Parking Regulations Blue Badge Scheme CPZ - Controlled Parking Zones Road signs & Markings Parking Information Appeals
Parking RegulationsParking Regulations Parlimentary Parking Regulations Nuisance Parking Parking rules - fact or fiction?
DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ACT 2004
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO THE BETTER PARKING – KEEPING TRAFFIC MOVING PUBLIC CONSULTATION
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.
At present, all London authorities and 1771 local authorities in England outside London operate Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE). Under DPE, parking regulations are enforced by parking attendants employed, directly or indirectly, by local 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.
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 and have taken additional enforcement powers and altered certain aspects of the enforcement process3. To support local authorities in their exercise of DPE powers, non-Statutory Guidance was issued by the Department for Transport/Welsh Office4.
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 egulations, 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 this consultation document.
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, ecriminalised Parking Enforcement will become known as Civil Parking Enforcement. In recognition of their wider remit parking attendants will become known as Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs).
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.
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 publish Statutory Guidance for Wales. The Government will also publish non-statutory Operational Guidance for England and Wales. This will supersede the Local Authority Circular 1/95.
The Mayor of London should consider revising his Transport Strategy to make the parking aspects in it consistent with the new Regulations and Guidance The Department issued a consultation document on 12th July 2006 that set out the Government’s position on CPE and sought to establish views on 20 specific questions set out in the consultation document. This was sent to all Local Authorities in England, 85 other organizations (including the key takeholders and members of the working group), and 8 people 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 Responses were in some cases very detailed and this report provides a summary of those views.
The key issues are set out below.
A brief numerical summary is provided below. The questions asked in the consultation are set out in full in the first table. The numbers in bold indicate the answer with the largest response. The second table shows the percentage of responses to each questions that come from local authorities, the public and other organisations.
The table below shows the percentage of responses to each question that come from local authorities, the public and other organisations.
More detailed responses on the consultation are set out below, along with the policy decisions taken by Government.
Regulatory Impact Assessment
Question 1: Does the Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment represent a fair analysis of the policy?
There was widespread support for the Partial RIA. Some comments of detail regarding potential additional costs are included in the final RIA. Question 2: What further evidence might be added to the assessment of costs and benefits in the RIA? Please supply substantive evidence to support your argument.
There were considered to be some additional costs for authorities changing from DPE to CPE (including software and training costs), however these funds would be recouped through the more accurate issuing of PCNs that the Regulations and Guidance intend to bring about. There were deemed to be little extra costs for authorities yet to apply for DPE.
ii) Information about Parking
Question 3: To what extent and how should authorities publish information about parking provision and/or parking restrictions in their area?
Question 4: What additional information would be most useful to road users and how should it be presented? The response to this section was encouraging and suggested numerous methods that local authorities (LAs) should use to communicate effectively with the public about their parking policies and their enforcement. This material is being fed into the communications working group chaired by DfT which will be producing a toolkit for authorities to use in line with the timetable for the Regulations and Statutory Guidance coming into force.
iii) Accountability within local authorities
Question 5: Should the Government encourage local authorities to set up a unit independent of the parking department to handle cases where the road users had a grievance but it falls outside the remit of the adjudicator and the Ombudsman?
There was clear agreement that this would be likely to result in more complex processes for authorities. Furthermore most local authorities commented that they already have a complaints procedure that deal with all aspects of local authority work and that particular complaints about parking are also covered by this.
Government has decided that we do not tell local authorities to create a new parking grievance/complaints unit.
iv) Role of the police
Question 6: Should the Regulations to implement the TMA give the police the power to enforce parking if they should wish to do so?
At present all parking contraventions under Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE) are the responsibility of the local authority. Under Part 6 of the TMA, regulations could be drawn up so that the police would have the power to enforce parking contraventions should they so wish, as well as the local authority. The responses to the consultation indicate that three quarters of respondents do not want the powers returned to the police, and this view was supported by responses received separately from the representatives of the police. There are practical concerns which could also occur here, particularly due to cost differences between a PCN and an FPN (the latter are lower).
Government has decided that in areas where parking enforcement has been decriminalised, the Regulations will not give back to the police power to enforce as well.
v) Procedures on the Street
Question 7: Would differential penalty charges based on the severity of the contravention help improve public acceptance of and compliance with parking regulations?
