Agenda Item No. 7(a)
LOCAL AUTHORITY PARKING ENFORCEMENT (LAPE) ACCOUNT 2007/08
To:
Cambridge Environment and Transport Area Joint Committee
Date:
14th July 2008
County/District
All
Electoral
Divisions/Wards:
Purpose:
To consider:
i.
The financial position of the LAPE account at 31st
March 2008;
ii.
The forecast financial position for 2008-09; and
iii.
The performance of LAPE over the 12 months to 31st
March 2008.
Recommendation:
The Area Joint Committee is recommended to
a) note the position of the LAPE account and the
performance of LAPE.
b) Accept the recommendations in Section 8 to revise the
charges for suspensions of parking bays in order to
better reflect the costs of administration .
Officer contact:
Name: Paul
Necus
Post: Head of Parking Services
Email:
[email address]
Tel: 01223
458510
1. BACKGROUND
Authority and Funding of Local Authority Parking Enforcement
1.1
The City Council carries out Local Authority Parking Enforcement (LAPE) under a
parking agreement with the County Council. Under LAPE, the County Council
retains the funds received from penalties to fund enforcement activities. LAPE is
intended to generate sufficient income from penalty and other charges to cover the
costs of enforcing and administering the scheme. Any surpluses arising from LAPE
are ring fenced for expenditure on transport-related projects. The financial position
of LAPE is reported annually to the Area Joint Committee (AJC).
Objectives
1.2
The key objective of LAPE is to ‘keep Cambridge moving’ through improving:
•
Protection and enforcement of loading restrictions, bus stops, cycle lanes and
traffic routes
•
Enforcement of designated parking spaces, including disabled bays, taxi bays,
and resident parking spaces
•
Compliance with existing parking regulations
•
Utilisation of parking spaces
•
Emergency vehicle access
•
Links to integrated transport strategies and policies.
Revenue
1.3
Revenue into the LAPE account comes from:
•
Income from penalty charge notices (PCNs), suspensions and dispensations
•
Contributions made towards LAPE operating costs from funds previously
allocated to the City Centre Access Team
•
Savings from previous traffic wardens costs.
Expenditure
1.4
Expenditure falls into the main headings of:
•
Costs of Notice Processing and the administration of representations and
appeals against PCNs
•
Contract management and monitoring
•
Enforcement costs
Funding principles
1.5
The principles for funding implementation of LAPE and the sharing of costs and
income formed part of the Agency Agreement up to 31 March 2008 and are as
follows:
•
LAPE account: a LAPE account was set up to pay for the costs in the early
stages of enforcement and ticket processing until income was received from
enforcement activity. Any deficit on the LAPE account would be met from
2
annual contributions from both the County and the City on a pre-determined
basis.
•
Annual contributions: each year to account for an accumulated deficit on the
LAPE account the County Council would contribute £44,300 (3% of on-street
income in 2003/04 or the amount of deficit balance should that be less than the
£44,300) with the City Council paying the balance up to a ceiling of £100,000 per
annum. The County Council would be required to cover any remaining deficit in
full.
•
Proposed share of surpluses: when the LAPE account’s initial accumulated
costs have been repaid, then subsequent surpluses would be shared equally
between the County and the City Councils.
Change to Funding Basis from 1 April 2008.
1.6
Under the Parking Services Agreement between the County and City Councils, the
County Council has contributed around £400,000 per annum (index linked) to the
LAPE account, since its inception in October 2004. For the financial year 2008/09
arrangements between the two authorities for funding the LAPE account and for
dealing with surpluses and deficits have now been renegotiated and are as follows:
•
Annual contributions: The City Council accepts the reduction in the original
Police/Traffic Warden subsidy from £250K to £110K for the financial year
2008/09 (subject to RPI increases).
•
In the event of a deficit on the LAPE account at 31 March 2009, the County
Council becomes liable for the first £100,000 of any deficit in 2008/09, with the
City Council being liable for the next 50,000 of any deficit, and the County
Council underwriting any further deficit over £150,000.
