contact: alan weaver september 2012 draft final report by...

112-09-10 PnlRptPTES1.doc

Contact: Alan Weaver Tel: 0208 5832365 E- mail: [email protected] Housing & Environment Scrutiny Panel – Monday 10th September 2012

Scrutiny Review of Parking & Traffic Enforcement Services in Hounslow Draft Final Report by: Chair and Members of Housing & Environment Scrutiny Panel

Summary This report sets out progress so far with the above review. The report is almost complete but it has not been possible to finalise all implications, conclusions, and recommendations in time for this meeting. The Head of Parking Services has been invited to the meeting this evening to discuss the draft report. The report provides background information on parking legislation, national and local policies and priorities, service provision, previous scrutiny involvement. Through local consultation and other research, the review identified and explored a range of issues associated with parking enforcement, PCN and parking administration, and vehicle removals. Initially, Scrutiny members explored traffic and parking enforcement. They concluded that CCTV and CEO targets should focus on the quality of PCN tickets issued with emphasis upon more serious offences and offences that are less likely to attract challenges, representations and appeals. Scrutiny members recognise that the scope for CEO discretion should be tightly prescribed, but that there scope for more, and that a list of suitable areas for CEO discretion should be produced and publicised. Scrutiny members consider that there is merit in reviewing CEO duties to embrace tasks of wider community benefit. There should be far greater public communication about parking and traffic enforcement services, As a short term measure there should be more and better communication through HM magazine. The authority should produce a public friendly Enforcement Protocol document and be far more imaginative in its use of appropriate local media for publicising parking and traffic enforcement issues. Scrutiny members are concerned by the condition of parking infrastructure, and particularly the maintenance of lining and road markings. They agree with the Head of Parking Services that more of the funding generated by Parking should be ploughed back into investment in parking infrastructure and better services. Scrutiny members look for reassurance and demonstrable evidence that the best value for money and best quality service provision will be obtained in respect of RingGo ‘cashless’ systems for ‘on street’ and ‘off street’ parking. Scrutiny members acknowledge that Hounslow’s Parking Services performance and track record compares favourably with many other London boroughs. However, they also feel that the dissatisfaction amongst local residents and members, coupled with evidence revealed by appeal success rates, appeal decision commentary (half of all the appeals upheld in April 2012 were as a result of the authority’s ‘procedural impropriety’), and national concerns, necessitates an in depth review of PCN processing arrangements, particularly if the authority is proposing to externalise the service. For Parking Permits, Scrutiny members feel that some established practices (i.e. ‘temporary’ permits for ‘new’ residents) and current issues (introduction of administration charge for permit renewals, ‘limitations’ of electronic processing, ‘backlogs’) are not


providing compelling evidence of the customer care approach espoused in parking and traffic enforcement policy. There should be a review of Parking Permit arrangements to ensure that they reflect the needs and requirements of Hounslow’s residents. Head of Parking Services has provided information about vehicles removals undertaken by the authority. Scrutiny members would like to see details of the contents of the vehicle removal contract to reassure themselves about its content. Members would also like a report back on how current market testing initiatives and parking services externalisation will address the various concerns highlighted within this report.

1.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 1.1 Panel members are invited to consider the content of this report and to

highlight any additions or amendments they would wish to include 1.2 The proposed recommendations of the review are as follows:

i) CEO and CCTV targets should focus on the quality of PCN tickets issued with emphasis upon:

• More serious offences, particularly higher level PCNs;

• Minimum numbers of legitimate challenges, representations and appeals.

ii) A suitable list of areas for limited, prescribed discretion in CEO work should

be produced and publicised in a public friendly document. iii) That CEO duties are reviewed for possible inclusion of a range of tasks that

provide wider community benefit in order to help improve the image of CEOs and their roles.

iv) There should be far greater greater public communication about the rules,

procedures and processes that exist in Parking and Traffic Enforcement Services. As a short term measure, there should be more and better communication through HM magazine:

• A list of the top 10 offences and what actions residents and public can take to avoid committing them;

• Far more detailed information about crossover parking;

• A PCN flow diagram.

v) The authority should consider producing a user friendly Enforcement Protocol document (along the lines of the one produced by LB Wandsworth) and be far more imaginative in its publicity surrounding TMOs, CPZs, suspended bays, and other parking issues.

vi) More of the funding generated by Parking should be ploughed back into investment in parking infrastructure and better services.

vii) The authority should provide reassurance and demonstrable evidence that

the best value for money and best quality service provision will be obtained in respect of RingGo ‘cashless’ systems for selected ‘on street’ and ‘off street’ parking spaces.


viii) There should be an in depth review of PCN processing arrangements, particularly if the authority is proposing to externalise the service.

ix) Scrutiny members recommend Parking Services look at the business case for

introducing texting services.

x) There should be a review of Parking Permit arrangements to ensure that they reflect the needs and requirements of Hounslow’s residents.

xi) Authority to make available to Scrutiny members details of vehicle removal

contract documentation.

2.0 TERMS OF REFERENCE

The following terms of reference for the review were approved at the Finance & Performance Scrutiny Panel meeting of 6th March 2012.

A review of Parking and Traffic Enforcement Services in Hounslow to include:

• Enforcement of traffic regulations with particular focus on CCTV of bus lanes, main roads, parking and moving traffic regulations;

• Administration of challenges, representations and appeals against penalty charge notices (pcns);

• Administration of the Parking Permits scheme;

• Vehicle removals, arrangements and protocols

3.0 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

a) Background to Review 3.1 In 2009, Scrutiny reviewed Parking policies and the Parking Reserve

Account. As a result, Executive agreed that there should be annual reporting of parking finances, performance and statistics.

3.2 In April 2011, Finance & Performance Scrutiny Panel received an update on

parking finances and performance statistics and progress in meeting Executive approved Scrutiny recommendations of previous parking reviews.

3.3 In May 2011, Cabinet approved a new Parking & Traffic Enforcement Policy

(see appendix 2) and in August 2011 its first annual Parking & Traffic Enforcement Report was produced.

3.4 At February 2012 Finance & Performance Scrutiny Panel meeting, Panel

members indicated that they would like to scrutinise Parking & Traffic Enforcement.


b) Legislation (Civil Parking Enforcement)

3.5 Civil (formerly Decriminalised) Parking Enforcement (CPE) is the name given in the UK to the civil enforcement of car parking regulations.

3.6 With increasing problems of town centre congestion, and demand for on-

street parking, coupled with the pressures on police resources, and the low priority given by some police forces to the enforcement of parking regulations, the Road Traffic Act 1991 permitted local authorities to apply for the legal powers to take over the enforcement of, on-street, as well as off-street, car parking regulations from the police. Thus in areas where CPE has been granted, parking offences cease to be criminal offences.

3.7 The powers granted by CPE to deal with parking offences include:

• The issue of a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN)

• The immobilisation of the vehicle – usually by clamping – until a release fee is paid

• The removal of the vehicle from the street.

3.8 Appeals against council decisions on PCNs can be made to the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) in London, the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPI) in England and Wales. They are ‘independent’ of the councils, albeit being funded by them through a fee per PCN issued. 1. Following a Government Inquiry in 2006, parking laws were updated. Part 6 of the Traffic Management (TMA) Act 2004 titled ‘Civic Enforcement of Traffic Contraventions’ came into power on 31st March 2008.

3.9 The main changes as of 31st March 2008 were:

• Parking Attendants will become known as Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs);

• ‘Differential Parking’ There will be two levels (bands) of Penalty Charges depending on the severity of contraventions;

• Within London the higher band will be £80-£120 while the lower band will be £40-80 (reduced by 50% if paid within 14 days);

• There will no longer be a need for a PCN to be placed on a vehicle, or handed to a driver in order for it to be properly served;

• If a vehicle is driven away before the notice is issued, it may be posted to the registered keeper/owner of the vehicle;

• If a CEO for whatever reason is unable to serve the Notice it may be posted to the registered keeper of the vehicle;

• Clamping will only be used for persistent offenders;

• No targets or bonus schemes for CEOs;

• More powers for parking adjudicators;

• Clearer guidance on how to appeal;

• Extended discount payment period for PCNs that were detected by a camera. 3.10 With CPE in place, the local authority retains the income generated from

parking penalties. Typically, the revenue from such schemes is greater than

1 However, evidence submitted to Transport Committee in 2006 (see footnote 2) argues that such

bodies are not ‘independent’ because they are scrutinised by Joint committees (comprising appointed

members from participating local authorities) and are funded by a proportion of each PCN issued.


the cost of running the scheme and the surplus is ring-fenced to be used for transport related expenditure.

