This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Background to S.I . 2007/3482'.

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO  
THE DRAFT CIVIL ENFORCEMENT OF PARKING CONTRAVENTIONS 
(ENGLAND) REPRESENTATIONS AND APPEALS REGULATIONS 2007 No. 
XXXX 
 
1.  
 
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 does not contain information for the Joint 
Committee on Statutory Instruments 
 
2.  
Description 
2.1   These draft Regulations, the draft Civil Enforcement of Parking 
Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 
2007 (“the Representations and Appeals Regulations”), have been laid 
by the Secretary of State for Transport on behalf of the Lord 
Chancellor. Together with three other sets of Regulations and two 
Orders, all of which will be subject to the negative procedure, the 
Representations and Appeals Regulations are designed to implement, 
as respects England, 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 
police officers or police traffic wardens. 
2.2 
These draft Regulations set out procedures whereby persons upon 
whom civil penalties have been imposed for parking contraventions in 
areas where civil enforcement applies, or whose vehicle has been 
immobilised or removed on account of such contraventions, can make 
representations to the enforcement authorities against the imposition of 
the penalties in particular cases and can appeal to an independent 
adjudicator if their representations are rejected.  The draft Regulations 
set out the grounds for making representations and for appealing and 
the Schedule contains rules for the conduct of proceedings before 
adjudicators. 
 
3. 
Matters of special interest to the Joint Committee on Statutory 
Instruments 

 
3.1  
None.    
 
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  
Apart from the Representations and Appeals Regulations, the most 
important element of the package will be 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 will 
contain provisions ancillary to the two principal sets of regulations. 
4.5 
The complete list of proposed instruments comprising the package is— 
 
Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) 
Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 
Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General 
Regulations 2007 
Removal And Disposal of Vehicles (Amendment) (England) 
Regulations 2007 
Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (Approved Devices) 
(England) Order 2007 
Civil Enforcement Officers (Wearing of Uniforms) (England) 
Regulations 2007 
Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (Guidelines on Levels of 
Charges) (England) Order 2007 
 
2

 
4.6 
The draft Representations and Appeals Regulations cross-refer to the 
proposed Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) 
General Regulations 2007 and also to the Removal and Disposal of 
Vehicles Regulations 1986 (S.I. 1986/183) as proposed by the 
Secretary of State to be amended by the Removal and Disposal of 
Vehicles (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2007.  Copies are 
accordingly attached of the drafts of those two sets of Regulations so 
as to show the effect of the cross-references.  Subject to the draft 
Representations and Appeals Regulations being approved by the two 
Houses, it is Ministers’ intention to make the other instruments at the 
same time and to bring them all into force on 31st March 2008.  It may 
be necessary to postpone the making of the draft Civil Enforcement of 
Parking Contraventions (Approved Devices) (England) Order 2007 
until after the others because of the requirement to notify it to the 
European Union, but that Order will need to come into force at the 
same time as the others.  The instruments subject to the negative 
procedure will be laid before Parliament in the usual way when they 
have been made. 
 
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 Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 are subject to 
affirmative resolution. Rosie Winterton (the Minister responsible for 
parking policy and enforcement) has made the following statement 
regarding Human Rights:  
 
“In my view the provisions of the Representations and Appeals 
Regulations 2007 are compatible with the Convention rights.” 
  
 
3

7. Policy 
background 
 
7.1 
  The first aim of the new framework will be to replace the 
unsatisfactory state of the current 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, contains 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 are similar to modifications to the Road Traffic Act 1991 made 
by London local legislation which is to be repealed by the Traffic 
Management Act 2004. 
7.2 
In the Representations and Appeals Regulations there are two main 
changes.  First “procedural impropriety”, that is to say a failure by the 
enforcement authority to observe any of the detailed statutory 
requirements for imposing a penalty charge, is made a ground for 
representations and for appealing to an adjudicator.  Secondly an 
adjudicator may refer a case back to the enforcement authority for 
reconsideration, where the finding is that none of the grounds of appeal 
apply but that there are compelling reasons for remitting a charge. 
There are however many differences of detail between the 
Representations and Appeals Regulations and the existing legislation. 
7.3  
A public consultation exercise on the draft Statutory Guidance, draft 
Regulations and on the Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment was 
conducted from 12th July 2006 to 25th September 2006. The 
consultation document (“Better Parking – Keeping Traffic Moving”) 
set out the Government’s position on the civil enforcement of parking 
and sought views on 20 specific issues set out in the document.  
 