•
Proposed share of surpluses: In the event that there is a surplus in 2008/09,
surpluses would be shared equally between the County and the City Councils.
These arrangements are subject to further review before the end of 2008, in the
light of:
a) the financial performance of the service; and
b) b) further progress on county-wide LAPE.
2. FINANCIAL
POSITION
2.1.
Appendix A shows the financial position of the LAPE account at the end of 2007-08
and the forecast position for 2008-09. The outturn for 2008/2009 forecasts a deficit
of £70,242.
2.2
The forecast for this year (2008-09) is presented in a summarised format, for ease of
analysis. Enforcement will remain highly visible in Cambridge, continuing to tackle
illegal and inconsiderate parking in the city. However, parking enforcement is far
from an exact science. In the months since the original forecast for 2008-09, the
overall level of activity has fallen in Cambridge. Current indications are that Penalty
Charge Notice (PCN) income will approach £1.1m in 2008-09 with approximately
3
40,000 PCNs issued to vehicles contravening parking regulations in Cambridge. On
current performance, this revenue will be insufficient to cover the costs of operation.
3. PERFORMANCE
INFORMATION
3.1.
In March 2007, Cambridge LAPE was commended at the British Parking Awards in
the category of ‘Effective On-Street Management’.
Appendix B sets out the key
activities and performance indicators for the LAPE operations.
3.2
The original financial model for LAPE forecast a slow build-up of enforcement
activity. It estimated that in the first full year of operation approximately 29,000 PCNs
would be issued. Conservative assumptions were made that 70% of PCNs would be
fully paid and that of those payments 75% would be at the discounted rate of £30
with a further 25% at the full charge of £60 and 5% at £90, on receipt of a Charge
Certificate. The model forecast that the advent of LAPE would to lead to an average
increase of 3% in street parking revenue, to support the LAPE account in the early
stages. In last year’s report, the level of payment compliance and early recovery of
payments again exceeded all the model assumptions.
3.3
In all cases the model’s assumptions continue to be exceeded and the impact of
enforcement activity has been higher than the model forecast. Early suggestions are
that motorist compliance is being improved through parking enforcement. In the
period to 31 March 2008, 42,495 PCNs were issued, 6 per cent fewer than in 2006-
07 (see
Table 1). Three-quarters of all PCNs are being paid in full and more people
than forecast are paying early at the discounted rate of £30 (
Table 1).
3.3
It is encouraging to see an increase in the number of customers who took advantage
of new facilities to enable early enquiries about the PCN.
Table 2 shows that more
customers are taking advantage of automated payment systems. The facility for
customers to have access online to view supporting photographs was introduced
during 2006-07 along with the facility to enquire and challenge a PCN, and
Table 2 demonstrates the value to customers of these ‘self-service’ facilities.
3.4
Figure 1 shows the sources of requests and enquiries for parking enforcement in
Cambridge, which while broadly similar in composition, is at a lower level than in
2005-06. This suggests that the service is addressing the major public perceptions
of where enforcement is most required, and that there may be an increasing level of
compliance with enforcement itself.
3.5
In relation to back-office activities, improved public access to evidence and,
particularly, greater access to the digital photographs taken when PCN are issued
has led to a reduction in the share of tickets issued that are cancelled (
Table 3).
3.6
While the service has matured in terms of the processes it has at its disposal to
ensure compliance, for example by pursuing unpaid PCNs through to debt recovery,
using bailiff services, the numbers of untraceable and unregistered vehicles has
nevertheless grown (
Table 3). There has been an increase in the numbers of
‘persistent evaders’ of penalty charge notices (See Agenda Item No. 7(d)).
3.7
Table 4 highlights the city’s ‘hotspots’ in terms of the different kinds of parking
contraventions and how this picture has changes in the past twelve months. The
figures show increased compliance in much of the city centre but that some of the
contraventions are being displaced into the surrounding areas.