3.11 Some councils have used, attempted to use or been accused of attempting to

use parking enforcement as a source of revenue but government guidance makes clear that raising revenue should not be an objective of CPE. 2

(See appendix 1 for parliamentary and press concerns about this and other parking related issues).

c) Government Policy 3.12 Department of Transport has published guidance on Parking Policy and

Enforcement.3 This operational guidance sets out the policy framework within which the government believes local authorities should be enforcing their parking policies. It sets out the procedures they must follow, the procedures they are recommended to follow, and procedures to which they must have regard.

d) Hounslow’s Approach

Corporate Priorities 3.13 Hounslow’s Policy and Approach to Parking & Traffic Enforcement works

within the context of Hounslow’s overall priorities. Hounslow’s current administration has adopted the following themes

Theme 1 A safe borough

Theme 2 Bright futures for the borough’s children & young people

Theme 3 A thriving economy with more affordable homes

Theme 4 A clean, green borough

Theme 5 An active health borough

Theme 6 Help and support for our residents who need it most

Theme 7 An ambitious council which improves the lives of residents and works in a transparent & efficient way

3.14 The authority’s 2012-5 Corporate Plan and Business Plan summarises the

council’s priorities and performance targets, which include:

• Reducing each year the number of people killed or seriously hurt in road traffic accidents, contributing to an overall reduction of 33% between 2008 and 2020, as set out in Hounslow Transport Strategy

• letting a new highways ‘private finance initiative’ contract (Hounslow Highways) to deliver 80m of repairs and improvements to the borough’s roads, pavements, street lights, street furniture and gullies between 2013 and 2018;

2 Department of Transport Operational Guidance to Local Authorities : Parking Policy and

Enforcement Traffic Management Act 2004 – published 2009 – para 3.6 Page 14 3 See above.


• reducing the percentage of trips made by car in the borough, contributing to an overall reduction of 8% between 2009 and 2031 as set out in Hounslow Transport Strategy.

Parking & Transport Policies

3.15 Hounslow’s ‘documented’ approach to Parking and Traffic Enforcement is

designed to: meet local objectives; incorporate best practice, clear performance standards, consistent and transparent processes, monitoring and publicising standards, customer care and independent scrutiny.

3.16 Key objectives are:

• Managing the safe and free movement of vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists;

• Improving road safety;

• Improving the local environment;

• Maximising the use of parking space to balance the needs of road users, including residents, businesses and visitors;

• Improving the movement and accessibility of public transport;

• Meeting the needs of people with disabilities. 3.17 Hounslow’s enforcement approach is described as:

consistent – through clear policies and robust procedures; effective – a practical common sense approach; progressive – through technology and feedback.

(See appendix 2 for more details of Hounslow’s Parking and Traffic Enforcement Policy).

Market Testing

3.18 Currently, Hounslow’s Forward Plan indicates that it is to consider

outsourcing the Parking Service and to authorise a joint procurement strategy with potential partners – Brent, Ealing and Hillingdon.

3.19 On 16th July 2012, LB Brent considered a report seeking authority to tender a

collaborative cross borough (Brent, Ealing, Hillingdon and Hounslow) procurement of parking services, i.e. parking enforcement and notice processing. 4 Brent Council Executive gave its approval.

3.20 On 25th July 2012, LB Ealing Cabinet approved a Parking Services

Collaboration Report which updated Cabinet on the work carried out to date with London Boroughs of Brent, Hounslow, and Hillingdon to collaborate on a joint tendering exercise for parking services functions and to seek approval to commence on the first part of the procurement process. 5

e) Service Provision

3.21 The Parking Services Section is responsible for:

4 Brent Council Executive – 16th July 2012 – Authority to Tender a Collaborative Cross Borough Procurement of

Parking Services – Report from the Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services 5 Ealing Cabinet – 25th July 2012 – Parking Services Collaboration Report – Report from Executive Director for Environment and Customer Services.


• Enforcement of On and Off Street Parking Regulations by Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs);

• Enforcement of On Street Parking regulations by removal of vehicles;

• Enforcement of CCTV of bus lanes, parking and moving traffic contraventions;

• Administration of challenges, representations and appeals against PCN’s as allowed by the Traffic management Act 2004 (part 6 and related legislation);

• Management of On and Off Street ‘Paid for Parking’ income including cash collection and transit;

• Administration of the Parking Permits scheme;

• Transport Inclusion Services including Disabled Persons Blue Badge Scheme, Freedom Pass and Taxi Card schemes.

3.22 PCNs – PCNs can be issued for several different offences/matters: eg.

parking in a prohibited place, not complying with permitted parking arrangements, moving traffic offences, etc. Authorities must set two levels of penalty charges with the higher level applying to more serious contraventions. The Representation and Appeals Process enables motorists in receipt of a PCN to pay a discounted fine within 14 days. They can make a challenge which is accepted or rejected. They can make a representation which is accepted or rejected. If the vehicle owner does not agree with the outcome, then the matter is referred to an external agency, PATAS (Parking and Traffic Appeal services) for a decision. PATAS will accept or reject the appeal.

3.23 Hounslow registers Parking Charges with Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC).

The Keeper of the vehicle can contest the charges through a Statutory Declaration or Witness Statement. TEC can revoke an Order of Recovery – although Hounslow may pursue the charge again. Otherwise, Hounslow will enforce the charge by requesting a warrant and employing private bailiffs to execute it (See flow chart in Appendix A).

f) Service Reporting 3.24 An annual Parking & Traffic Enforcement Report was produced for the first

time in the financial year 2010/11. The report detailed a range of information including a summary of income and expenditure for Hounslow’s Parking Service, numbers of PCNs issued, Parking fines performance, Representations and Appeals, Types of Contraventions, hotspots, etc.

Please see Appendix 3 for financial and service activity data of general public interest.


4.00 METHODOLOGY 4.01 Evidence has been gathered from local residents by examining local

community website threads and by requesting feedback via such threads. 4.02 The Parking & Traffic Enforcement Scrutiny Working Group, its individual

members, and scrutiny officers have held meetings with Lead Member Environment and Parking Officers (see Appendix B for a full list of meetings).

4.03 Comparative performance of other London authorities has been examined

(see Appendix 5). 4.04 Appeal decisions for Hounslow PCNs which were heard by the Independent

Adjudicators at PATAS between 1st April and 30th April 2012 have been examined (see Appendix 6).

4.05 Internal Audit’s Parking Services Income (Enforcement) Report has been

examined.

5.00 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS /FINDINGS

a) Consultation and Feedback 5.01 Prior to scrutiny meetings, the Working Group members received consultation

and feedback data from local residents. The issues highlighted can be summarised as follows:

Criteria Issues

Enforcement of traffic regulations with particular focus on CCTV of bus lanes, main roads, parking and moving traffic regulations;

• overaggressive enforcement of trivial contraventions;

• communication about new parking arrangements;

• non compliant and confusing signage and road markings;

• requests for a different balance of CEO and CCTV enforcement;

• unsatisfactory arrangements for managing suspended bays;

Administration of challenges, representations and appeals against penalty charge notices (pcns);

• challenges and representations not taken seriously;

• Deficiencies highlighted during PCN cancellations or successful appeals not addressed;

• No apologies or compensation for successful challenges or appeals.

Administration of the Parking Permits scheme;

• Insistence on seeing insurance documents for permit renewals;

• Phasing out of non-license specific (VAR) parking permits.

Vehicle removals, arrangements and protocols

• Removal to the pound of residents’ cars for which permits are valid and which can rarely be justified on traffic management grounds.


b) Meetings

5.02 Various scrutiny meetings examined the issues in April and May and

highlighted the following issues:

• Flaws in the challenges, representations and appeal processes;

• The need for far greater public communication/customer care about the rules, procedures and processes that exist in Parking and Traffic Enforcement Services;

• the general approach and style of Parking Services enforcement;

• PATAS statistics;

• the practical accountability of Parking Services;

• arrangements for routine auditing of parking systems and procedures;

• communication with appellants where appeals are not contested by Hounslow;

• damage to the council’s image by the level of public grievance;

• the nature and content of the RingGo contract. 5.03 In July 2012, Scrutiny member and officer met with Planning Processing

Team Leader in Parking Services ad discussed staffing – structure; roles and responsibilities; communication, coordination, and control. Full details of the meeting are shown in appendix 7.

c) Performance 5.04 Benchmarking - PCN Appeal statistics produced by PATAS were examined

(see appendix 5). These statistics show that there has been considerable improvement in the authority’s performance in winning PCN appeals over the 3 years from 2008-09 to 2010-11, and the authority now performs far better than the average London local authority. Even so, 43% of appeals were upheld in 2010-11, and 14% of these were not contested by the authority.