7.4 
This document was sent to all Local Authorities in England, 85 other 
organisations (including the key stakeholders and members of the 
working group of experts set up by the Department for Transport to 
consider the civil enforcement of parking), 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 were agreed on the vast majority of the issues 
and the policies on these will remain as suggested in the consultation. 
 
 
4

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 
Most of the responses to the consultation concerned issues relating to 
instruments other than the Representations and Appeals Regulations.  
 
7.8 
The consultation has resulted in a number of minor changes to the 
details of the Regulations. In particular the draft Representations and 
Appeals Regulations were amended in the light of a number of detailed 
drafting points raised by the parking adjudication services for London 
and for the rest of England and Wales.  
 
7.9 
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 in exercising their civil enforcement functions. 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 nation-wide 
approach to parking policy and enforcement and a point of reference 
for members of the public, as well as for the local authorities.  
 
8. Impact 
 
8.1 
A Public Sector Regulatory Impact Assessment for this set of 
instruments is attached to this memorandum. 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/thetrafficmanagement
billregu5592?version=1 
 
9. Contact 
 

9.1 
 at the Department for Transport can answer any 
queries regarding the instrument. Telephone: 0207 944 
 E-mail: 
dft.gsi.gov.uk 
 
1st August 2007 
 
5

link to page 6 link to page 6 Final Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) 
 
1. Title of Proposal 
 
1.  Proposals to implement the parking provisions of Part 6 of the Traffic 
Management Act 2004. 
 
2. Purpose and intended effect 
 
Objectives 
 
2.  The Government’s aim is to strengthen the existing system of Decriminalised 
Parking Enforcement (DPE), which will become known as Civil Parking 
Enforcement (CPE), by providing a regulatory framework, associated Statutory 
Guidance and detailed Operational Guidance to enforcement authorities. The 
objectives are to ensure that: 
 
(i) 
There exists a common and harmonised regulatory framework for the 
enforcement of civil parking contraventions by enforcement authorities 
across England; 
(ii) 
There is a high level of public understanding and acceptance for CPE 
(iii) 
Enforcement authorities have the necessary enforcement powers to 
secure a high level of public compliance with traffic regulations, which 
should lead, in turn, to reductions in congestion and improvements in 
safety and network management; and 
(iv) 
CPE powers are exercised in a fair and reasonable manner by 
enforcement authorities 
 
Background 
 
3.  As the volume of traffic on the roads increases, the need for effective parking 
enforcement becomes critical to the successful management of congestion and 
road safety.  
 
4.  At present, all London authorities and 177a enforcement authorities in England 
outside London operate Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE). Under DPE, 
parking regulations are enforced by parking attendants employed, directly or 
indirectly, by enforcement authorities. This reflects the need for the police to 
concentrate on core policing priorities. As part of the system, parking attendants 
issue Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) to the owners of vehicles they believe to be 
parked in contravention of traffic regulations.  Representations against a PCN can 
be made to the issuing authority and if this is rejected there is a right of appeal to 
an independent adjudicator. The enforcement is funded by income from parking 
charges and penalty charges rather than the local or national taxpayer.   
 
5.  The Road Traffic Act 1991 and regulations made under the Actb supply the 
current national legislative framework for DPE. London local authorities have 
built on the 1991 Act using local legislation, taken additional enforcement powers 
                                                        
a As at July 9th 2007 
b The Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (S.I. No 1918). 
 
6

and altered certain aspects of the enforcement processa. To support enforcement 
authorities in their exercise of DPE powers, non-Statutory Guidance was issued by 
the Department for Transport/Welsh Officeb.  
 
6.  With the help of stakeholders and a working group of experts, the Government has 
reviewed the existing system of DPE to identify how it could be improved through 
the issue of Regulations, Statutory Guidance and Operational Guidance. A list of 
the stakeholder groups invited to attend a workshop and members of the Working 
Group are shown in annex A and B of the Regulatory Impact Assessment.  
 
