1. Introduction

2. Progress

Pay by Phone

York became the first Council in England, and outside London, to introduce the ability to pay for parking by mobile phone in November 2005. This service covers off-street pay and display parking areas and is operated, on behalf of the Council, by a leading company in payment by phone technology; Verrus. The system allows customers to pay for their parking by means of a mobile phone thus eliminating the requirement to carry large amounts of change. A convenient feature of the system is that it allows parking time to be extended without the customer having to return to the car park. This enables motorists to continue to enjoy the attractions of York without having to worry about their pay and display tickets expiring.

Use of payment by phone has gradually increased and the total number of users at the end of March 2008 was 154,556. The number of users in 2007/08 alone was 94,087 an increase of 79% on the 2006/07 figure of 52,469. The average monthly usage in 2007/08 was 7,840 up from 4,372 in 2006/07.

Chart 1 - No of Users of Pay by Phone

In revenue terms, since the system was introduced £759,112 worth of parking has been paid for by mobile phone users. In 2007/08 the total payment was £446,272, which shows an increase of 65% on the 06/07 figure of £270,130.

The scheme has proved to be extremely popular with close to 8% of all parking payments now being received from Pay by Phone customers. This proportion is continuing to increase as more customers recognize the convenience that it offers. In time this will reduce the need for cash collections from the pay and display machines and produce benefits in terms of reduced security and maintenance costs. The system has already had significant benefits for regular users by enabling them to purchase weekly and 24 hour parking at considerable discounts, with a 50% further reduction on weekly tickets for those residents with low emission vehicles.

There was a special promotion of the scheme on 21^st and 22^nd of November 2007. All parking that was paid for through a mobile phone was charged at 50 pence an hour and additional parking staff were on hand in the car parks to promote the service and offer advice on making payment by phone. The promotion was extremely successful with over one thousand users during the two day period which was double the usual number of users. Also over 500 of those users were new users compared with the average number of new users of 50 per day.

Hot Line

The Council's Parking Services Team operate a free hot line service for residents who wish to report illegal parking. Parking Services set up the parking hot line to enable the Parking Attendants to respond as soon as possible to any reported parking offences and so that enforcement could be targeted to locations where restrictions were being ignored. York is one of the few authorities in the country to offer such a service for their residents.

The hot line number is 0800-1381119. When someone calls the number they hear a recorded message explaining that they will be passed to an operator who will take the details of the illegal parking and pass it to the Parking Team. The message is then sent by text message to the mobile phones of the Team Leaders (the supervisors of the Parking Attendants) and to the Council's CCTV Control Room at Fulford Road Police Station. The Team Leaders then contact a Mobile Parking Attendant by means of the Parking Section's radio control system and detail a Parking Attendant to go to the location concerned. Several Parking Attendants are now qualified to ride the three motor scooters that the team has and this has considerably improved the response times to calls.

The service is particularly effective for those who live in resident parking areas and are concerned about the parking of vehicles that do not display valid resident permits, but it can also be used to report any parking infringements, such as parking on a yellow line or in a marked disabled bay. The target for dealing with calls to the hot line is 45 minutes, which includes reaching the location and, if necessary, issuing a PCN (penalty charge notice). The number of calls responded to in 2007/08 was 2,308 and the target was achieved in 78% of calls. Sometimes the vehicle may have left before a Parking Attendant can attend to the call, or the Parking Attendant might find that the vehicle is actually not committing a parking contravention, but 42% of calls did result in the issue of a PCN.

Safer Parking Scheme

The Safer Parking Scheme is an initiative of the Association of Chief Police Officers aimed at reducing crime in parking facilities.

Safer parking status; Park Mark, is awarded to parking facilities that have met the requirements of a risk assessment conducted by specially trained Police staff. These requirements mean the parking operator has put in place measures that help to deter criminal activity and anti-social behaviour, thereby doing everything they can to prevent crime and reduce the fear of crime in their parking facility.

For customers, using a Park Mark Safer Parking facility means that the area has been vetted by the Police and has measures in place to create a safe environment. The scheme is managed by the British Parking Association (BPA) and supported by the Home Office.

Further progress in achieving the award for all the Council's car parks was made during 2007/08 and the Council now has 16 car parks that have achieved the Park Mark status, which represents 80% of all the car parks.