Question 8: Or would it be confusing to have two different levels of penalty charge in the same area?
The principle of differential charging is that there would be a different level of penalty charge depending on the contravention (e.g. £X for overstaying where parking is permitted but £1½ X for parking where it is never permitted).
The results (particularly in terms of non-LA respondents) indicate that there was support for differential charges being introduced. The statistics reveal that 70% of non-LA respondents believe that there will not be confusion. Therefore any fears of public disquiet over confusing variations in charges are unfounded.
In addition London (where around 70% of all English PCNs are issued) have recently completed their more detailed consultation on this issue. Their results show stronger support for differential charges, both from LAs and non-LAs and differential charging will be introduced in London from July 1st 2007. It would therefore be in the interests of consistency that this system applied throughout the country.
This policy would be both fair to the motorist and demonstrate that we are tough on the traffic management side of parking enforcement. It would also show that parking enforcement is not about revenue raising, but about keeping traffic moving.
Government has decided that we introduce differential penalty charging in the Regulations
Question 9: Should civil enforcement officers have the discretion to decide when to issue a PCN, using the authority’s published policy?
The consultation responses indicated that 60% of respondents did not wish to see CEOs have discretion to decide whether or not to issue a PCN. However only 35% of non-LA respondents were against CEOs having this discretion.
The Statutory Guidance will make clear that the Government believes that, generally, the place for discretion to be exercised is the back-office. Where there is scope for CEOs to exercise discretion they should have clear guidance - which is published - about the circumstances in which they may use their discretion. For instance, it may be more appropriate for a CEO to suggest to a returning motorist that s/he moves the vehicle out of contravention than to issue a PCN. The use of general discretion could make CEOs vulnerable to physical threats and accusations of corruption. It could also have the potential to undermine rather than support the Government’s objective of making the parking system fairer.
The Statutory Guidance will ask local authorities to publish those situations where a CEO may not wish to issue a PCN (e.g. where a large delivery vehicle will certainly need more than 20 minutes to load and unload, or where a motorist returns to their vehicle) and that the CEO should have regard to this. This would allow LAs to enforce their traffic management priorities, whilst balancing them with proportionality and fairness to the motorist.
Government has decided that Statutory Guidance will ask local authorities to produce well publicized discretionary policies, for onstreet enforcement officers, as to situations where they may not wish to issue a PCN. However discretion should rest in the back office to prevent potential abuse of CEOs.
Question 10: Should the Government suggest time limits for dealing with informal and formal representations?
The TMA contains powers to place time limits on actions of local authorities in Regulations and Statutory Guidance. Currently there are various time limits that drivers have to meet but few for LAs.
Nearly 90% of the public and other respondents to the consultation said that the Government should take this opportunity to introduce time limits for authorities in the Statutory Guidance. Although there are different pressures on smaller, less well resourced authorities and large well resourced authorities there is still widespread support, even at LA level for Government guidance in this area.
Government has decided that the Statutory Guidance suggests time limits for dealing with informal and formal representations.
Question 11: If so are the following fair and achievable:
• 14 day national standard for dealing with informal challenges?
• 90% of formal representations decided within 21 days?
There is widespread support for informal representations being dealt with within 14 days. There were some concerns that authorities will not have time to deal with these informal representations fully and fairly within this period and may reject them rather than giving them proper consideration. The majority of authorities however supported the proposals.
Government has decided to place this provision in the Statutory Guidance.
90% of formal representations being decided within 21 days was considered to be both fair and achievable by both local authorities and others.
Government has decided to place this provision in the Statutory Guidance.
Question 12: Or should it be left to the individual local authority to set its own criteria?
Some local authorities responded by saying that they already have ambitious time targets and can continue to set themselves appropriate deadlines. However the response to questions 10 and 11 indicates that there is little confidence outside of local authority circles and even some LAs themselves ask for Government to set appropriate criteria. Centrally set criteria are preferable to gain national consistency and build public trust.
Government has decided to set out a consistent criteria in the Statutory Guidance.
Question 13: Should the Statutory Guidance recommend that a postal PCN is sent within 14 days of the contravention?