5.05 However, the Head of Parking Services has made the point that the number

of PCNs allowed is a tiny fraction (less than 1% of the numbers of PCNs issued each year.

5.06 Appeal Decision Analysis – Specific appeal decision documents issued by

PATAS in April 2012 were examined (PATAS routinely consider appeals every month throughout the year). These showed that half of all appeals considered in April 2012 were upheld because the PCN was not correctly issued and half because of procedural impropriety.


d) Audit 5.12 Internal Audit carried out an audit of Parking Services Income (Enforcement)

as part of the 2011/12 Internal Audit Plan. The system control objectives for the audit included the following:

• All PCN’s and Bus Lane PCN’s issued are issued appropriately and are accurately and promptly processed;

• PCN cancellations are authorised and the reason for cancellation is documented as part of the audit trail;

• PCN recovery and enforcement procedures are in place to ensure that the department maximises its rate of recovery;

• Vehicle owners issued with a PCN are entitled to make representation and appeal, which should be in line with the Council’s guidelines and legislation;

5.13 Internal Audit’s recommendations did not indicate that any of these objectives

were at risk and no recommendations were made in respect of these areas. The Head of Internal Audit has confirmed that

‘the auditor looked at whether representations were dealt with in terms of the laid down procedures but did not confirm whether the parking Section had a process by which the outcome of representations were either all approved by someone else, or, at least, subsequently reviewed on a sample basis. This should be a key control going forward ...’.

e) Market testing

5.14 On 16th July 2012, LB Brent considered a report seeking authority to tender a collaborative cross borough (Brent, Ealing, Hillingdon and Hounslow) procurement of parking services, i.e. parking enforcement and notice processing. 6

5.15 The report requested approval to invite tenders for its joint contract, and

stated that the participating boroughs had agreed that this requirement should be tendered by Brent as lead borough for this collaborative procurement, subject to their own internal approvals. Brent Council Executive gave its approval.

5.16 The report highlighted that soft market testing had been carried out and

savings and other synergies identified eg purchase of management information system, sharing of car pound(s), sharing of procurement costs, sharing of best practice.

5.17 On 25th July 2012, LB Ealing Cabinet considered a Parking Services

Collaboration Report which updated Cabinet on the work carried out to date with London Boroughs of Brent, Hounslow, and Hillingdon to collaborate on a joint tendering exercise for parking services functions and to seek approval to commence on the first part of the procurement process. 7

6 Brent Council Executive – 16th July 2012 – Authority to Tender a Collaborative Cross Borough Procurement of

Parking Services – Report from the Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services 7 Ealing Cabinet – 25th July 2012 – Parking Services Collaboration Report – Report from Executive Director for Environment and Customer Services.


5.18 The report stated that the joint soft market test exercise had resulted in a

general consensus that for boroughs with in-house services there appear to be financial benefits from outsourcing, particularly in respect of enforcement services. The market testing indicated that boroughs could achieve savings of approximately 15% in the Back Office operations.

5.19 There is an aspiration to create a ‘shared supplier management structure’

with possibly a Management Board for the four boroughs. However, this will allow each borough to monitor and manage its own service. It is also intended that each borough will maintain its own parking policies and procedures although these will converge over time if it s considered appropriate and more efficient by the participating boroughs.

5.20 The procurement model selected is one where one of the authorities, in this

case Brent, acts as a lead authority. The lead authority is designated as a central purchasing body and runs the procurement. The lead authority will award one contract but all four boroughs are signatories to it. While there is a common specification there are local variants. It is expected that in the event of any performance issues the individual borough will take this up with the provider.

5.21 Issues surrounding different policy models for each authority lead to

complications in terms of shared or uniform contract management. As such it is proposed that each local authority monitors contract performance and compliance locally, with overarching contract management established as part of a larger parking board. Whichever scenario is selected there will be a need to consider the level of contract management required locally.

5.22 The joint tender could be worth in the region of £10 million per annum and as

such would likely attract proposals from significant new players in the parking supply market. Serco are very keen to establish themselves as a major force in the market and have already expressed considerable interest. Capita, currently a small operator of Parking Back-Office services, are likely to offer a combined Enforcement and Back-Office service. The participation of these new players is likely to significantly increase the competitiveness of the tender.


6.00 MAIN FINDINGS

a) Enforcement of traffic regulations with particular focus on CCTV of bus lanes, main roads, parking and moving traffic regulations;

i. Overaggressive enforcement of trivial contraventions

6.01 This issue was raised through the Chiswick Community Forum website where a contributor claimed that CEOs regularly hide in shops and alleyways in order to pounce on unsuspecting drivers. Other contributors claimed that CEOs overpolice a limited number of streets, eg. Turnham Green, and that commissions and incentives had a role in their being so zealous in their work.

6.02 Parking Services response was that LBH had never offered commissions or

incentives. Checks on quality ensured that CEOs for the most part issuing legitimate PCNs not just making up the numbers.

6.03 Members cited their own examples of overaggressive enforcement of trivial

cases and were able to refer to examples within the appeal decision documents produced by PATAS (see cases 2, 23, 36, 49, 50, and 54 in appendix 6).

6.04 Scrutiny members had concerns about why such cases are happening. They

highlighted their awareness of the scope for a mismatch between the financial objectives of the Environment Department and the overall objectives of parking enforcement in Hounslow.

6.05 Environment Officers reassured scrutiny members that CEOs were not paid

according to the number of PCNs they produce. Head of Parking Services said CEOs are not set specific targets for PCN issues, although you would expect 7-14 per day. If only 3 or 4 were produced, it would be looked into. The Head of Parking Services had to monitor performance through the numbers of PCNs that they produce because this was the principal purpose of their role. However, they don’t set specific targets.

6.06 The Head of Parking Services felt that it was important that members did not

lose sight of the fact that 65% of issued PCNs are for motorists from outside the borough and 35% relate to Hounslow’s residents. These people were often abusing parking and traffic regulations to the detriment of Hounslow’s residents. Many CPZ contraventions are not made by local people.

6.07 He confirmed that CEOs, CCTV staff, Back Office staff are in separate

sections under separate managers. This is in keeping with DOT Guidance 8 which advises that

‘the exercise of discretion should, in the main, rest with back office staff as part of considering challenges against PCNs and representations against NtOs. This is to protect CEOs from allegations of consistency, favouritism or suspicion of bribery’.

6.08 Member felt that CEO and CCTV targets should focus on the quality of PCN

tickets issued with emphasis upon:

8 See footnote 2



• Minimum numbers of legitimate challenges, representations, and appeals.

Recommendation 1

CEO and CCTV targets should focus on the quality of PCN tickets issued with emphasis upon:


• Minimum numbers of legitimate challenges, representations, and appeals.

6.09 Scrutiny Members queried the scope for discretion in marginal cases – cases where people have tried to comply but have failed in a ‘marginal’ way. For example,

• You don’t realise you have gone 1 +1/2 minutes over time;

• Ticket has blown off visible area below the windscreen into a corner;

• Part of the wheel is overlapping a parking bay line. 6.10 The Head of Parking Services felt that some recognition of ‘marginal’ cases

was already built into the system through higher and lower level PCNs. Discretion was evident in the scope for 2 week ‘breathing spaces’ in new CPZ’s and new CCTV operations. Some ‘marginal’ issues are incorporated into enforcement procedures and practices which are less onerous than national standards, eg observation times. The Lead Member pointed out that the lengthening of observation times from 2 minutes to 3 minutes was a recognition of marginal issues. For the examples cited by the member, where they do occur they should be treated sympathetically, but they should be one offs and not recur for the same motorist/vehicle.

6.11 Members did not feel that these responses fully reflected the common sense

approach and customer service attitude described as part of the enforcement ethos within the Parking & Traffic Enforcement Policy.