7.  Part 6 of the TMA provides a single framework in England for the civil 
enforcement of parking, bus lanes, some moving traffic offences and the London 
lorry ban. The Government intends to implement the provisions in Part 6 in stages, 
beginning with parking. Under the TMA, Decriminalised Parking Enforcement 
will become known as Civil Parking Enforcement.  Parking attendants will be 
known as Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs). 
 
8.  To bring Part 6 into force, the Government will need to commence the relevant 
Sections of the TMA, make regulations that provide the detail of the legislative 
framework for Civil Parking Enforcement and issue accompanying Statutory 
Guidance. Once the TMA has been brought into force, Part 6 and the regulations 
will replace existing provisions in the Road Traffic Act 1991 (with regard to 
parking). Any actions that commenced under the RTA 1991 or local Acts will 
continue to be enforceable. 
 
9.  Statutory Guidance will be issued along with the Regulations. The Regulations 
and Statutory Guidance will cover England only and it is expected that the Welsh 
Assembly Government will make corresponding Regulations and issue Statutory 
Guidance for Wales. The Government will also publish non-statutory Operational 
Guidance for England and Wales. This will supersede the Department’s Circular 
1/95.   
 
10. The Mayor of London will need to consider revising his Transport Strategy so that 
the parking aspects in it are consistent with the new Regulations and Guidance. 
 
Rationale for Government Intervention 
 
11. The existing legislative framework and supporting Guidance for DPE has been 
successful in helping authorities to better enforce their traffic regulations. 
Nevertheless, the experience of DPE so far has shown that there are some areas 
where it would be beneficial to amend the existing legislative framework.  Some 
of the changes result from experience in London, where enforcement authorities 
have obtained additional powers from local legislation. 
 
12. The new framework is also required because: 
 
                                                        
a See the London Local Authorities Act 1995, the London Local Authorities Act 2000 and the London Local Authorities and 
Transport for London Act 2003. 
b Guidance on Decriminalised Parking Enforcement Outside London (Local Authority Circular 1/95 and Welsh Office Circular 
26/95) available from www.dft.gov.uk.  
 
7

(i) 
There is evidence that there is scope for improving the public’s 
understanding of and confidence in the DPE system. This could be 
achieved if enforcement authorities make information about their 
policies and operations available publicly; and 
(ii) 
The Department of Transport/Welsh Office’s Guidance on DPE for 
authorities outside of London has remained unaltered since it was 
originally issued in 1995. By updating this Operational Guidance it 
would be possible to strengthen areas where some enforcement 
authorities are not complying with their responsibilities correctly. It 
will also draw upon experience that has been gained since 1991 to 
improve the CPE system. This updated Operational Guidance, along 
with the Regulations and Statutory Guidance, will be published in 2007 
to provide detailed information to enforcement authorities. 
 
3. Consultation 
 
Within Government 
 
13. The main elements of the Government’s proposals to strengthen DPE were 
worked up during the preparation, and passage through Parliament, of the Traffic 
Management Bill. In the course of this work, the Department for Transport (DfT) 
worked closely with other relevant policy Departments including the Ministry of 
Justice, the Home Office and the Communities and Local Government. 
Colleagues in the Welsh Assembly Government and Scottish Executive were also 
consulted on these proposals as they were developed. 
 
Public consultation 
 
14. In 2002, DfT consulted local authorities and a number of representative 
organisations about proposals to give non-London local authorities the additional 
powers that had been taken by London authorities since the Road Traffic Act 
1991. The responses showed clear support for this approach. 
 
15. Following the successful passage of the Traffic Management Bill in 2004, the 
Government has given further consideration to proposals to strengthen DPE.  DfT 
held a stakeholder workshop and a number of meetings of the working group 
involving representatives from a wide range of parking stakeholders, including 
local authorities. A full list of the organisations invited to participate in the 
workshop is at Annex A. Organisations represented at the Working Group are 
listed at Annex B. Preliminary consultation with these key parties took place 
before the full public consultation 
 
16. A public consultation on the draft Statutory Guidance, draft Regulations and on 
the Partial RIA was conducted from 12th July 2006 to 25th September 2006. This 
consultation set out the Government’s position on CPE and sought to establish 
views on 20 specific issues that were set out in the consultation document.  
 