4
3.8
As in 2005-06, the number of appeals being lodged with the National Parking
Adjudication Service (NPAS) remains at a very low level both as a proportion of the
total number of PCNs issued and as a share of all types of challenges (
Table 5).
Table 6 demonstrates how few appeals are received in Cambridge, compared with
many other authorities operating decriminalised parking enforcement.
4.
SERVICE DEVELOPMENTS AND THE USE OF SURPLUSES IN 2007-08
4.1
Table 7 shows those transport-related projects that the City Council has funded
during 2007-08 using its share of LAPE surpluses over the past year and those
schemes that remaining surpluses are committed for in 2007-08. Lead members
agreed to consider future bids to spend LAPE surpluses on the basis of their
respective business merits.
5. INTRODUCTION
OF
REMOVALS OF PERSISTENT EVADERS
5.1
The problem of persistent evaders is to be addressed by introduction of
arrangements to remove vehicles that have 5 or more outstanding Penalty Charge
Notices. The implementation of this process has been delayed to ensure compliance
with the requirements of the Traffic Management Act 2004 and the extensive work
required to bring this into operational. It is hoped to introduce vehicle removals by
August 2008.
6.
PROVISION OF PERMITS FOR BLUE BADGE HOLDERS AT CITY COUNCIL
CAR PARKS
6.1
The City Council has introduced a trial scheme to issue permits to Blue Badge
Holders to improve access and increase the automation of the use of multi-storey car
parks. City Officers have been working with County Council colleagues to enable
eligible individuals to register with the scheme. This is a development that has
produced promising results and will be monitored further.
7. FUTURE
DEVELOPMENTS
Implications of the Traffic Management Act (TMA)
7.1
Last year, the Department for Transport (DfT) undertook consultation on draft
regulations and statutory guidance for Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act, which
relates to the civil enforcement of parking, bus lanes and moving traffic offences. It
has now published the consultation documentation for implementing the parking
provisions of the TMA for when the regulations become operational under the
umbrella of Civil Parking Enforcement (CPE) on 31st March 2008. The key regulatory
changes required by the new legislation include:
•
New arrangements for differential charges for ‘minor’ and ‘more serious’
parking contraventions.
•
Powers to serve PCNs by post in particular circumstances.
•
Additional powers for Parking Adjudicators to refer back appeals for
reconsideration by the local authority in cases where there are mitigating
circumstances
5
•
New powers for authorities outside London including enforcement of dropped
footways and double parking.
7.2
New guidance has been published by the Department of Transport relating to:
• How new CPE schemes may be funded
• How parking policies are made public
• Strengthening staff training
• Making operational performance more transparent.
For further details on these issues see:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/tmaportal/
8.
REVISED ADMINISTRATION CHARGES FOR SUSPENDED PARKING
8.1
The cost of suspensions was set in 2005/6 at £15 administration plus £1 per
vehicle. However this charge no longer reflects the genuine cost of this service.
Taking into account the time taken to place & remove signage, leafleting
neighbouring properties and administering the process, monitoring and enforcing the
suspension and taking payment, it is recommended that a charge of £35 would now
be more appropriate to cover the costs of these arrangements.
8.2
In the case of suspensions of Pay & Display bays, which do not require such
extensive leafleting but do generally receive more scrutiny in the way of regular
enforcement, a fee of £35 would also be appropriate.
9.
COUNTY WIDE PROGRESS WITH CIVIL PARKING ENFORCEMENT
9.1
The County Council is engaging with the rural District Councils to assess support for
extending civil parking enforcement across the reminder of the County and the
options available to take forward any extension. Any decision on this is unlikely
before the end of the year, at the earliest. Any implications for the current Parking
Services agreement between the City and County Councils will be explored through
Lead Member engagement, initially. The AJC will be kept updated on progress.
10.