6.12 Despite their advice on limited CEO discretion, DOT guidance nevertheless

indicates that the authority may wish to set out certain situations where a CEO should not issue a PCN. For example, Wandsworth have produced a Parking Guide to Wandsworth, equivalent to Hounslow’s Parking & Traffic Enforcement Policy, but also a user friendly Enforcement Protocol document which includes information about the training, standards of behaviour and procedural requirements involved in the duties of a CEO. It specifies what CEOs can and cannot do. For example, it requires them to give motorists, whose vehicles are parked in contravention of the regulations, an opportunity to move before a ticket is issued ant it provides details of areas of parking enforcement in which discretion (leeway) is applied. See below.


• Vehicles displaying an expired resident permit are allowed 7 days grace during which warning notices, rather than PCNs are issued;

• Drivers attempting to use faulty pay and display machines are able to ring a dedicated telephone number displayed on the machine to arrange for a vehicle to park without receiving a PCN, up to the maximum stay allowed at the relevant pay and display machines;

• Vehicles displaying a valid resident or business permit are re-located rather than removed to the car pound if they are parked in a suspended bay;

• Vehicles parked partly on the footway in narrow roads are not ticketed providing that they leave sufficient space for a wheelchair or double buggy to pass unhindered;

• One period of temporary cover is issued free of charge to resident permit holders to allow their replacement vehicles to be parked whilst their own are serviced or repaired. The period is for a maximum of 10 to 12 days dependent on the days of operation of the CPZ.

6.13 Scrutiny members feel that there is more scope for limited, prescribed discretion in CEO enforcement work, particularly in respect of marginal cases. A suitable list of appropriate options could be compiled by reference to:

• good practices in other authorities,

• routine feedback received from PATAS via their appeal decision comments, and

• other sources.

6.14 These options should then be evaluated and an approved list of discretion areas agreed and publicised in a public friendly document.

Recommendation 2

A suitable list of areas for limited, prescribed discretion in CEO work should be produced and publicised in a public friendly document.

6.15 At Wandsworth, CEOs also perform other duties to assist the community in which they work, such as:

• Working with police to reduce crime

• Reporting unlicensed skips

• Assisting the emergency services where accidents occur.

6.16 DOT guidance states that The Secretary of State’s view is that CEOs should only be used for duties relating to those road traffic contraventions that the authority is responsible for enforcing. If CEOs have the time, the authority may wish to consider asking them to carry out tasks such as the following:

• Informing the police of criminal parking activity;

• Reporting suspected abandoned vehicles;

• Reporting vehicles with no valid tax disc to the DVLA;

• Putting in place and removing notices about the suspension of parking places;

• Checking and reporting on the state of signs, plating, markings, parking meters, pay and display machines;

• Checking that shops selling vouchers have adequate stacks;

• Reporting a change in parking patterns;

• Assisting with street enforcement surveys;


• And checking that non-mobile objects in parking places (eg. skips) are in compliance with the authority’s licence.

6.17 Scrutiny members think that there may be value in reviewing CEOs duties to

include one or more of tasks listed above to provide wider community benefit and to help improve the image of CEOs and their roles.

Recommendation 3

That CEO duties are reviewed for possible inclusion of a range of tasks that provide wider community benefit in order to help improve the image of CEOs and their roles.

ii) communication about new parking arrangements;

6.18 This issue originated from a thread on Chiswick Community Forum Website that half footway/half pavement parking had been in place for 16 years but no communication was sent to the residents in the streets nearby informing them about the changes, until they started being issued with PCNs.

6.19 Parking Services responded by stating that letters were posted with two

weeks notice and warning notices issued. Parking Services had received correspondence from residents acknowledging this.

6.20 Scrutiny members and officers readily acknowledge that there had been

improvements in communication about parking within the last few years, eg. Parking & Traffic Enforcement Policy, annual Parking & Traffic Enforcement report. Lead Member and Head of Parking Services have highlighted recent improvements in website and phone line communication. Telephone numbers are available 24 hours a day with staff available to answer directly between 10 am and 5 pm. If customers don’t get an answer directly, the service will phone back.

6.21 Scrutiny members spent some time considering the wide variations in times

and availability of parking in different CPZ’s. Signs were confusing and were often contradicted by other signs or information provided on pay and display machines or parking meters, or road markings.

6.22 Head of Parking Services indicated that Area Committees set the ‘times’ in

response to local requirements and had in practice rejected a borough wide approach designed to achieve consistency.

6.23 One member felt that a means had to be found to communicate a great deal

more about the rules and criteria and procedures that exist within Parking Enforcement to the general public.

6.24 This extract from a London Councils paper summarises the dilemmas, and

ways to ease them. It follows that such matters need to be more effectively communicated to local residents and the public generally.9

9 Managing Parking Penalties – Rob Kidd Transport & Parking Manager – A London Councils Briefing Paper – September 2011


Parking is one of the most sensitive areas of local government work, particularly in London. This is because high demand and a shortage of road space leads to a demand for parking well in excess of supply. It is no secret that many councils issue far more residents’ parking permits than they have spaces available. There is a great deal of work underway to encourage people to switch from their cars to other modes of transport, particularly in London where this ‘parking stress’ is at its highest. Parking can also be one of those areas (like speeding and planning permission) that many people agree with in principle, but would prefer if it didn’t apply to them. For example, many residents would prefer it if new developments near them were car free, so long as they do not lose their own parking spaces. Similarly, many visitors to the capital will complain about the volume of traffic and shortage of parking spaces while driving a car into central London, which will then occupy one of those spaces. Pressure for space in built up areas means demand outstrips supply. Local authorities are responsible for regulating that supply. Parking enforcement attracts near universal negative press, as there is no way to please everybody. However, by making decisions based on a framework of agreed principles and evidence-based policy objectives, boroughs can show themselves to be acting fairly and consistently.

6.26 Assistant Director Environment Services agreed that communication should have a higher profile. They had put a lot of notices in HM Magazine and agreed more should be done.

6.27 Scrutiny members felt that there should be far greater public communication

about the rules, procedures and processes that exist in Parking and Traffic Enforcement Services. As a short term measure, there should be more and better communication through HM magazine – a 2/4 page pullout or small leaflet containing:

o A list of the top 10 offences and what actions residents and public can

take to avoid committing them; o Far more detailed information about crossover parking; o A PCN flow diagram.

Recommendation 4

There should be far greater public communication about the rules, procedures and processes that exist in Parking and Traffic Enforcement Services. As a short term measure, there should be more and better communication through HM magazine – a 2/4 page pullout or small leaflet containing:

o A list of the top 10 offences and what actions residents and public can take to avoid committing them;

o Far more detailed information about crossover parking; o A PCN flow diagram.

6.28 A user friendly Enforcement Protocol document (similar to the one produced by Wandsworth) could incorporate these requirements (and the other issues described in the previous section). It could detail in a user friendly way, every parking contravention enforced by CEOs, the observation period allowed, and explain the circumstances in which the cancellation of a ticket would be considered. It could set out information about the training, standards of behaviour and procedural requirements involved in the duties of a CEO and details of parking enforcement in which discretion (leeway) is applied.


6.29 In the longer term, Scrutiny members feel that Parking Services and the authority needed to be far more imaginative in its use of communication to convey messages about TMOs, CPZs, suspended bays, changed enforcement approaches and new parking regulations. The authority should experiment with a whole array of communication media: HM Magazine, Hounslow website, local press, Community Forum websites, better quality and consistent information on signage, parking meters, pay and displays, and road markings.

Recommendation 5

The authority should consider producing a user friendly Enforcement Protocol document (along the lines of the one produced by LB Wandsworth) and be far more imaginative in its publicity surrounding TMOs, CPZs, suspended bays, and other parking issues.

iii) Requests for a different balance of CEO and CCTV Enforcement

6.30 This originated from a direct submission to the authority in response to LB

Hounslow’s post on the ChiswickW4.com about the Parking & Traffic Enforcement Scrutiny Working Group.

‘I have some concerns about the increased use of CCTV enforcement for ordinary parking contraventions. This is recommended by the Secretary of State for Transport10 to be used only where enforcement is difficult or sensitive and CEO enforcement is not practical.

6.31 At the Scrutiny Working Group meetings in April 2012, Head of Parking Services pointed out that strict guidelines had to be adhered to when using CCTV for enforcement. He highlighted that Appendix 10 of the Parking & Traffic Enforcement Policy sets out the protocols which follow best practice guidelines within the industry. This states that CCTV cameras are used for Traffic Enforcement and Community Safety purposes in the following circumstances:

• Bus lanes/routes;

• Main roads within the borough;

• Areas of non-compliance unless a constant presence is assigned to the location;

• Areas isolated by location;

• High volume areas;

• Mobile CCTV vehicles.