17. This was sent to all local authorities in England, 85 other organisations (including 
the key stakeholders and members of the working group), and specific individuals 
who requested the consultation. There were 112 responses, 77 from local 
 
8

 
18. There was widespread support for the Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment and 
75% of respondents agreed that it gave a fair analysis of the policy.  
 
19. Those who responded agreed with the vast majority of the issues, and the policies 
on these will remain as proposed in the consultation.  
 
20. Responses on three of the issues suggested that the policy was not appropriate and 
the minister agreed that the policy be revised in light of these points. 82% of 
respondents said that a separate parking grievance/complaints unit should not be 
set up and it was agreed that enforcement authorities should not be asked to do 
this.  It was also agreed not to give to the police the power to also enforce parking 
in areas where the enforcement authorities have this power, as 74% of respondents 
said the police should not be given this power.  Finally, it was agreed that the time 
before a vehicle can be clamped or removed in a parking place would be 30 
minutes after the PCN is issued rather than the 60 minutes proposed in the 
consultation.  This was not a yes/no question, but the majority if those who 
responded thought 30 minutes was more appropriate. 
 
21. There have been a number of minor changes to the details of the Regulations. These 
changes cover points of principle that weren’t specifically consulted on. The main 
change is that enforcement authorities will not be able to recover the money for all 
past PCNs from persistent evaders that are clamped or removed. The Minister took 
the decision to remove this provision to protect innocent drivers and also in 
response to the 2nd London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill. This 
Bill has proposed a system for tacking persistent evaders in London that is not 
possible to implement in the rest of the country at the present time because there is 
no power in primary legislation. After a trial in London the Minister will consider 
whether to implement the provisions in the rest of the country with new primary 
legislation.  
22. The responses are too detailed to be set out in any great depth here.  More detailed 
responses to the questions can be seen in the consultation summary on the 
departmental website.  
 
4. Options 
 
Option 1: Do nothing 
 
23. This option assumes that the Government does not commence the parking 
provisions in Part 6 of the TMA and does not issue new Regulations or Statutory 
Guidance on CPE. As a result, the existing system of DPE would remain in force 
and would continue to garner relatively low public support, which may lead to 
increases in congestion and reductions in road safety. 
 
Option 2: Replicate existing legislation and Guidance in Regulations and Guidance 
made under the TMA 
 
 
9

24. This option involves commencing the parking provisions in the TMA, making 
Regulations that copy in their entirety the framework established by the Road 
Traffic Act 1991 and its associated Regulations, and putting existing Guidance on 
parking enforcement on a statutory footing.  It is unlikely that this would improve 
public understanding and support. 
 
Option 3: Issue Regulations and Statutory Guidance that build on the existing system 
of DPE  
 
25. This option would also involve commencing the parking provisions in the TMA.  
It would entail making regulations that build upon and enhance the current 
legislative framework giving to enforcement authorities outside London the same 
powers as London local authorities, so that the enforcement framework is the 
same throughout England. It would also include issuing Statutory Guidance that 
would establish the key principles and minimum standards which all authorities 
would be expected to meet. Detailed Operational Guidance (in the form of an 
updated version of Local Authorities Circular 1/95) would also be issued.  We 
believe that this option would improve the fairness and clarity of the system and 
encourage more authorities to take on the responsibility of enforcing, as well as 
making, parking policies and local regulations (as recommended by the House of 
Commons Transport Committee).   
 
5. Costs and Benefits 
 
Sectors and groups affected 
 
26. All options would affect all enforcement authorities that currently operate DPE or 
intend to operate DPE in the future, and the firms who are contracted to carry out 
the on-street enforcement, or provide the tools to operate the system, as well as 
consumers who park on-street and in enforcement authority owned car parks 
within the authorities’ boundaries.  There would be no material differences in the 
impact on other businesses, voluntary organisations and charities or people in 
different social groups. However the operation of parking enforcement will have 
an impact on all individuals who use the road network. 
 