FORMAT OF FUTURE REPORTS
10.1 The introduction of the Traffic Management Act (TMA 2004) identified key
information that should be available to the public. All of the items requested have
been included in this report, the vast majority of which we had included in previous
reports. The most significant change for future reports will be the inclusion of details
of Higher and Lower level PCNs, which were introduced on 31st March 2008.
_________________________________________________________________
6
Source Documents
Documents
Location
Cambridge Environment and Transport Area
http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk
Joint Committee Agenda and Minutes
07/04/05
City Council Agenda and Minutes 12/02/04
http://www.cambridge.gov.uk
Department for Transport –TMA 2004 Parking
http://www.dft.gov.uk
Policy and Enforcement Operational
Guidance to Local Authorities draft for
Consultation (8 August 2007).
7
APPENDIX A
FINANCIAL POSITION OF LAPE ACCOUNT (2007-08)
Note that accountancy convention shows income/surplus shown as –ve and expenditure/deficit
shown as +ve
LAPE RETURN with Forecast comparison
For the Period 1 April 2007 to 31 March 2008
LAPE SUMMARY
30th
30th
31st
Original
June
Sept
31st Dec March
Forecast Forecast
2007
2007
2007
2008
2007-08 2008-09
Income (Cumulative)
-383,903
-793,821 -1,207,404 -1,611,342
-1,473,610 -1,376,058
Expenditure (Cumulative)
329,994
656,873
982,874
1,322,693
1,473,260
1,446,300
Operating (Surplus)/Deficit
-53,909
-136,948
-224,530
-288,649
-350
70,242
LAPE ACCOUNT
Operating (Surplus)/Deficit for the year to date
-53,909
-136,948
-224,530
288,649
-350
70,242
Due to/(from) County
26,955
68,474
112,265
-144,325
175
70,242
Due to/(from) City
26,955
68,474
112,265
-144,325
175
0
Expenditure
Employee Costs
95,231
189,128
282,932
376,702
407,660
421,300
Premises Costs (Rent)
0
0
4
4
900
0
Transport/Plant Costs
898
1,283
2,412
2,821
300
1,800
Supplies & Services Costs
182,636
363,669
542,617
736,357
855,800
805,600
Recharges
51,229
102,793
154,909
206,809
208,600
217,600
TOTAL EXPENDITURE
329,994
656,873
982,874
1,322,693
1,473,260
1,446,300
Income
Dispensations
-390
-830
-2,440
-2,940
0
0
Suspension - Residents Parking
-495
-1,305
-2,040
-2,475
-2,500
-2,500
Suspension - Meter Bays
-105
-270
-315
-400
-700
-500
Medical Permits
0
0
-2,387
-2,580
0
0
Penalty Charge Notices
-278,638
-582,866
-886,039 -1,184,037
-1,051,500 -1,090,000
Parking Enforcement Income
-279,628
-585,271
-893,221 -1,192,432
-1,054,700 -1,093,000
City Access Team contribution (inc 2.5% RPI)
-41,025
-82,050
-124,433
-165,910
-165,910
-170,058
Constabulary staff contribution (new agreement)
-63,250
-126,500
-189,750
-253,000
-253,000
-113,000
Income from County Council
-104,275
-208,550
-314,183
-418,910
-418,910
-283,058
9
TOTAL INCOME
-383,903
-793,821 -1,207,404 -1,611,342
-1,473,610 -1,376,058
APPENDIX B
KEY ACTIVITIES REPORT
Table 1 – Overview
2006/7 2007/8
Number of Penalty Charge Notices issued
43,579
42,495
Number of 8hr Patrols undertaken
4,186
4,319
Number of enforcement requests received
338
147
Number of Notice to Owners issued
11,636
10,572
% of PCNs paid within 6 months at year end
73%
73%
% of PCNs paid within 12 months at year end
74%
75%
