators may decrease.
b. We are unable to quantify the exact additional costs that
enforcement authorities will face because these will vary with between
different authorities, and will depend on the size of the authority,
whether urban or rural, the number of PCNs issued, the extent to
which these are paid or challenged, and the efficiency with which
the parking system is run.
c. However, under CPE (as with DPE) enforcement authorities
will be able to cover the costs of their enforcement activity through
income from parking charges and from any parking penalty charges.
The Government’s proposals would make
enforcement easier and we expect that, overall, this would reduce
the costs of enforcement. The enforcing authority will be able to
run CPE in a way that is at least cost neutral.
40. We expect that contracts would be varied to take account
of any additional costs incurred by firms carrying out enforcement
on behalf of enforcement authorities.
41. There would also be some very minimal administrative
costs in amending the Traffic Enforcement Centre’s procedure for
processing statutory declarations.
42. There would also be benefits to enforcement authorities,
some of which would mean a positive financial impact. The Government’s
proposals would make enforcement easier and we expect that, overall,
this would reduce the costs of enforcement. This is because their
objective is that the public will see civil enforcement as fair,
and the levy of penalty charges for parking contraventions as more
acceptable through changes such as limiting the use of clamping
and encouraging authorities to be transparent. Changes such as allowing
service of a PCN on the basis of camera evidence will facilitate
the provision of robust evidence that will make it more difficult
to dispute that a contravention took place. This will help to protect
the motorist who has not committed a contravention.
43. This option would deliver a number of benefits for all
road users within CPE authorities, especially those using parking
facilities:
(i) Harmonising the powers available would improve levels
of consistency between authorities using CPE and, through this,
public understanding of the system;
(ii) The enhancements to authorities’ enforcement powers
should result in higher levels of compliance with traffic regulations
and concomitant improvements to traffic flow and road safety;
(iii) Placing a 6 month time limit on the issue of a Notice
to Owner would encourage authorities to follow up their PCNs in
a prompt and efficient manner;
(iv) Introducing greater transparency into civil parking
enforcement, for example by publishing polices and annual reports
on CPE activities will improve public understanding and acceptance
of CPE;
(v) CEOs undergoing independently assessed training and demonstrating
a satisfactory level of competence will result in improved effectiveness
and professionalism of civil enforcement;
(vi) The additional grounds of appeal to an adjudicator should
help to ensure that authorities give proper consideration to representations
made against PCNs on the basis of procedural impropriety or mitigating
circumstances;
(vii) Clarifying issues where High Court judgements have
changed the assumptions on which authorities have been enforcing
for a number of years;
(viii) The principles and standards set out in the Statutory
Guidance would help to ensure that enforcement authorities exercise
their functions in a fair and reasonable manner, and in a way that
increases public understanding and acceptance of CPE.
44. The Government considers that this option is the most
effective way to strengthen the existing system of DPE and increase
its acceptability to the public.
6. Small Firms Impact Test
45. Small firms may be affected by these proposals in two
ways. The first is as organisations who themselves, and whose customers,
use the road network. None of the options would have a significant
impact on small firms over and above the impacts of the existing
DPE system. However the existing DPE system garners low public support
and thus below maximum compliance and this has a potential cascading
effect on trade (for example parking outside local shops). Some
small shopkeepers might contend that option 3 would have a negative
impact on their trade, but what option 3 would do is to enforce
effectively what is already the law, rather than change it. The
Guidance would emphasise the need to discuss parking restrictions
with, among others, people who run small shops. This would help
ensure that the parking restrictions put in place by enforcement
authorities are consulted on properly and as far as is practicable,
respond to the points made in those consultations
46. We are not aware of any instance where a small firm is
a contractor to an enforcement authority to deliver their parking
enforcement responsibilities. But if there are any, option 3 will
benefit them in the same way as larger firms by helping to improve
the respect given by members of the public to their on-street employees
and the regulations they enforce. Option 3 also discourages clamping.
This could potentially have a negative effect on clamping companies
and may lead to an increase in costs per unit
7. Competition Assessment
47. Many enforcement authorities contract out CPE functions
following competitive tenders, but we have no information about
how many. This means that the Government’s proposals will affect
private sector contractors who deliver public services. However,
we believe that the changes would not have a competition impact
because they will not favour one type of supplier or market.