27. Under option 3, the new powers will allow enforcement authorities outside 
London to provide enforcement with "approved devices" (these powers are 
already in place for local authorities inside London). The businesses that supply or 
design the equipment systems used for parking enforcement would be required to 
obtain certification from the Secretary of State before their equipment could be 
used.  This certification is needed to ensure that devices provide correct and 
tamper proof evidence to a common standard. There would be no charge for this 
certification and the information that the Secretary of State is likely to require to 
support a request for certification (the details will be set out in the Operational 
Guidance) would be very much along the lines of tests that any reputable 
manufacturer/designer of a system would do to satisfy themselves that it meets the 
high standards required for law enforcement.  Furthermore this will create a new 
market and therefore is a benefit to businesses.  
 
 
10

28. There are existing requirements about the wearing of uniforms by parking 
attendants and it is likely that the provisions will be carried forward largely 
unchanged in all three options.  So there will be no change in the impact that they 
would have on the businesses that currently supply uniforms for parking 
attendants.          
 
29. The procedures to be carried out in connection with the removal and disposal of 
vehicles are likely to be very much the same in all three options and will to a large 
extent replicate what is already in place, so there will be no change in the impact 
that they would have on the businesses that operate these services on behalf of 
enforcement authorities.  The discouragement of clamping and removal for 
vehicles except those of persistent evaders may reduce in the long term the 
number of vehicles clamped and removed on-street and in enforcement authority 
owned car parks. This could potentially have a negative effect on clamping 
companies and may lead to an increase in costs per unit. It should be noted that 
these Regulations and Guidance will make no change to wheel-clamping or 
removal of vehicles parked on private land, which is currently unregulated and 
causes a significant number of complaints from members of the public.               
 
Race equality impact 
 
30. There are no Race Equality impacts to any of these proposals 
 
Environmental quality impact 
 
31. It is unlikely that there will be any significant and quantifiable environmental 
impacts from any of the options. However, option 3 is designed to improve the 
system of civil parking enforcement. An efficient parking system may play a part 
in improving road safety and reducing traffic congestion and associated emissions 
and therefore we would expect some positive qualitative impacts. 
 
Analysis of costs and benefits 
 
Option 1 
 
32. As it would not involve changes to the existing DPE system, this option would not 
impose any new costs. But neither would it deliver any benefits over and above 
those derived from the existing DPE system.  There are a number of disadvantages 
to this option. 
 
33. By not implementing Part 6 of the TMA the changes would not be made that are 
necessary to ensure that authorities conduct their parking enforcement in a 
transparent, fair and proportionate manner. This would lead to continued press and 
public antipathy and accusations that parking enforcement is only about raising 
money rather than enforcing transport objectives. Furthermore authorities outside 
London currently lack certain powers that have been given to London authorities 
through local legislation. These are important to the efficient running of CPE and 
include the power to: 
(i) 
Serve a PCN by post where a CEO is prevented from fixing a PCN to a 
vehicle or handing it to the driver. This will tackle the problem in the 
 
11

(i) 
Issue a PCN on the basis of information provided by an “approved 
device” (currently a camera plus the associated system). This will help 
authorities target enforcement activity on sensitive areas (e.g. in “no 
stopping” areas such as red routes and clearways) and areas where 
there is a high level of short-stay contraventions such as dropping off 
children at school. 
(ii) 
Ensure specified items of information appear on PCNs so that vehicle 
owners understand how they can go about paying a penalty charge, the 
process for enforcing a PCN and their right to appeal to an adjudicator; 
(iii) 
Place a 6 month time limit on the issue of a Notice to Owner. 
 
Option 2 
 
34. Authorities would face additional enforcement costs resulting from the exercise of 
the new powers conferred on them by the TMA. However, these costs could be 
funded from any additional parking income. 
 
35.  This option would deliver some benefits to road users in terms of improved traffic 
flow and safety. These would derive from the greater levels of compliance with 
traffic regulations that authorities’ additional enforcement powers could be 
expected to bring about. 
 
36. However this legislation is out of date and is not built on the experience that has 
been garnered since the beginning of DPE. Since the RTA proposed 
decriminalised parking enforcement in 1991 much has been learnt about the most 
efficient ways to carry out enforcement and by simply replacing existing 
legislation with that made under the TMA, it would not update the system. 
 
