|
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
|