8. Enforcement, Sanctions and Monitoring
48. It will be for enforcement authorities and the parking
adjudicator to exercise the additional functions provided for in
the proposed Regulations. In addition, under the TMA enforcement
authorities must have regard to Statutory Guidance on CPE issued
by the relevant national authority.
49. There are a number of ways in which enforcement authorities
can be held to account for the way in which they carry out their
CPE functions:
(i) Through representations to the authority itself;
(ii) Through an appeal to the parking adjudicator where those
representations do not resolve a dispute;
(iii) Through a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman;
(iv) Through Judicial Review of an authority’s decisions
or actions;
(v) Through the democratic process, the councillors are accountable
at local elections. This should be made easier by the increased
transparency in the CPE regime brought about as a result of the
Government’s proposals.
9. Implementation and Delivery Plan
50. It is our intention that the affirmative Regulations
will be laid before Parliament in mid 2007. Once these have been
approved, all the negative resolution statutory instruments will
be laid before Parliament.
51. Subject to Parliamentary scrutiny procedures, it is our
intention that the Regulations will come into force in early 2008.
This will allow an appropriate implementation period for enforcement
authorities to prepare for the changes and adapt to the new requirements
before the proposals take effect.
52. We will inform key stakeholders when the Regulations
have been laid. We will publish Statutory Guidance for all enforcement
authorities who are affected by the Regulations, and for the key
stakeholders.
53. We will also publish detailed Operational Guidance and
a communications toolkit. The Operational Guidance will offer enforcement
authorities detailed information on how to implement the new proposals.
The communications toolkit will offer user-friendly information
and advice to enforcement authorities on how to communicate effectively
with the public to explain what parking enforcement means and why
it is important.
10. Post-Implementation review
54. Enforcement authorities will be encouraged to monitor the
effectiveness of these Regulations. We may also produce a monitoring
toolkit that would enable this to be done by enforcement authorities
across the country on a consistent basis.
11. Summary and recommendation
| Options |
Benifets |
Costs |
Option
1:
Do Nothing |
•
No Benefits |
•
No economic costs
• Potentially a worsening of congestion and road safety
• Continued press and public antipathy
|
Option
2:
Replicate existing legislation and Guidance in Regulations and
Guidance made under the TMA |
•
Some benefits to road users in terms of improved traffic flow
and safety |
•
Additional enforcement costs resulting from the exercise of
the new powers conferred on them by the TMA. However, these
costs could be funded from any additional parking income
• Out of date legislation that is not built on recent experience
• Will not fulfil stakeholder’s requirements
|
Option
3:
Issue Regulations and Statutory Guidance that build on the existing
system of DPE |
•
Enforcement will be easier and overall, costs should reduce.
• Increased public understanding and acceptance of CPE.
• More robust evidence from cameras
• Benefits for road users including consistency, improvements
to traffic flow and road safety, more efficient dealings with
PCNs and the issue of a Notice to Owner, greater transparency,
improved effectiveness and professionalism of civil enforcement
officers, clarification of procedures and powers following High
Court decisions. |
•
Enforcement authorities that already have DPE powers would face
additional up-front costs for the transition period to CPE.
• Enforcement authorities who do not yet operate DPE would not
face any higher costs in bringing in CPE than they would have
faced to bring in DPE.
• There are costs resulting from enforcement, which will vary
depending on the size of the LA, the number of PCNs issued,
and the efficiency. These costs will be covered through income
from parking charges and parking penalty charges
• Very minimal administrative costs in amending the Traffic
Enforcement Centre’s procedure |
55.
In view of the above, the Department recommends that option 3 be
taken forward. This option is the most effective way to strengthen
the existing system of DPE and increase its acceptability to the
public. The benefits of improved parking enforcement resulting from
publication of the Guidance and Regulations will more than outweigh
any additional up-front costs. The Government’s proposals should
make enforcement easier and we expect that, overall, this would
reduce the costs of enforcement.
11. Declaration and Publication
56. I have read the Public Sector Regulatory Impact Assessment
in the context of the Regulatory Impact Assessment associated with
the Traffic Management Act and am satisfied that the benefits justify
the costs.
Rosie Winterton
Minister of State for Transport, Department for Transport
|
 |
|