LAs and the public on the whole agree with this principle, with the exception of some smaller local authorities who may be put under some resource strain. Over 80% of non local authorities supported this proposal, suggesting that it would increase public confidence in the CPE system.
Government has decided that this provision is placed in the Statutory Guidance.
Question 14: Should the 50% discount be available for 21 days for situations where the PCN was issued by post?
The rationale behind this proposal was that if a PCN is dispatched by post the motorist would have it for fewer days during which it can be paid at a discount than if it had been left on the vehicle or given to the person who appeared to be in charge of the vehicle at the time of contravention. The lower discount period will only apply to PCNs issued by post on the basis of evidence from a certified device. It will not apply when the CEO has been prevented from serving the PCN at the time of contravention because of violence or the person driving away.
This provision received support from local authorities, but only by a small margin because they were concerned that the two different discount systems could lead to confusion. There was strong public support and positive overall support.
Government has decided that we place this provision in the Regulations
Question 15: Should local authorities have to re-offer a discount period after rejecting an informal challenge?
Question 16: Or should it be at the discretion of the local authority to do this?
Some local authorities already re-offer a 50% discount period after the rejection of an informal representation. Recommending this in the Statutory Guidance would give a consistent and harmonised opportunity for those issued with a PCN to challenge its validity without the fear of losing the discount.
Government has decided that the Statutory Guidance recommends that where an informal representation made within 14 days of PCN issue is rejected, the 50% discount period should be re-offered for a further 14 days to encourage prompt payment.
Question 17: How long should the period following the issue of a PCN be before a vehicle should be removed or clamped?
This question refers specifically to vehicles in a parking place. Currently 15 minutes must elapse between PCN issue and clamping. There is a general consensus that 30 minutes would be an appropriate time rather than the 60 minutes proposed in the consultation document. The reason is that the time to clamp follows the issue of a PCN rather than when a contravention actually occurred. A contravention could have commenced an hour before a PCN was issued and it would still be another hour before the vehicle could be clamped. This could be seen as weak on parking enforcement. 30 minutes is seen as fair.
Government has decided that a vehicle in a parking place should not be clamped or removed within 30 minutes of a PCN being issued.
Question 18: Do you agree with the proposed definition of a persistent evader as an individual with 3 or more outstanding and uncontested PCNs?
Local authorities and non-local authority respondents agreed that persistent evaders are a problem and that they should be subject to strong enforcement methods. The consultation analysis indicated that 3 or more PCNs is the appropriate level.
Government has decided that a persistent evader be defined as having three or more outstanding and unchallenged PCNs.
Question 19: Would it be acceptable for the London Councils (formerly the ALG) to expand their persistent evader database for use across England?
There was support for the London Councils extending their database nationwide; however there were a number of important concerns. Firstly the problem of persistent evaders is one that is particularly focussed on heavily urbanised areas (notably London). Many small local authorities were not interested in contributing to a national database. There were suggestions though of opt-in regional databases that would allow local authorities who wished to be involved to take part.
Government will ask the London Councils to make their database available for any local authority that wishes to use it. .
Question 20. If not, what other options might be suitable? There were some suggestions that DVLA should run the persistent evader database. However this is not part of DVLA’s remit.
Consultees were invited to offer their views on all aspects of the draft Regulations and Guidance. A number of minor changes have been made as a result of this and of further policy consideration. 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. Government 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 Government will consider whether to implement the provisions in the rest of the country with new primary legislation.
Annex A: Invitees to Stakeholder Workshop
British Motorcyclists’ Federation
British Parking Association
Country Surveyors Society
Cyclists’ Touring Club
Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee
Freight Transport Association
Government Office for London
Government Office for Yorkshire and Humberside
Local Government Association
London Technical Advisors Group
National Parking Adjudication Service
Parking and Traffic Appeals Service
Road Haulage Association
Transport for London
Annex B: Members of Working Group
British Parking Association
Department for Constitutional Affairs
Essex County Council
Government Office for London
Local Government Association
National Parking Adjudication Service
North Yorkshire Police
Parking and Traffic Appeals Service
Transport for London
Welsh Assembly Government
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.
2.1 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.
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.
8.1 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
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