Operational Transparency

In 2007 operational protocols were established and formalised with the aim of improving consistency of both the enforcement team, when deciding whether to issue a PCN, and the office team when considering any representations arising from the issue of a PCN. This has resulted in a greater understanding amongst the team of what their roles and requirements are, and, as a consequence, fewer PCN's being issued for what the public could conceive of as trivial contraventions, (for example; vehicles that are not parked completely within the bay markings in a car park), and more emphasis being placed on the enforcement of on-street restrictions with a resultant reduction in the level of enforcement in off-street car parks.

This is in line with government policy as can be demonstrated by the introduction in 2008/09 of differential parking penalties. This entails generally charging a higher rate for on-street contraventions and a reduced rate for off-street contraventions. The setting of operational protocols and guidance has also resulted in a high level of consistent treatment of representations by the parking office staff.

A culture of transparency, both within the parking team and in its dealings with the public, is actively encouraged. Efforts have been made to try to remove the public perception that parking enforcement is operated purely as a money making venture and to stress that the emphasis lies on traffic management and not with revenue collection.

This transparent approach can be seen by the increased information about parking enforcement policy and procedures that is evident on the Council website and in the literature that the parking team has produced. In particular, the publication of policies for enforcement and the processing procedures for PCN's. It was felt that there was a need to improve public awareness of what the Council policies on enforcement and cancellations are in order to remove any possible misconceptions.

As part of this transparent approach this report includes the Council's policy on cancellations, and at Appendix E the Council's observation times and grace periods for parking contraventions.

Training and Development

Emphasis has been placed on the training and development of the Parking Services staff during 2007/08, in the belief that this will improve their self-esteem and job satisfaction and, in turn, increase public confidence and respect. Considering the potential for conflict in the job, the investment in training and development has improved the knowledge and skills of the team. Whilst many motorists do feel that they have a legitimate reason for disputing a PCN, remarkably few of those reasons are due to an error on the part of the Parking Attendant (only 0.73% of all PCN's). Similarly whilst motorists may disagree with a decision to reject their representations, only five complaints were received from motorists concerning the way they have personally been dealt with by the parking office team. Considering that the team dealt with over seven thousand letters from people who disagreed with the issue of a PCN, this is an extremely low number of complaints (only 0.07% of all letters received).

Much of the training during 2007/08 concentrated on preparation for the changes to legislation and hence, procedures, for the implementation of Part 6 of the 2004 Traffic Management Act (TMA). Training courses for all parking staff, and staff of other sections that are closely linked with parking, were held in November, and several members of the team also attended seminars and conferences on the 2004 Act and its implications for parking enforcement.

In tandem with training for the TMA, training for the NVQ Level 2 in Parking Controls has continued during the year with the object of all Parking Attendants being NVQ qualified as soon as possible. Of the 24 staff, 16 had achieved the qualification by the end of 2007/08. The Parking Patrol Supervisor also gained the NVQ Level 3 in Parking Supervisory Duties.

Another objective is for all Parking Attendants to be First Aid Qualified as it is recognised that this can be a useful qualification for them to have in view of their front line ambassadorial role. Of the 24 Attendants, 20 are now first aid qualified. Their first aid knowledge has been of benefit on several occasions during 2007/08, including attending to a man who fell and injured his head in a car park, and assisting a woman who was found unconscious in the street prior to the arrival of an ambulance.

Other training that has been provided for the team during the year includes equalities training, leadership and supervisory training.

Every member of the Parking Services team had an annual performance and development review meeting during the year and training and development needs formed a crucial part of that review. 3. Performance Indicators

Parking Services performance is measured against several indicators. The indicators and the actual performance during 2007/08 are shown below. For comparison the figures for 2006/07 are also provided.

Table 1 - Performance Indicators

It can be seen from the above figures that more emphasis has been placed on patrolling in resident parking areas and in prohibited parking places. In both these areas the number of patrols has increased. This follows a policy decision to gradually transfer staff resources onto street enforcement and is in accordance with the key aims of parking enforcement of keeping the traffic moving, improving the flow of public transport and road safety. It is also in line with recent government guidance from the Department for Transport in the `Operational Guidance to Local Authorities: Parking Policy and Enforcement, Traffic Management Act 2004' which emphasises the traffic management purposes of civil parking enforcement, and the introduction, at the end of March 2008, of differential parking penalties. Differential parking penalties initiated higher level penalties for parking at locations where parking is prohibited and lower level penalties for overstaying where parking is permitted.