Percentage of payments made at the reduced rate
82%
82%
Percentage of payments made at the full rate
14%
15%
Percentage of payments made after a Charge Certificate is issued
4%
3%
* Percentage of PCNs where informal representations are made
23%
17%
Percentage of PCNs where Formal Representations are made
6%
4%
Percentage of PCNs taken to Court Order
7%
4%
Table 2 - Method of Payment of PCNs
2006/7 2007/8
Telephone payment taken by Customer Services/Cashiers
15%
7%
Internet
18%
29%
Touchtone (Automated telephone payment)
23%
23%
Cheque/Cash/ Postal Order
44%
41%
Who makes enforcement requests
Local businesses
Police
5%
Other
3%
3%
Councillors
4%
Council Staff
16%
General Public
69%
10
Table 3 - Back Office
Cancellations
2006/7 2007/8
* Percentage of PCNs cancelled at any stage (PCNs cancelled after any type
8% 10%
of representation is received etc)
Percentage of PCNs cancelled before write off (e.g. unable to trace owner,
12% 7%
bailiff unable to collect debt, DVLA have no record of owner etc)
Percentage of PCNs that the Council cancelled because it agreed the
appellant wasn’t liable, or decided it couldn't discharge the burden of proving
liability. (PCNs cancelled because additional evidence was received proving
2% 2%
that an exempt activity was taking place, the driver was given the benefit of
any doubt, a problem with lines or signs etc)
* Percentage of PCNs cancelled as a result of the Council exercising
5% 7%
discretion (mitigating circumstances etc)
Percentage of PCNs cancelled because they were issued in error (I.e. the
0.70% 0.49%
Parking Attendant made a mistake)
Percentage of PCNs that go to appeal (representations made after NTO is
0.14% 0.08%
issued that are rejected and the driver/keeper appeals to NPAS)
Percentage of PCNs where an appeal is allowed (I.e. NPAS decide in favour
0.08% 0.05%
of the driver/keeper)
Percentage of PCNs where an appeal is dismissed (I.e. NPAS decide in
0.06% 0.03%
favour of the Council)
Representations viewed as a whole
Percentage of representations that the Council allowed because it agreed the
appellant wasn’t liable or decided it couldn't discharge the burden of proving
liability. (PCNs cancelled because additional evidence was received proving
that an exempt activity was taking place, the driver was given the benefit of
any doubt, a problem with lines or signs etc)
6% 8%
Percentage of representations which were allowed as a result of the Council
18% 34%
exercising discretion (mitigating circumstances etc)
Percentage of representations allowed because they were issued in error (I.e.
2% 2%
the Parking Attendant made a mistake)
* Percentage of all representations resulting in a PCN being cancelled
27%
44%
Percentage of formal representations that go to appeal (representations
made after NTO is issued that are rejected and the driver/keeper appeals to
2.37% 1.79%
NPAS)
11
Table 4 - Top Twenty Parking
Hotspots
s
ay
e.g
y,
se
d
c
e
ay
cle
without a
without a
p
pir
y et
ecrea
a
dge
on displ
vehi
i rank
ployed hour
ace
bay
ex
coach ba
le b
c
2006/7
2007/8
ase/d
permit
ed
y
Other
time
r
c
Yellow lines
blue ba
D
In a bus sto
o
In a tax
P+
In a loading b
mot
%Incre
No P+D ticket
parked in a
% of total de
In a permit sp
In a disabl
Wrong class of