37. During the consultation on the Traffic Management Bill in 2002 it was established 
that key stakeholders supported the adoption of regulations under the TMA and 
that there should be a further process of consultation to establish how best to 
update decriminalised parking in the light of experience. There are no powers in 
RTA 1991 to make regulations that would allow these necessary changes to be 
made. Therefore option 2 would not fulfil our stakeholders’ requirements. 
 
Option 3 
 
38. There is no requirement to take on CPE powers if an authority does not wish to. 
Enforcement authorities who opt into CPE would face the following additional 
costs under option 3: 
 
39.  
 
(i) 
Implementing costs: 
a.  Enforcement authorities who do not yet operate DPE: 
i.  If an enforcement authority chooses to take on CPE powers 
then they will need to apply to DfT for these powers (as they 
 
12

b.  Enforcement authorities who already have DPE powers (at present all 
London authorities and 177 enforcement authorities in England outside 
London): 
i.  There will be some up front costs for the transition from DPE 
to CPE. These costs include training, IT, stationary, uniform 
and promotional costs. There are also costs involved in the time 
it will take to understand the implications of the Act and to 
change the processes and procedures.  
ii.  Up front costs for the transition from DPE to CPE have been 
estimated for us by a number of enforcement authorities who 
would be affected by the new Regulations. Estimations vary 
from £8,000 to £54,000. These costs vary because large 
enforcement authorities with more employees will have more 
training costs for their employees, more uniforms to change for 
their CEOs, and may have a larger amount of stationary to 
replace. IT costs also varied from nothing (some enforcement 
authorities estimate that the IT changes will cost nothing or be 
very minimal since they could do these when they were due to 
have an IT upgrade) to £20,000.  
iii.  However, these will be covered by the income the authority 
gets from the parking charges and parking penalty charges. 
Therefore, this is cost neutral to the authority. 
 
(ii) 
Running costs: 
a.  Enforcement authorities that do not respond positively to the enhanced 
regime (either through pursuing over-zealous enforcement decisions, 
or though inefficiency) may face additional adjudication costs resulting 
from more appeals on the ground that there was procedural 
impropriety, or mitigating circumstances.  This is unlikely to be the 
case for authorities that follow the Regulations and Guidance. As 
enforcement authorities improve their service and provide better 
trained staff to deal with appeals, the number of appeals to the 
adjudicators may decrease. 
b.  We are unable to quantify the exact additional costs that enforcement 
authorities will face because these will vary with between different 
authorities, and will depend on the size of the  authority, whether urban 
or rural, the number of PCNs issued, the extent to which these are paid 
or challenged, and the efficiency with which the parking system is run.  
c.  However, under CPE (as with DPE) enforcement authorities will be 
able to cover the costs of their enforcement activity through income 
from parking charges and from any parking penalty charges. The 
Government’s proposals would make enforcement easier and we 
expect that, overall, this would reduce the costs of enforcement. The 
enforcing authority will be able to run CPE in a way that is at least cost 
neutral. 
 
13

 
40. We expect that contracts would be varied to take account of any additional costs 
incurred by firms carrying out enforcement on behalf of enforcement authorities.   
 
41. There would also be some very minimal administrative costs in amending the 
Traffic Enforcement Centre’s procedure for processing statutory declarations. 
 
42. There would also be benefits to enforcement authorities, some of which would 
mean a positive financial impact.  The Government’s proposals would make 
enforcement easier and we expect that, overall, this would reduce the costs of 
enforcement. This is because their objective is that the public will see civil 
enforcement as fair, and the levy of penalty charges for parking contraventions as 
more acceptable through changes such as limiting the use of clamping and 
encouraging authorities to be transparent. Changes such as allowing service of a 
PCN on the basis of camera evidence will facilitate the provision of robust 
evidence that will make it more difficult to dispute that a contravention took place.  
This will help to protect the motorist who has not committed a contravention.  
 