It is also pleasing to note that over 95% of correspondence was responded to within the Council target of ten working days.

4. Key Statistical Information

Off street Parking Capacities

Table 2 below gives the number of spaces by car parks operated by the council in 2006/07 and 2007/08.

Table 2 - Off Street Parking Capacities

On Street restrictions

Table 3 gives the total length, in metres, of controlled on street restrictions in 2006/07 and 2007/08.

Table 3- Total Lengths of Controlled On-Street Restrictions

Provision for Disabled Badge Holders

Disabled badge holders may park free of charge in all of the off-street car parks. There are disabled badge holder only bays in thirteen of the car parks.

Disabled badge holders may also park free of charge and for an unlimited time in on-street pay and display bays and in resident only parking bays. There are disabled badge holder only bays in Tower Street and in Library Square.

A City Centre Access Guide for the disabled is available to download from the Council website at; http://www.york.gov.uk/content/45053/64897/133965/city_centre_access.pdf

Parking Permits Sales

Table 4 gives the number and type of permits issued during the last 3 financial years.

Table 4 - Annual No of Permits Issued by Type

Penalty Charge Notices (PCN's)

There is a fine balance between the level of enforcement that is affordable in terms of operational costs and the need to deter illegal parking in order to keep the traffic moving. If enforcement is increased then operational costs will rise but illegal parking should fall. Similarly if enforcement is reduced, operational costs will fall but illegal parking may rise. Achieving the right balance is difficult particularly with the budget pressures that local authorities face.

Table 5 shows the number of PCN's Issued over the last 3 financial years divided into On-Street and Off-Street contraventions. The On-Street contraventions are sub-divided into those occurring on yellow lines, resident parking areas, pay and display bays and others.

Table 5 - PCN's Issued - On Street & Off Street

Off Street PCN's

A total of 6,816 PCN's were issued within the Council car parks in 2007/08. This is down on 2006/07 when 8,414 were issued and also on 2005/06 with a total of 10,702. In all three years the highest volume of PCN's were issued for parking contraventions in Castle Car Park. As can be expected, 88% of the PCN's issued in car parks were for either parking without payment or because the parking time purchased had expired. However, the proportion of PCN's issued for expired payments has reduced from 53% of all PCN's issued in car parks in 05/06 to 45% in 07/08. This may suggest that the pay by phone system is having the desired effect and customers are topping up their payment without having to return to the car park.

Appendix A give a full breakdown by car park with Appendix B detailing the reasons for the issue of PCN's in the car parks.

On Street PCN's

A total of 14,440 PCN's were issued on-street during 2007/08. This again is lower than in 2006/07 when 15,004 were issued and lower than the total of 17,765 for 2005/06. The highest number of PCN's were issued in North Street 499, St Saviourgate 443 and Piccadilly 385.

31% of the contraventions in 2007/08 were for parking where waiting or loading restrictions are in place (yellow lines) with 25% being for parking in the resident parking zones without a valid permit and 7% for contravention of the on-street pay and display restrictions.

Appendix C gives a street by street breakdown of the PCN's issued in each of the three years and Appendix B provides the reasons for the issue of all on-street penalty charge notices.

Clamping and Removal

The Council has a policy of using the clamping and removing of vehicles as a deterrent against those small numbers of persistent evaders who repeatedly ignore the parking restrictions. A persistent evader is defined as a motorist who has three or more outstanding PCN's for the vehicle and these have not been paid or challenged. Usually this is because the vehicle keeper is not registered, or is not correctly registered, on the DVLA database and the owner does not pay the penalty charge notices or challenge them because they are confident that they cannot be traced. The benefit of clamping and removal is that it requires proof of ownership, and, thereby, an address before the vehicle is released. The motorist can thus be pursued for any outstanding penalty charge notices once a legitimate name and address have been provided.

The number of vehicles clamped was only eleven in 2007/08 and the number removed was just four.

Fall in the number of PCN's issued

Table 4 shows a fall in the number of PCN's that have been issued. The total number has fallen by over 25% from 28,467 in 2005/06 to 21,256 in 2007/08.

