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 177
a 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 Act
b 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 process
a. To support enforcement
authorities in their exercise of DPE powers, non-Statutory Guidance was issued by
the Department for Transport/Welsh Office
b.
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