43. This option would deliver a number of benefits for all road users within CPE 
authorities, especially those using parking facilities: 
 
(i) 
Harmonising the powers available would improve levels of consistency 
between authorities using CPE and, through this, public understanding 
of the system;  
(ii) 
The enhancements to authorities’ enforcement powers should result in 
higher levels of compliance with traffic regulations and concomitant 
improvements to traffic flow and road safety; 
(iii) 
Placing a 6 month time limit on the issue of a Notice to Owner would 
encourage authorities to follow up their PCNs in a prompt and efficient 
manner; 
(iv) 
Introducing greater transparency into civil parking enforcement, for 
example by publishing polices and annual reports on CPE activities 
will improve public understanding and acceptance of CPE; 
(v) 
CEOs undergoing independently assessed training and demonstrating a 
satisfactory level of competence will result in improved effectiveness 
and professionalism of civil enforcement;  
(vi) 
The additional grounds of appeal to an adjudicator should help to 
ensure that authorities give proper consideration to representations 
made against PCNs on the basis of procedural impropriety or 
mitigating circumstances; 
(vii) 
Clarifying issues where High Court judgements have changed the 
assumptions on which authorities have been enforcing for a number of 
years; 
(viii)  The principles and standards set out in the Statutory Guidance would 
help to ensure that enforcement authorities exercise their functions in a 
fair and reasonable manner, and in a way that increases public 
understanding and acceptance of CPE. 
 
44. The Government considers that this option is the most effective way to strengthen 
the existing system of DPE and increase its acceptability to the public. 
 
14

 
6. Small Firms Impact Test 
 
45. Small firms may be affected by these proposals in two ways.  The first is as 
organisations who themselves, and whose customers, use the road network.  None 
of the options would have a significant impact on small firms over and above the 
impacts of the existing DPE system. However the existing DPE system garners 
low public support and thus below maximum compliance and this has a potential 
cascading effect on trade (for example parking outside local shops). Some small 
shopkeepers might contend that option 3 would have a negative impact on their 
trade, but what option 3 would do is to enforce effectively what is already the law, 
rather than change it.  The Guidance would emphasise the need to discuss parking 
restrictions with, among others, people who run small shops.  This would help 
ensure that the parking restrictions put in place by enforcement authorities are 
consulted on properly and as far as is practicable, respond to the points made in 
those consultations 
 
46. We are not aware of any instance where a small firm is a contractor to an 
enforcement authority to deliver their parking enforcement responsibilities.  But if 
there are any, option 3 will benefit them in the same way as larger firms by 
helping to improve the respect given by members of the public to their on-street 
employees and the regulations they enforce. Option 3 also discourages clamping. 
This could potentially have a negative effect on clamping companies and may lead 
to an increase in costs per unit  
 
7. Competition Assessment 
 
47. Many enforcement authorities contract out CPE functions following competitive 
tenders, but we have no information about how many.  This means that the 
Government’s proposals will affect private sector contractors who deliver public 
services.  However, we believe that the changes would not have a competition 
impact because they will not favour one type of supplier or market. 
 
8. Enforcement, Sanctions and Monitoring 
 
48. It will be for enforcement authorities and the parking adjudicator to exercise the 
additional functions provided for in the proposed Regulations. In addition, under 
the TMA enforcement authorities must have regard to Statutory Guidance on CPE 
issued by the relevant national authority. 
 
49. There are a number of ways in which enforcement authorities can be held to 
account for the way in which they carry out their CPE functions: 
 
(i) 
Through representations to the authority itself; 
(ii) 
Through an appeal to the parking adjudicator where those 
representations do not resolve a dispute; 
(iii) 
 Through a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman; 
(iv) 
Through Judicial Review of an authority’s decisions or actions;  
(v) 
Through the democratic process, the councillors are accountable at 
local elections. This should be made easier by the increased 
 
15

 
9. Implementation and Delivery Plan 
 
50. It is our intention that the affirmative Regulations will be laid before Parliament in 
mid 2007. Once these have been approved, all the negative resolution statutory 
instruments will be laid before Parliament. 
 
51. Subject to Parliamentary scrutiny procedures, it is our intention that the 
Regulations will come into force in early 2008. This will allow an appropriate 
implementation period for enforcement authorities to prepare for the changes and 
adapt to the new requirements before the proposals take effect.  
 
52. We will inform key stakeholders when the Regulations have been laid. We will 
publish Statutory Guidance for all enforcement authorities who are affected by the 
Regulations, and for the key stakeholders.   
 