Compliance with the parking regulations must be the objective of any parking enforcement regime, and a reduction in the number of PCN's is a clear indicator that would suggest that this is, indeed, occurring and hence that civil parking enforcement has been a success in York. However, it would be rather too simplistic to suggest that compliance, in isolation, has resulted in a fall in the number of PCN's and there are several other factors that are thought to have contributed:

In her forward to the Joint Report of the Parking Adjudicators for England and Wales January 2007 to March 2008 the Chief Adjudicator, Caroline Sheppard makes the following point on this trend as follows:

“A startling factor that emerges from these appeals is that the number of PCNs issued by Councils outside London has diminished over the years. This, of course, is precisely what one would expect when a Council takes over civil enforcement powers. Clearly where there is a need to control parking and enforce those controls, a robust scheme of enforcement should always give rise to increased compliance. This is a clear indication from the PCN issue figures published by the Adjudication Service over the years. The period covered by this report is no exception. We have published a snapshot of some randomly picked councils which clearly demonstrates the extent to which the reduction in the number of PCN's provides an entirely different picture of parking enforcement than that portrayed in some of the press ”.

Whilst not true in every case, the trend is particularly apparent in Councils that have taken over the enforcement powers from the Police and have been operating civil parking enforcement for a number of years, probably because the public have realised that enforcement, which was virtually non-existent under the Police, has substantially increased and they are no longer likely to get away with illegal parking. For example in Bristol the number of PCN's fell by 45% between 2005 and 2007, Bath by 42%, Stoke by 40%, Portsmouth by 37%, Doncaster by 30%, and Liverpool by 23%. It should be emphasised that the purpose of PCN's is to dissuade motorists from contravening the parking restrictions and to encourage them to pay the appropriate parking charges. The steady reduction in the number of PCN's that have been issued provides evidence that the parking enforcement team have been very successful in deterring illegal parking.

A policy in support of traffic management objectives has been adopted, concentrating staff resources away from car parks and more onto street enforcement. This decision is in line with the core aims of parking enforcement of keeping the traffic moving and improving the flow of public transport. Approximately 57% of patrol time is now spent on street, including 28% in resident parking streets, and only 43% in car parks. This has lead to a greater presence in resident parking areas but a reduced number of PCN's, because car parks are easier for the enforcement team to patrol as there are more vehicles in a smaller area to check. In 2005/06, 38% of all PCN's were issued in car parks but this figure has fallen to 32% in 2007/08. The number of PCN's issued in car parks has reduced by 36% from 10,718 to 6,817 whilst overall the number of pcn's has reduced by 25%.

Less emphasis is now given to minor offences such as where motorists have paid the appropriate fee but may have parked slightly out of a parking bay. A careful check is made before a PCN is issued to a vehicle for parking out of bay and a PCN is only issued as a last resort when a vehicle is clearly causing an obstruction rather than with, for example, one wheel overhanging the bay marking. This has resulted in a fall in the number of PCN's issued and it has virtually eliminated the criticism that resulted from enforcement of such minor contraventions. PCN's issued for parking out of a bay have decreased by 84% from 744 in 2004/05 to only 119 in 2007/08.

The introduction of the pay by phone facility has resulted in a reduction in the number of parking contraventions due to pay and display tickets having expired. This is because of the pay by phone facility for extending the time purchased without having to return to the car park. The number of PCN's issued for expired tickets have dropped by 46% from 5,712 in 2005/06 (i.e. prior to the introduction of payment by phone) to 3,089 in 2007/08. This can be compared to a fall in the issue of all pcn's of only 25%.

PCN Outcome summary

Table 6 shows the outcome of PCN's issued over the last three financial years:

Table 6 - PCN Outcome Summary

*`First Offences' in the table refer to those PCN's that have been issued because a resident permit, pay and display ticket or disabled badge was not clearly visible in the vehicle. In such cases, in line with Council policy, the PCN will be cancelled provided that the motorist subsequently provides evidence that they do have a valid permit, but simply forgot to display it, or displayed it incorrectly, and this is their first PCN within the last twelve months. Most local authorities have similar cancellation policies on the grounds that it is reasonable not to penalise a motorist who has purchased a permit/ticket but made a simple mistake in either, forgetting to display it, or displaying it in such a manner that the Parking Attendant is unable to assess its validity. Half of all cancellations fall within this category. The policy is particularly important to safeguard the reputation of the Council amongst tourists because, to penalise motorists for making such a simple error on a first occasion, would leave a poor lasting impression of the City for many visitors.