6.32 Head of Parking Services added that LB Hounslow has undertaken to ensure that sufficient signage is available to inform motorists of CCTV enforcement in a given location and that accredited equipment is used which complies with national standards and which is regularly checked and calibrated.

6.33 Head of Parking Services highlighted that many of Hounslow’s CCTV

enforcement standards are less onerous than national standards eg. many CCTV related offences specify no observation times – Hounslow specifies 2 minutes; There was scope for 2 week breathing spaces in new CCTV operations.

10 See footnote 2


6.34 Lead Member highlighted that he was determined to preserve budgets for CCTV signage. Signage needs to distinguish between CCTV cameras and whether they are for traffic enforcement and/or community safety. He wanted to be 100% confident that cameras are legal. Warning signs with them are often miniscule. He wanted to explore whether cameras in comparable locations were used for community benefit or traffic enforcement. He was still not happy with some of the locations but there were no funds to improve these this year.

6.35 Scrutiny members were reassured by the Lead Members approach and views

on this matter.

iv) Non Compliant, confusing signage and road markings 6.37 This originated from a direct submission to the authority in response to LB

Hounslow’s post on the ChiswickW4.com about the Parking & Traffic Enforcement Scrutiny Working Group. 2012.

There didn’t seem to be much evidence of actions in respect of non-compliant or confusing signage being corrected when a PCN is cancelled.

6.38 Scrutiny of PATAS Appeal Decisions comments revealed several decisions

where this issue was instrumental in PATAS upholding appeals (cases 27, 30, 31, 42, and 49). Case 49 included the following comment ‘The Council cannot expect to enforce parking restrictions if it does not maintain road markings to an acceptable standard.’

6.39 In addition, DOT guidance states that PCNs are not valid if they are issued

where traffic signs and road markings are incorrect or in a poor condition and that representations demonstrating this should be accepted.

6.40 Head of Parking Services responded to this submission in writing to state that

Parking and Traffic have a database of roads with faults which they are actively pursuing with Highways to correct any faults highlighted.

6.41 He indicated that unlined bays are an issue. He had transferred money from

his own budget to Highways to improve signage. He acknowledged that signs may be errant, machines may be down and he agreed to look in detail at specific signage issues in Spring Grove Road and in the proximity of Osterley Station.

6.42 Scrutiny members agree with Head of Parking Services comments on this

issue. expressed at the April Scrutiny Working Group meetings – Parking generated a sizeable surplus. It was appropriate for some of the funding generated to be ploughed back into parking Services for investment in parking infrastructure and better services.

6.43 Scrutiny members are concerned by the condition of parking infrastructure, and particularly the maintenance of lining and road markings. They agree with the Head of Parking Services that more of the funding generated by Parking should be ploughed back into investment in parking infrastructure and better services.


Recommendation 6

More of the funding generated by Parking should be ploughed back into investment in parking infrastructure and better services.

v) Unsatisfactory Payment Arrangements

6.43 Hounslow’s Parking and Traffic Enforcement Policy highlights that a

‘cashless’ system is in place for selected ‘on street’ and car park spaces concurrently with the traditional methods of cash payments into pay and display machines. RingGo facility enables residents and visitors to pay for their parking by mobile phone using a debit or credit card. This is designed to remove the need for drivers to find the correct change for a pay and display ticket.

6.44 Unsatisfactory payment arrangements emerged as a specific issue during the

examination of the enforcement of parking and traffic regulations. 6.45 Scrutiny of PATAS Appeal Decisions comments revealed several decisions

where unsatisfactory payment arrangements were instrumental in PATAS upholding appeals (cases 33, 39, 40, 43). For case 39 which related to RingGo payment, Appeal Decision stated ‘It is an inherent condition of the paid parking scheme that the systems for accepting and recording payments must be available to motorists and where it is not, they must not enforce the restrictions’.

6.46 DOT guidance states Enforcement authorities should offer motorists a range

of facilities for paying penalty charges. Enforcement authorities should ensure that any payment facility (particularly telephone and online payments) can confirm any amount outstanding if part payment only has been received. In addition, it is important that authorities do not introduce a system that inadvertently discriminates against some sections of the population. The system should allow motorists to pay by whatever method is most convenient to them.

6.47 At Scrutiny Working Group meetings in April 2012, Scrutiny members queried

performance and content of the RingGo contract. 6.48 Head of Parking Services stated that the initial contract with RingGo emerged

from members’ suggestion to progress cashless payments. In future, the service will be tendered through West London Alliance who will be rolling up, market testing, and tendering all parking services. Parking services don’t pay RingGo. Customers pay them directly for parking charges. There are call transaction payments and customers have to pay an additional payment (2%) for credit cards. If there is a failure in payment arrangements and a PCN is issued, RingGo have to stand the cost and refund all charges including costs of PCNs. If a motorist pays, and RingGo hasn’t registered it properly, it’s RingGo’s responsibility. There is an inbuilt financial incentive for them to perform properly. He added that central organisation and monitoring officers will be responsible for ensuring that similar provisions will be incorporated into the new WLA arrangements.


6.49 Nevertheless, despite the claims that there is an inherent incentive for them to perform properly, there have been problems with the operation of the RingGo system.

6.50 In June 2012 the Council admitted that over 200 parking tickets were wrongly

issued due to mistakes made by CEOs. 6.51 The download interface with LB Hounslow means there is a small delay

between making a payment and it showing up on the computer system. Lead Member said that CEOs were trained and advised to check by ‘dial in’ for latest updates before issuing a PCN. However, in situations where a CEO had failed to dial in PCNs can be incorrectly issued for non-payment.

‘On appeal it was found that valid and timely payments had been made and the PCNs were cancelled. The Parking Service has reminded CEOs of their duties in this regard’.

6.52 He stated that the Enforcement Officer now monitors this and there have been improvements.

6.53 A member of the public submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request in

April 2012 and received a response in June 2012. He contacted a scrutiny member and summarised his findings as follows:

‘I have found out that RingGo system was not procured properly and in accordance with the procurement rules of the council, in that a ‘pilot’ contract was awarded to a company without any form of tender and this contract gone on for some 6 years now and the company in question has benefited significantly from this. There is a possibility that the contract value is now over the EU threshold (£156K) and this is illegal under EU law’.

6.54 He also maintained that 2% RingGo credit card charge levied by the payment

service provider for processing the credit card transaction is high given the volumes involved. He stated that the RingGo fee, 20p a transaction, a payment for the convenience of using the facility which the customer pays, was twice the normal industry level.

6.55 Scrutiny members look for reassurance and demonstrable evidence that the

best value for money and best quality service provision will be obtained in respect of RingGo ‘cashless’ systems for ‘on street’ and ‘off street’ car park spaces.

Recommendation 7

The authority should provide reassurance and demonstrable evidence that the best value for money and best quality service provision will be obtained in respect of RingGo ‘cashless’ systems for selected ‘on street’ and ‘off street’ parking spaces.


b) Administration of challenges, representations and appeals against penalty charge notices (pcns); 6.56 Following preliminary consultation with local residents through community

websites and other means, the following issues were identified:

• Challenges and representations not taken seriously;

• Deficiencies highlighted during PCN cancellations or successful appeals not addressed;

• No apologies or compensation for successful challenges or appeals. Challenges and representations not taken seriously

6.57 There was a submission to the authority in response to LB Hounslow’s post

on the ChiswickW4.com about the Parking & Traffic Enforcement Scrutiny Working Group as follows: ‘The typical response to the initial challenge is to reject it, often with reasons that don’t address the driver’s argument. I suspect this is because the person handling the initial challenge is not qualified or trained to respond to it. The driver has to repeat his arguments at the formal representation stage, and a better qualified person is then assigned to it. If the person dealing with the initial challenges does not understand the technicalities of a challenge, he or she should be able to escalate to someone who can, so that it can be properly assessed without the need to go round the loop again at the next stage.

6.58 The Head of Parking Services responded in writing as follows:

‘A training programme for accreditation has recently had its report signed. This will facilitate further support for staff involved in the PCN review process. However, the officers that are responding to challenges and representations have the same level of knowledge. Quality monitoring is carried out with every officer and the results are fed back to the individual officer and the Business Support Manager to ensure that all issues are captured and fed in to enable continuous improvement.