53. We will also publish detailed Operational Guidance and a communications toolkit. 
The Operational Guidance will offer enforcement authorities detailed information 
on how to implement the new proposals. The communications toolkit will offer 
user-friendly information and advice to enforcement authorities on how to 
communicate effectively with the public to explain what parking enforcement 
means and why it is important.  
 
10. Post-Implementation review 
 
54. Enforcement authorities will be encouraged to monitor the effectiveness of these 
Regulations. We may also produce a monitoring toolkit that would enable this to 
be done by enforcement authorities across the country on a consistent basis.  
 
11. Summary and recommendation 
 
Option Benefits Costs 
Option 1: Do Nothing 
  No Benefits 
  No economic costs 
 
  Potentially a worsening 
of congestion and road 
safety 
 
  Continued press and 
public antipathy  
 
Option 2: Replicate 
  Some benefits to road 
  Additional enforcement 
existing legislation and 
users in terms of 
costs resulting from the 
Guidance in Regulations 
improved traffic flow 
exercise of the new 
and Guidance made under 
and safety 
powers conferred on 
the TMA 
them by the TMA. 
However, these costs 
could be funded from 
 
16

 
  Out of date legislation 
that is not built on 
recent experience 
 
  Will not fulfil 
stakeholder’s 
requirements 
 
Option 3: Issue    Enforcement will be 
  Enforcement 
Regulations and Statutory 
easier and overall, costs 
authorities that already 
Guidance that build on the 
should reduce.  
have DPE powers 
existing system of DPE  
  Increased public 
would face additional 
understanding and 
up-front costs for the 
acceptance of CPE. 
transition period to 
  More robust evidence 
CPE.  
from cameras 
 
  Benefits for road users    Enforcement 
including consistency, 
authorities who do not 
improvements to traffic 
yet operate DPE would 
flow and road safety, 
not face any higher 
more efficient dealings 
costs in bringing in 
with PCNs and the 
CPE than they would 
issue of a Notice to 
have faced to bring in 
Owner, greater 
DPE. 
transparency, improved   
effectiveness and 
  There are costs 
professionalism of civil 
resulting from 
enforcement officers, 
enforcement, which 
clarification of 
will vary depending on 
procedures and powers 
the size of the LA, the 
following High Court 
number of PCNs 
decisions.  
issued, and the 
efficiency. These costs 
will be covered through 
income from parking 
charges and parking 
penalty charges  
  
  Very minimal 
administrative costs in 
amending the Traffic 
Enforcement Centre’s 
procedure 
 
  
55. In view of the above, the Department recommends that option 3 be taken forward. 
This option is the most effective way to strengthen the existing system of DPE and 
 
17

 
11. Declaration and Publication 
 
56. I have read the Public Sector Regulatory Impact Assessment in the context of the 
Regulatory Impact Assessment associated with the Traffic Management Act and 
am satisfied that the benefits justify the costs. 
 
 
 
Rosie Winterton 
 
Minister of State for Transport, Department for Transport 
 
 
Contact Point: 
Head of Traffic Regulations and Parking 
Traffic Management Division 
Department for Transport 
Zone 2/06  Great Minster House 
76 Marsham Street 
London SW1P 4DR 
Direct Line: 020 7944 
 
Divisional Enquiries: 020 7944 2981 
Fax: 020 7944 2469 
GTN No: 3533 
dft.gsi.gov.uk 
1st August 2007 
 
18

                                                                                                       Annex A 
Invitees to Stakeholder Workshop 
 
 
Automobile Association 
 
London Councils 
 
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 
 
Living Streets 
 
Local Government Association 
 
London Technical Advisors Group 
 
National Parking Adjudication Service 
 
Parking and Traffic Appeals Service 
 
RAC Foundation 
 
Road Haulage Association 
 
Transport for London 
 
 
19

Annex B 
 
Members of Working Group 
 
 
Automobile Association 
 
London Councils 
 
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 
 
RAC Foundation 
 
Transport for London 
 
Papers Only 
 
Welsh Assembly Government 
 
Scottish Executive 
 
 
 
20

Document Outline