The number of PCN's that are paid, and those that are paid at the discount rate, which is 50% of the full amount, has remained at similar levels over the last three years and is in line with the national average for payment of PCN's at around 70%,

The difference between PCN's that are `Cancelled' and those that are `Written Off' is that cancellations refer to cases where Parking Services have decided to cancel the PCN, which could be for a variety of different reasons (see below for an analysis of the cancellations in 2007/08), whereas a `write off' occurs when a PCN has gone through all the various legal stages and been passed to a Bailiff Company, but has subsequently been returned by that Bailiff Company because they are either unable to trace the debtor or the debtor has insufficient funds to pay the debt. Therefore, in no respect has the PCN been wrongly issued or wrongly `cancelled'. It is simply a debt that is impossible, or at least uneconomic, to pursue any further.

Analysis of Cancellations

It is sometimes wrongly assumed that, because approximately 20% of all PCN's that are issued are subsequently cancelled, they are being cancelled without sufficient reason or they are being wrongly issued by the Parking Attendants.

To dispel that myth it is necessary to consider in some detail why PCN's are cancelled.

Appendix D shows the reasons why PCN's are cancelled and the number and percentage cancelled for each reason. In total out of the 21,256 PCN's issued in 07/08, 19.61% have been cancelled.

However, as the following analysis of cancellations shows, if those PCN's that are cancelled due to Council Policies (12.75%) and parking law (4.15%) and exceptional mitigating circumstances (1.41%) are removed from the equation, the actual number and percentage of PCN's, that are cancelled due to issuing mistakes, administrative omissions, legal discrepancies and IT problems is only 274 or 1.29%.

a) Council Policy (2,711 PCN's, 12.75% of PCN's issued)

i) `Resident Permit Holder 1^st Offence' (827 PCN's, 3.89% of all PCN's issued). This means that a permit holder has been issued with a PCN for failure to display a permit but, in accordance with Council Policy, because it was their first offence it has been cancelled. In summary, the Parking Attendant correctly issued the PCN, however, the permit holder has provided evidence that they do have a valid permit but they either forgot to display it completely or displayed it incorrectly.

ii) `Pay and Display Ticket 1^st Offence' (786 PCN's, 3.7% of PCN's issued). Again the PCN has been issued correctly by the Parking Attendant because a pay and display ticket was not displayed on the vehicle but the PCN has been cancelled, in accordance with Council policy, because a valid ticket has subsequently been produced and it is the first time that that person has been issued with a PCN.

iii) `Disabled Badge Holder 1<sup>st</sup> Offence' (504 PCN's, 2.37% of PCN's issued). This is similar to `Resident Permit Holder 1^st Offence' in that the PCN was correctly issued by the Parking Attendant because the disabled badge was not displayed or, more commonly, displayed incorrectly. In accordance with Council policy, when a valid disabled badge is subsequently produced the PCN will be cancelled, with a warning to display the badge correctly, provided that it is a first offence.

iv) The other category where the first offence rule applies is for `permit holders in car parks' who forget to display their permit or display it incorrectly; (88 PCN's, 0.41% of PCN's issued).

v) `Training and Spoiled PCN including Drive Aways' (497 PCN's, 2.34% of PCN's issued). These PCN's have not actually been issued but are on the live system and so are technically recorded as being `cancelled'. PCN's issued for training purposes are when a new Parking Attendant is learning the job and fictitious vehicles are used as examples, `drive aways' occur when the Parking Attendant has entered the details of the offence in their hand-held computer but the driver of the vehicle returns before the Attendant can attach the PCN to the vehicle. (On this point the law was changed on 31 March 2008, and, if a vehicle is driven away or a motorist prevents a Parking Attendant from issuing it by obstruction, violence or the threat of violence, a PCN may, if the Parking Attendant has begun to prepare it, be issued by post to the vehicle owner).

vi) `Pay and Display Machine Faults', (9 PCN's, 0.04% of PCN's issued) - if a pay and display machine has a fault when a motorist is attempting to obtain a ticket, then the Council policy is, quite rightly, to cancel the PCN.