6.59 This issue has been highlighted at national level (see appendix 1). 6.60 Caroline Sheppard, Chief Adjudicator at Traffic Penalty Tribunal has said she

was concerned that too many councils were failing in their statutory duty to give proper consideration to representations made by motorists contesting penalties, and to guidance offered in mitigation. She said that motorists’ letters of explanation to town halls were often dismissed with a standard response letter of one or two lines – a practice which suggests that their arguments have not been considered properly or fairly.

6.61 The issue was taken up at a Scrutiny Working Group meetings when scrutiny

members pursued their concerns that complainants felt that their representations were totally dismissed, not listened to, ignored. One Scrutiny member felt CEOs know their jobs but the expertise on challenges, representations and appeals wasn’t there. He believed that Hounslow doesn’t give a fair hearing or fair treatment. It rejects informal challenges and representations 95% of the time.


6.62 Environment officers disagreed with this. They felt that back office/notice

processing staff followed the procedures and protocols. Performance was improving steadily every year and the authority compared well to others. Additional training was being put in place. They highlighted that people feel put out when they receive a parking ticket. People don’t like parking tickets but experience has shown that when you dig deeper some of the residents aren’t the most upstanding. They try to get away with not paying the fine.

6.63 To gain more insight into the issues, Scrutiny undertook a comparative

analysis of Hounslow’s performance with other London Boroughs.

6.64 Around 140,000 PCNS are issued by Hounslow each year (see appendix 7). 65% are paid within 14 days and attract a discount. A further 15/20% are paid later at the full rate. Only a tiny proportion (less than 1%) go to final appeal. However, of these, in 2011-12, 46% of motorist’s appeals were upheld; I.e., Hounslow lost (or failed to contest) a total of 46% of these cases.

6.65 Nevertheless, Hounslow performed better than the average London authority

- which lost 48% of its appeal cases in 2011-12. And all London’s authorities, including Hounslow are performing far better than they were 4 years ago when over 70% cases were lost.

6.66 From another perspective, all of these results might be considered as

extraordinarily poor. Parking & Traffic Enforcement retains a closer relationship with criminal law than civil law, as Head of Parking Services demonstrated when he outlined its origins as a police responsibility before its subsequent decriminalisation.

6.67 For criminal cases, the Crown Prosecution Service/Police expect to secure

convictions for 80-90% of the cases they take, with the possible exception of sexual offences and offences against the person - where successful prosecution rates drop to a little below 80%.11

6.68 This is not as high as the 99% success rate that PCNs secure but if

appellants in criminal cases were successful in 50% of their appeals there would be a national outcry.

6.69 Scrutiny members might be reassured by the 99% success rates were it not

for the financial inducement motorists are given settle early - pay a reduced fine within 14 days (saving over 50%). One Scrutiny member pointed out that people are intimidated. They get frightened and were afraid to challenge in fear that the fine would increase. Payment at a discounted rate is not an admission of guilt.

11 Performance Indicator Universe, CPS Management Information System


6.70 Scrutiny members are concerned that such inducements may have the unfortunate side effect of undermining procedural safeguards that protect the integrity of this judicial process. 12

6.71 Scrutiny undertook further research (a desk top analysis of PATAS Appeal

Decisions issued during April 2012 and a meeting with Parking Processing Team Leader in July 2012).

6.72 Appeal decision statistics revealed a range of cases (2,23,36,49,50, 54 – see

appendix 8) which could easily have been resolved far earlier. The authority was rebuked by the adjudicator in 3 of these cases.

6.73 Parking Processing Team Leader has made the point that consideration of

initial challenges and representations are often focused on the grounds cited by the motorist/keeper of the vehicle, rather than being a comprehensive overview of the case necessary at the appeal stage. This is relevant because at appeal stage, the appellant will often introduce additional data and evidence that they have not revealed earlier. Indeed. Parking Services may decide not to contest as a result of additional evidence provided at this stage.

6.74 Scrutiny members because aware of this argument early in the review and

wanted to test this assertion. However, the meeting arranged to do so became focused on staffing issues and there was insufficient time to do so.

Deficiencies highlighted during PCN cancellations not addressed;

6.75 Another submission suggested that where a PCN is cancelled, there is not

much evidence of actions being put in place to prevent recurrences.

6.76 The Head of Parking Services responded in the following manner. Every case is taken on its own merit and responded to. An appeal allowed in one set of circumstances might not be in similar circumstances. Situations may be similar but are rarely exactly the same. Cancellation reports are run and reviewed regularly. The information is used on an intelligent basis to improve the service. Close cooperation exist now between the team leaders at the Civic end enforcement management/ supervisors to learn from CEO errors and/or improve responses.

No apologies or compensation for successful challenges or appeals. 6.77 Another submission stated:

‘The Council never seems to compensate or apologise when proven representations have been made.’

6.78 The Head of Parking Services responded as follows:

12 Wider national concerns were expressed about the integrity of this judicial process in submissions to House of

Commons Transport Committee review on Parking in 2006. Bill of Rights Act 1689 is a constitutional statute and states that a conviction is necessary before a fine or forfeiture can be imposed. This potentially challenges the legitimacy of local authorities to impose fines or for bodies like PATAS to describe themselves as courts of law. The submission claimed this was a potential contravention of Article 6 of the European Contravention on Human Rights. The resultant ambiguity means local authorities often talk about ‘excess charges’ rather than fines, and bodies like PATAS describe themselves as Tribunals rather than courts of law.


This is incorrect if it is clear that an incorrect decision has been made this will be rectified.

6.79 The above response does not address the point that is being made and this epitomises the experience some members felt they had in considering this element of the review. Scrutiny members do not see a great deal of evidence for the customer care and common sense philosophy highlighted in the policy - in action. One clear example is appeal decision case number 38 (see appendix 6) where the authority cooperated with the PATAS adjudicator in a compassionate response to a deserving case. But this is the only one highlighted in all the research undertaken.

6.80 There are however several examples where common sense or customer care

appear to be lacking eg cases 2,23,36, etc listed earlier. Also,

• In response to a query about whether the authority informs appellant when they decide not to contest a case, the Head of Parking Services responded by saying that after a hearing date the motorist will get a letter informing them that no representations were made by Hounslow. Parking Services do not inform the motorist separately – frustrating to an appellant who might have a made an unnecessary and expensive journey across London to appear at a PATAS hearing.

• The Planning Processing Team Leader confirmed that the authority does not reimburse the motorist/keeper for the penalty charge if case reviews reveal that a PCN was not properly issued.

6.81 Scrutiny members understand the reasons why Hounslow Parking Services

do not routinely attend PATAS appeals i.e. only 1 or 2 cases are considered per day and the cases considered are often scheduled to suit the circumstances of the appellant. Routine attendance in such circumstances is probably neither practicable or an effective use of staff time. However, it might well be, if Hounslow were to focus on reducing the number that went to appeal, by resolving more at a far earlier stage – and it would probably send the a pertinent message about the seriousness with which Hounslow takes such issues and PATAS arrangements and procedures.

6.82 Examination of Appeal decisions for Penalty Charge Notices, issued by LBH

which were heard by PATAS in April 2012 were examined (see appendix 6). 207 documents were received. There were 137 (66%) appeals refused cases, 16 (8%) ‘not contested’ cases, 54 (26%) ‘allowed’ (appeals upheld) cases in April 2012.

6.83 Of the latter ‘54’ upheld:

25 (46%) of the appeals were upheld because the PCN was not correctly issued; 22 (41%) of the appeals were upheld because of the authority’s procedural impropriety; 7 (13%) were a mixture of the 2.

6.84 So, around half of the reasons why appeals were upheld were because of

procedural impropriety by the authority. Some of this related to non compliance with proper procedures and some related to inadequate provision of appropriate documentation, particularly copies of PCNs issued.


6.85 In discussions with Planning Processing Team Leader (see appendix 7), it

was revealed that The Service receives from PATAS notification of approximately 12 appeal cases details per day. Each contested case involves collation of 60 pieces of paper by an officer. There is an evidence checklist completed by the officer for each case to ensure that it has the appropriate sections included. However, there is no quality assurance check by colleagues or other officers to ensure that the PATAS documentation has been put together properly. Scrutiny feels this should be a minimum requirement.