1,488 St Andrew's Street
1,916 29% 2.5% 19%
46%
13% 2%
18% 3%
1,578 Jesus Lane
1,586 1% 2.5% 4% 16% 19% 20% 22%
0%
0%
1,308 Trumpington Street
1,515 16% 1.7% 43%
1% 24% 21%
10%
3%
977 King Street
1,258 29% 1.6% 16% 8%
37% 35%
3%
3%
0%
809 Park Terrace
1,244 54% 1.5% 5% 5%
27% 45%
17%
0%
1,074 Chesterton Road
1,167 9% 1.6%
10% 10%
33% 17%
2% 28%
0%
1,054 Queen's Road
995 -6%
2.0%
14%
23% 30%
32%
2%
822 King's Parade
867 5%
1.2%
28% 30% 24%
16%
5% 0%
432 Pound Hill
768 78%
1.1%
34% 10%
24% 32%
1%
625 Regent Terrace
735 18%
0.7%
37% 63%
1%
491 Hobson Street
732 49%
1.3%
12%
33%
55% 2%
1%
899 Parkside
646 -28%
1.4% 3% 64%
11% 20%
1%
1% 0%
583 Harvey Road
640 10%
0.8% 2% 53%
23% 24%
0%
638 Peas Hill
624 -2%
1.2%
62%
21%
19%
0%
625 Regent Street
622 0%
0.7%
81%
1% 3% 5% 9% 2% 3% 1% 0%
607 Tenison Road
614 1%
3.2%
19% 32%
36% 14%
0%
561 Mill Road
519 -7%
1.1%
89%
2% 4% 2%
7%
2%
634 Norfolk Street
511 -19%
0.9% 5% 45%
26% 24%
0%
341 Brookside
508 49%
0.5%
21% 16%
24% 40%
0%
400 Devonshire Road
477 19%
0.9%
18% 37%
35% 12%
0%
43,579 Total for Cambridge
42,495
-2%
30% 23% 5% 14% 13%
3%
1%
3%
1% 8%
0.0%
: - That restriction or prohibition is not present in the street.
13
Table 5 - Appeals Analysis
Reasons given by Appellants
2006/7 2007/8
The Alleged Parking Contravention did not occur
53%
80%
When the vehicle was parked it had been taken without my
2%
0%
consent
I was not the owner at the time the alleged parking contravention
2%
0%
occurred
We are a vehicle hire firm and have supplied the name and
0%
0%
address of the hirer
The Penalty Charge exceeded the relevant amount
9%
3%
The Traffic Regulation Order was invalid
22%
8%
Other mitigating Circumstances
12%
9%
Table 6 – Appeals Rate Comparisons (6 Councils closest for PCNs issued)
PCNs issued
% rate of appeal per PCN
Authority
2005 2006 2005 2006
All Areas
3,402,860
3,568,791
0.28%
0.28%
Oxford 50,517
59,854
0.17%
0.12%
Plymouth 52,155
46,943
0.68%
0.43%
Sefton 45,108
46,546
0.12%
0.12%
Cambridge 42,463
46,223
0.03%
0.13%
Sandwell 42,043
44,165
0.30%
0.42%
Luton 40,377
43,812
0.44%
0.22%
Bolton 44,342
43,345
0.50%
0.31%
Source : 2006 NPAS Annual Report ( as this was the last annual report produced
by NPAS), figures reported are calendar not financial year
Comparisons will be easier to make in future years as more authorities publish their
annual reports in line with NPAS and Department for Transport recommendations.
Table 7 Cambridge City Council use of LAPE surpluses in 2007-08, and
commitments for 2008-09
Schemes 2007/8
2008/9
1
Contribution to the additional costs of the 2006-07 Concessionary Fare
Scheme
2
Provision of Sunday Park and Ride services
3
Purchase of emergency rescue vehicle for Grand Arcade car park
£13,000
4
Purchase of surface cleaning machine for Grand Arcade car park
£28,000
5
Provision of green parking bays and charging units
£5,000
6
Dial-a-ride bus
£17,000
7
Feasibility study on scheme to encourage use of low emission vehicles
£2,500
8
Start up costs for Car Club
£6,000
9
Real Time Enforcement
£80,000
10 Electric vehicle charging
£12,000
11 Free car park signage/lines
£3,000
12 Traffic Management Act implementation
£10,000
13 Consultancy for review of shopmobility
£7,500
Totals £71,500
£112,500
Document Outline