b) Parking Law (884 PCN's, 4.15% of PCN's issued)

i) `Foreign Driver or Vehicle Owner' (423 PCN's, 1.99% of PCN's issued). If a foreign driver does not pay the PCN then there is nothing that can legally be done to recover payment from them in their own country - even if it were possible to discover their names and addresses. So, unless payment is received for the PCN, it must be cancelled.

ii) `DVLA' (292 PCN's, 1.37% of PCN's issued) The Council is unable to trace the owner of the vehicle because the record is out of date or incorrect;-- This means that the new owner of the vehicle has failed to register it with the DVLA and so the owner does not pay the PCN as they are safe in the knowledge that the Council cannot obtain their name and address details from the DVLA. As a means of preventing this happening the Council introduced the clamping and removal of the vehicles of persistent evaders (see above).

iii) Evidence of Loading/Unloading Provided, (90 PCN's, 0.42% of PCN's issued) - in this case the Parking Attendant has observed a vehicle parked on yellow lines for at least 5 minutes and seen no sign of any loading/unloading taking place and so has, quite correctly, issued a PCN. The motorist subsequently provides evidence, such as a delivery note, to show that loading/unloading was taking place and, therefore, the PCN is cancelled on the grounds that the vehicle was legitimately parked as there is an exemption to the waiting restrictions for loading or unloading.

iv) Illness of Vehicle Driver, (26 PCN's, 0.12% of PCN's issued) - if the driver provides medical evidence that they were unable to drive their vehicle through illness or injury the PCN must be cancelled.

v) Vehicle Broken-Down, (37 PCN's, 0.17% of PCN's issued) - similarly if the vehicle driver is able to provide evidence of vehicle break-down then the PCN must be cancelled as the driver could not reasonably be expected to move it, provided, of course, that the break-down occurred within a reasonable period of time prior to the issue of the PCN.

vi) Vehicle Stolen at time of Contravention, (10 PCN's, 0.05% of PCN's issued) - if the vehicle was stolen at the time when the PCN was issued then the vehicle owner cannot be held liable to pay the PCN and it must be cancelled.

v) Parking Adjudication, (6 PCN's, 0.03 of PCN's issued) these PCN's are cancelled due to the independent parking adjudicator ruling in favour of the motorist at a formal appeal tribunal hearing.

c) Mitigation (299 PCN's, 1.41% of PCN's issued)

1.41% of PCN's issued were cancelled because there were exceptional compelling reasons why, in the particular circumstances of the case, the PCN should be cancelled.

d) Other Cancellations (274 PCN's, 1.29% of PCN's issued)

Of the remaining cancellations only 155 PCN's (0.73% of PCN's issued) were due to issuing mistakes on the part of the Parking Attendants, and 68 PCN's (0.32% of PCN's issued) were cancelled due to administrative omissions, legal discrepancies and IT problems. A further 51 PCN's (0.24% of PCN's issued) are due to the signs and lines being either missing or of unenforceable quality.

PCN Enforcement Policy

In accordance with the Council's policy of transparency in parking enforcement, and reasonableness and proportionality when dealing with correspondence, the PCN enforcement policy is shown below. It has also been published on the Council website and in a leaflet entitled `Got a Parking Ticket? What to do Now', which is available from the Parking Reception at 9 St Leonard's Place.

Waiting restrictions indicated by yellow lines apply to the carriageway, pavement and verge. Double yellow lines mean no waiting at any time, unless there are signs that specifically indicate seasonal restrictions. The times at which the restrictions apply, other than for double yellow lines, are shown on nearby plates or on entry signs to controlled parking zones. If no days are shown on the signs the restrictions are in force every day including Sundays and Bank Holidays. White bay markings and upright signs indicate where parking is allowed.

There is an exemption to the parking restrictions if a motorist is loading or unloading goods on street. However, to qualify for loading/unloading the activity has to meet certain criteria. A useful acronym for this is CHART e.g.

Continuous - the motorist should not break off the activity of loading/unloading to have a cup of tea or a cigarette etc. However, this does not infer that such activities as completing paperwork or locating the goods in the premises are not part of the loading/unloading process. Each case will be treated on its own merits and all circumstances will be taken into account.