6.86 Scrutiny members wanted to explore the robustness of notice processing

arrangements in more detail. They requested information about number of contacts before cancellation. However, this information could not be provided and there was insufficient time to progress the matter at the meeting held with the Planning Processing Team Leader which focused on staff management and monitoring arrangements (see appendix 7). The meeting that did take place did not reveal any significant deficiencies aside from the above quality assurance issue. The long standing dissatisfaction with BSO staff management arrangements do not appear to be causing immediate problems although there was recognition that there might be more scope for upward communication from front line staff, including a staff suggestion scheme. The Planning Processing Team Leader felt there was a need for more subtle communications and better public relations with Hounslow residents, and there needed to be better liaison with other sections, particularly Traffic.

6.87 Internal Audit’s audit of Parking Services Income (Enforcement) did not

indicate that any of system objectives were at risk and no recommendations were made in respect of these areas. The Head of Internal Audit has confirmed that the auditor looked at whether representations were dealt with in terms of the laid down procedures but did not confirm whether the Parking Section had a process by which the outcome of representations were either all approved by someone else, or, at least, subsequently reviewed on a sample basis. This should be a key control going forward to address the issue.

6.88 Scrutiny members acknowledge that Hounslow’s Parking Services

performance and track record compares favourably with many other London boroughs. Scrutiny members are pleased to hear that plans for staff training do now appear to be going ahead. However, they also feel that the dissatisfaction amongst local residents and members, coupled with evidence revealed by appeal success rates, appeal decision commentary (half of all the appeals upheld in April 2012 were as a result of the authority’s ‘procedural impropriety’), and national concerns, necessitates an in depth review of PCN processing arrangements, particularly if the authority is proposing to externalise the service.

Recommendation 8

There should be an in depth review of PCN processing arrangements, particularly if the authority is proposing to externalise the service.


Administration of the Parking Permits scheme; 6.89 Following preliminary consultation with local residents through community

websites and other means, the following issues were identified:

• Insistence on seeing insurance documents for permit renewals;

• Phasing out of non-license specific (VAR) parking permits.

Insistence on seeing insurance documents for permit renewals 6.90 There was a submission to the authority in response to LB Hounslow’s post

on the ChiswickW4.com about the Parking & Traffic Enforcement Scrutiny Working Group. The respondent could not understand why the parking team were insisting at a renewal on seeing an insurance certificate containing the name, address and vehicle registration. Many insurance certificates do not contain that information. This is unreasonable, especially where it is a renewal for the same vehicle as in previous years.

6.91 The Head of Parking Services responded:

‘Parking Services do not ask for a certificate of insurance. They ask for the insurance proposal letter which contains name and address for verification purposes.’

Phasing Out of non-licence specific (VAR) parking permits.

6.92 There was a submission to the authority in response to LB Hounslow’s post

on the ChiswickW4.com about the Parking & Traffic Enforcement Scrutiny Working Group. The respondent wanted to know why VAR (variable – can be used on any car) business permits had been phased out and only licence specific ones were available.

6.93 The Head of Parking Services responded:

Parking places in Chiswick (where most VAR permits were issued) are scarce. More and more businesses were undermining enforcement in the area, eg. sometimes 2 persons would drive in against 1 VAR permit. If one got a PCN they would just quote the VAR reference. As VARs could not be tracked to a single vehicle this undermined our enforcement options.

6.94 At their Scrutiny Working Group meetings, Scrutiny members examined availability of resident permits for commercial vehicle and trucks; 2 year permits; ‘texting’; certificate for insurance; fraud on permits, etc.

6.95 Parking Services confirmed that residents permits were not available for commercial vehicles and trucks. 2year permits had been phased out because of: complaints received in respect of them; logistical problems and the minimal benefits associated with them. Fraud was limited but Parking Services were aware of some loopholes associated with multiple applications, visitor passes, etc which they are actively monitoring and closing. Visitor passes for renovations, particularly in Chiswick, are routinely checked against architectural drawings, photographs, etc.


6.96 Head of Parking Services confirmed that once every 4 years, Parking Services check all data and permit applicants have to fill in a comprehensive application form.

6.97 One Scrutiny member wanted to know why Parking Services can’t text people when permits expire as a reminder to enable them to avoid PCNs? Texts are a very useful reminder. Sending an email might cover 60/70% of people, but not all, particularly the elderly. Good customer care is important and inclusive.

6.98 Parking Services responded by stating that there is a 14 day grace period

after permits expire to give people time to renew permits. Not everyone has text facilities. It would be necessary to purchase technology for texting. Texts cost less than a letter. Emails cost less than text. If a business case could be made for ‘texting’, Parking Services would consider it.

Recommendation 9

Scrutiny members recommend Parking Services look at the business case for introducing texting services

6.99 Scrutiny members note that while Hounslow’s Parking & Traffic Enforcement Policy makes a point of highlighting a ‘customer service’ philosophy, some elements of its approach to parking permits do not compare as well with the approach of others. Charging new residents for a temporary parking permit, and then subsequently a resident parking permit, because they cannot provide documentation with their name and new address on it, doesn’t appear particularly customer oriented, particularly when the could quite readily accept a tenancy agreement, or solicitors letter confirming completion of house purchase (as Greenwich does).

6.100 Likewise,

• closure of the cash office in May 2011;

• introduction of administration charge for new permits, additional permits and renewals at the civic centre in June 2012;

• ‘limitations’ of ‘on-line’ systems – these only process renewals provided there are no changes;

have an impact on residents wishing to apply for or renew permits. Only a certain amount can be achieved over the telephone. Backlogs, postal delays and phased reduction or cost increases associated with face to face customer contact presents more barriers to law abiding residents who wish to avoid PCNs. Arguably, this does not provide convincing evidence of an evolving, responsive customer care approach.

6.101 Scrutiny members consider that there should be a review of Parking Permit arrangements to ensure that they reflect the needs and requirements of Hounslow’s residents.

Recommendation 10

There should be a review of Parking Permit arrangements to ensure that they reflect the needs and requirements of Hounslow’s residents.


Vehicle removals, arrangements and protocols

6.102 Following preliminary consultation with local residents through community websites and other means, the following issue was identified:

Removal to the pound of residents’ cars for which permits are valid and which can rarely be justified on traffic management grounds.

I object to the removal of residents’ cars from the zone for which their permits are valid. If they have contravened the regulations, then a PCN is justified. Removal of the vehicle is rarely justified on traffic management grounds and is a disproportionate penalty. This practice has been unpopular for years, and the Council agreed shortly before the 2010 election to terminate the tow-truck contract and rely on an emergency call-out arrangement for the most serious cases. The incoming administration changed that decision, and continued the contract with NSL, though with only one vehicle. An urgent review is needed of this contract. What are the numbers of removals in each of the priority categories? Does the contract cover its costs? Do the terms of the contract force the removal of lower priority vehicles purely for financial reasons rather than on traffic management grounds?

6.103 Head of Parking Services responded

Any vehicle which falls within our criteria, whether a resident or not, is treated equally. The potential disruption caused by the truck is considered but we must also consider the longer term disruption caused by the vehicle we are attempting to remove. An extensive response was given to the Scrutiny Working Group, viz:- Vehicle Removals – LBH operates a removals and relocation service using an outside contractor, NSL Services Ltd, under the direction of LBH Parking Enforcement Supervisors. Vehicles removed are taken to the NSL pound in White City. Removals are focused on vehicles parked in contravention of higher charge offences, persistent evaders, and foreign registered vehicles. Prior to removal, a vehicle will be issued with a PCN. The removal may take instantly or following a period of 1 hour. Where it is thought more appropriate, the relocation of a vehicle may take place rather than removing it to the council’s pound. On the tow away truck, there is another NSL warden who is there to independently verify and approve the removal. The authority does not pay for a specific number of vehicles to be removed per day. There were no linkages between the number of removals and payment for removals. Assistant Director Legal Services had reviewed the contract from this perspective - he was perfectly satisfied.

Performance criteria included attendance times, turnaround times, etc. The number of vehicles being removed has fallen. In 2010/11 – 851, in 2011/12 – 772. The costs of NSL (vehicle tow away contractor) in 2011 were highlighted. From January to December 2011, LB Hounslow was invoiced for £292K. This was paid for

through PCN income £219K leaving a budgeted cost to the authority of £73K.


6.104 A scrutiny member commented that £73k was a reasonable net cost to ensure that we could respond to resident needs and maintain an ‘ultimate’ enforcement presence for habitual offenders with outstanding PCNs.