Heavy Goods - the goods that are being loaded/unloaded must be of such burden of weight or bulk that they cannot reasonably be conveyed otherwise than by means of a vehicle. The goods must be of a type that cannot easily be carried by one person in one trip. Having said that, in some circumstances 'goods' may be an aggregate of several small or lightweight items when delivered in the course of a trade or business (see Delivery and Collection below).

Shopping may be classed as goods but a vehicle is not covered by a loading exemption if the goods concerned have not been purchased prior to the waiting action. It is not lawful for a vehicle to wait whilst a purchase is made irrespective of the type of goods involved. The exemption does not cover choosing the goods i.e. the process of shopping, but it would apply while the goods are being put into a vehicle.

Adjacent - the vehicle must be parked adjacent to where the loading activity is occurring. If the vehicle were parked in another street more than 50 metres away, it would be difficult to argue that it was adjacent. The vehicle does not have to be a goods vehicle, but it must be necessary for the activity and not merely convenient to use a vehicle.

Reasonable - For example; unloading vast quantities of goods and taking all day to do it would not be considered reasonable. Where the loading/unloading is likely to take a long time and cause a lot of disruption the Council should be notified prior to the loading taking place to enable arrangements to be made to try and accommodate it.

Timely - the loading should be completed as quickly as possible.

The Parking Attendants are instructed to observe vehicles that are parked on yellow lines for 5 minutes in order to establish whether any loading/unloading is taking place from, or to, the vehicle. If they do not observe any activity taking place within those 5 minutes they will issue a PCN. If a motorist, therefore, is loading/unloading they should be advised not to leave the vehicle unattended for more than 5 minutes.

There are also certain areas and times when loading/unloading is not allowed at all. In such cases signs and kerb markings should be in place to indicate this (see below).

Yellow marks on the kerb at the edge of the carriageway indicate that loading or unloading is prohibited at the times shown on the nearby black and white plates. You may stop while passengers board or alight. If no days are indicated on the signs the restrictions are in force every day including Sundays and Bank Holidays. Always check the time shown on the plates.

Lengths of road reserved for vehicles loading and unloading are indicated by a white `bay' marking with the words `Loading Only' and a sign with the white on blue `trolley' symbol. This sign also shows whether loading and unloading is restricted to goods vehicles and the times at which the bay can be used. If no times or days are shown it may be used at any time. Vehicles may not park here if they are not loading or unloading.

Delivery and Collection

If the delivery is being carried out in the course of a trade or business, as compared to a private delivery, it will usually fall within the meaning of 'delivering and collecting goods', even if the size and weight of one item of the 'goods' is small in itself, for example a milk delivery float. The point is illustrated easily by multiple deliveries, but it also applies to one-off deliveries too. Deliveries of small items in the course of business are permitted but it should be borne in mind that the smaller and lighter the goods, the shorter the time needed to deliver. There may be a greater evidential burden on the driver to prove that he took no longer than was necessary if there was a lengthy absence from the vehicle.

The use of a vehicle, merely because it is more convenient than carrying goods, is not normally sufficient reason for the exemption to apply. However, all commercial deliveries have more to them than mere convenient use of a vehicle, as there are obvious considerations of time and money involved. Drivers involved in commercial deliveries should be able to provide some form of supporting evidence if required. The driver does not have to prove that it was necessary to park where he did. He may, however, have to prove that he did not park for longer than was necessary.

The delivery process applies to the completion of paperwork, which is reasonably required, e.g. delivery note, obtaining a signature.

There may also be some other form of delay such as: papers not ready, people cannot be found, and goods need to be located. The driver will be covered for unexpected delays, but it will be difficult for him to argue that the process was still continuing if he goes for refreshment or starts another job. The driver should be allowed a reasonable time while goods are being located, but this is not an automatic exemption covering however long it takes, a judgment has to be made on whether the time taken was reasonable.

Parking while investigating whether or not there are goods to be collected is not covered, unless the driver can reasonably expect that there are goods there but then finds out that there are none, e.g. a prior appointment or a regular round, rather than a canvassing situation.

Although the delays mentioned above are allowed, selecting or choosing goods is specifically excluded. The goods must have been pre-ordered or collection pre-arranged.

Objections and Representations

An objection is an informal challenge to the Council about the issue of a PCN that is made following the issue of the PCN. A representation is a formal challenge, in accordance with the 1991 Road Traffic Act, to the issue of a PCN, which is received following the issue of a Notice to Owner (NtO). The NtO is a legal document and the purpose of it is to let the owner of the vehicle know that a PCN is outstanding. It explains where and when the PCN was issued, what it was issued for, how much is payable and that the charge may increase if payment is not received. However, its most important purpose is to allow the vehicle owner to make representations to the Council as to why they believe the PCN was incorrectly issued. The owner of the vehicle can decide whether to pay or make a representation.

Only when a representation is rejected may a motorist appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for an independent decision. The grounds upon which a representation may be made are limited by law but any representations or objections that are received will be fully considered, reasonably and in accordance with the Council's appeal protocols and cancellation policy.

In the year 2007/08 the Council dealt with a total of 4,932 objections and 1,740 representations. This meant that over 25% of all PCN's issued resulted in some form of a challenge against issue. A representation usually results from the rejection of an initial objection but this is not always the case and about a quarter of representations are made without any previous correspondence having been received.

Of the 1,740 representations 11 reached the point of an appeal case before an Adjudicator of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, which is only 0.05% of the number of PCN's issued. The national average is 0.29%. This clearly reflects the Council policy of whenever possible attempting to resolve disputes at the earliest point in the PCN processing procedure. This involves answering all queries and problems promptly and fully so that motorists, whilst not necessarily agreeing with the decision that is made, can understand the reasons for that decision. At all times motorists are kept fully aware of the next stage of the procedure and of their legal right to appeal to a Parking Adjudicator at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal should they decide to do so. Extensive information about the PCN processing procedure is available on the Council website and in leaflets that are available at the Parking Office Reception at St Leonard's Place. The policy with regard to dealing with objections and representations is one of fairness and transparency at all times.

Of the eleven cases that were considered by adjudicators six were allowed.

If a penalty charge remains unpaid after the processing procedure is exhausted, or it has been ignored by the vehicle owner, the Council may issue a `Charge Certificate' to the owner. The Charge Certificate increases the penalty charge by 50% and allows 21 days for payment, beginning with the date of posting.

After the 21 days expires, if payment has not been received, the Council may register the charge with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court to recover the unpaid charge. The TEC is part of the County Court based at Northampton that deals with the registration of debts from England and Wales for all unpaid PCNs. Once the outstanding charge has been registered the Council can send an `Order for Recovery' to the vehicle owner.

If the outstanding amount has not been paid after 21 days, from the service of the Order for Recovery, the Council can request authority from the TEC to use a certificated bailiff to recover the outstanding penalty charge. This is done by the Council passing a legal document called a `Warrant of Execution' to a certificated bailiff for them to take proceedings to recover the outstanding penalty charge.

Table 6 summarises the number of the documents that were issued and received by the Parking Services team during 2007/08.

Table 7 - PCN Correspondence Summary

5. Financial Performance 2007/08

Parking Services budget

Table 8 below gives a breakdown of the Parking Budget and year end outturn.

Table 8 - Parking Budget Breakdown

The out turn position is shown diagrammatically in the two charts below:

Chart 2 - Parking Income

Chart 3 - Parking Expenditure

Distribution of balance to council fund

The balance to the council fund (of £3,910,977) was £65,145 (or 1.77%) higher than budgeted. This balance as is required by law, was used to deliver Transport related services. Whilst there is no direct financial connection as such (because, in reality, the balance effectively means that income does not have to be raised from elsewhere - such as the council tax) the vast majority of this was spent on supporting public transport within the city. To replace the nett income received as a result of the parking trading account the council tax for the city would need to increase by some 6%. Table 9 and Chart 4 below show how this surplus was used in 2007/08.

Table 9 - Allocation of Parking Income

Chart 4 - Distribution of Net Parking Income

Residents Parking ( Respark)

The Council has a long standing policy in connection with its Residents parking operation. This policy requires the service to be operated in such a way that it does not result in a cost falling upon the general charge-payers of the city. All expenditure in connection with the service must therefore be balanced by income derived from the sale of permits. Table 10 below gives the Income and Expenditure on the Respark account.

Table 10 - Residents' Parking Account