Bay suspension use with suspender’s permission; Tow charges and fines; Clarity on rules of vehicle to be towed

6.105 A submission stated:

Neighbour A parked in neighbour B’s suspended bay with their permission as did not eventually need to use the suspended bay. Neighbour A’s vehicle was mounted onto a tow truck hitting neighbour A with a £55 fine and a £200 tow charge to White City. Neighbour A and Neighbour B’s (the bay suspender) pleas were ignored.

Moving house is stressful without hassle from CEOs. If parking spaces are suspended in order to support a house move, control of who can park in the suspended spaces should be with the resident and/or removal company that requested the suspension. Hounslow generally do not specify the registration numbers of the authorised vehicles, yet a CEO is liable to fix a PCN on a vehicle without checking first with the resident or company concerned. I know of one case where an incoming resident got a PCN on his own car while moving his possessions from it into his new house. What a welcome to Chiswick! There is no point in continuing a suspension after the operation has finished. The resident who asked for the suspension should be able to allow neighbours back into the space, or perhaps authorised to take down the signs CEOs should not penalise vehicles in a suspended bay without first checking with the resident or company on site. There is no other way that the CEO can find out whether the vehicle is legitimately parked, but it only takes a minute to call at the relevant house or ask the people working there. Vehicles should not be removed from a suspended bay unless the space genuinely is needed by the resident or company.

6.106 The Head of Parking Services responded

Clearer guidance to residents who suspend bays relating to how they should advise other about using the bays or a contact number to advise that the suspension is no longer required may help. With the utility companies we need more information from them about this as they often block book area and then decide later when or if they will carry out work.

The suspension form clearly requests the Vehicle Registration Numbers (VRNs) of any vehicles that are authorised to park in the suspended bays for exactly this reason. If the applicant does not provide these details then we can only assume that the vehicle is not parked with any agreement. Authorised officers must only remove signs or this could lead to confusion as it did recently with a resident making a unilateral decision that a suspension was not required when it was. As above, when the applicant makes the application authorised VRN’s are provided. This information is then provided to the Enforcement team who do not issue PCN’s to any authorised vehicle.

6.105 Scrutiny member(s) are not clear why Hounslow does not contact CPZ permit holders if their vehicles are parked in suspended bays or move them into adjacent bays, rather than take the vehicles to a car pound in White City.


6.106 A scrutiny member has made repeated requests for sight of vehicle removal contract documentation in April, July and August 2012. To date, this has not been forthcoming.

Recommendation 11

Authority to make available to Scrutiny members details of vehicle removal contract documentation.

7.00 IMPLICATIONS

8.00 CONCLUSIONS

9.00 DIVERSITY AND EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS

The proposals in this report will affect young people throughout the borough.

Background papers: Review of Parking and Traffic Enforcement Services in Hounslow – Interim Report of the Parking & Traffic Enforcement Scrutiny Working Group – Finance & Performance Scrutiny Panel – 29

th May 2012.

This report has been or is due to be considered by: nil

This report is relevant to the following wards/areas: all


Appendix 1 Parliamentary and Press Concerns about the use of parking enforcement as a source of revenue plus other parking related issues. Current Effectiveness of Parking Provision and Enforcement Policy

13

‘There is currently a serious internal and external investigation being conducted into the legitimacy of Sunderland City Council’s DPE. There has already been an admission by the City Council that over £20,000 has been unlawfully collected from motorists with more to follow. Accrington Council has also been forced to repay monies to motorists who have received unlawful PCNs’ Millions of parking tickets given out illegally, expert reveals

14

Millions of parking tickets are being issued illegally all over the UK, according to a leading expert. Chris Leithead, ex-head of the Metropolitan Police Traffic Division and a traffic consultant who advises councils on parking, said local authorities were issuing parking tickets in areas where signs were unlawful. He said he had witnessed this in London, Birmingham, Edinburgh and Bath and was ‘absolutely certain’ it was happening in many other areas. Defective signs he has identified include:

• Signs more than 60 metres apart, or simply missing;

• Road markings, such as parking bays and yellow lines, so worn they can be barely made out;

• Double yellow lines with no T-bar to show the end of the no parking restriction;

• ‘Swivel’ signs that change restrictions without warning;

• Signs that are unclear or ambiguous. Mr Leithead, who has advised councils all over the UK on the introduction of decriminalised parking enforcement, said: ‘We are talking about millions of tickets that have been issued unlawfully. Councils are taking advantage of the fact that most motorists do not know the signs are unlawful and that even if they have concerns, they will pay up to get it out of the way. But drivers should not be given those tickets in the first place.’ His comments followed The Sunday Telegraph’s disclosure last week – confirmed in leaked emails – that Exeter City Council has told traffic attendants to keep on issuing tickets even after they have pointed out that parking signs and bays were unclear or wrong. Council parking controls have to be enshrined in byelaws, called Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs). The signs and markings used to impose the restrictions have to be displayed and painted according to Department of Transport instructions before tickets can be issued, with only minor deviations allowed. But Mr Leithead said nobody checked whether councils were complying with the regulations – and many were flouting them openly as a way of raising revenue. ‘This is not traffic management,’ he said. ‘If councils were serious about wanting traffic to flow more freely we would see attendants giving out tickets to cars blocking buses and other

13 13 Transport Committee (2006-06-22) Transport – Seventh Report: Parking Policy and Enforcement

- Written Evidence – Memorandum submitted by Neil Herron on behalf of the Metric Martyrs Defence

Fund 14 The Telegraph 2

nd October 2010


vehicles on main roads. But too many of them are busy doling out tickets in quiet side streets where cars are not actually causing any problems and where signs are often unclear and unlawful. Through his local MP, Tony Lloyd, Mr Leithead has lodged a complaint with the parliamentary ombudsman, accusing the Secretary of State for Transport of maladministration for failing to require local authorities to carry out their legal duties. In March this year Richard Buckley, head of the Department of Transport’s traffic management division, replying to a letter from Mr Leithead, said the department had no ‘formal role’ to manage councils’ parking controls performance or to investigate allegations against them. If officials received evidence of council failings they would ‘advise’ the authority to stop issuing tickets but the local authority would decide whether to take action, he said. It was up to local communities, media and campaign groups to hold local authorities to high standards, using ‘civil society and local democracy’, Mr Buckley added. Mr Leithead said the department’s response was ‘totally unacceptable’ because nobody is scrutinising councils’ performance’. He wants to see a national inspectorate set up to perform that role. . Parking tribunal chief tells councils to show common sense

15

Britain’s most senior parking official has said that councils are being unfair to drivers. Caroline Sheppard, chief adjudicator of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, accused some local authorities of operating a ‘zero tolerance’ approach to minor infringements. She suggested that motorists who are given parking tickets for petty breaches of the rules should be let off if they appeal against the penalties. Mrs Sheppard complained that motorists were being punished for such offences as leaving one wheel over the white line of a car park bay, or failing to display their pay-and-display ticket correctly. In such cases, drivers whose penalties were upheld on appeal to town halls have subsequently had them overturned by the tribunal. Last year the tribunal received more than 12000 applications to overturn tickets. In more than 60% of cases it ruled in favour of the motorist. The intervention by the chief adjudicator comes after The Sunday Telegraph’s Campaign for Fair Parking highlighted cases where councils have carried on issuing tickets in areas where they knew the signs were illegal. Mrs Sheppard accused councils of failing to exercise their discretion when penalties were challenged, and called for ‘an outbreak of common sense’ over trivial cases. She urged motorists to appeal against penalties if they think they have been dealt with unfairly or illegally. She said. ‘Motorists must appeal if they have any doubts over penalty charges. People want to explain but we only see what comes before us, so let us look at it’.

15 The Telegraph 10

th October 2010


The chief adjudicator said she was concerned that too many councils were failing in their statutory duty to give proper consideration to representations made by motorists contesting penalties, or to evidence offered in mitigation. She said that motorists’ letter of explanation to town halls were often dismissed with a standard response letter of one or two lines – a practise which suggests that their arguments ‘had not been considered properly or fairly’. Many councils were ‘unwilling or unable to consider challenges based on mitigating circumstances’, Mrs Sheppard said. Mitigation pleas are common in cases where a ticket has been issued because of a failure to display a permit, disabled parking badge or pay-and-display ticket. Many councils had taken the ‘extraordinary’ view that it was somehow ‘fairer’ to reject all representations, she said. Adjudicators had seen this explained in letters of rejection in which council officials said it would be ‘unfair’ on people who had paid a penalty charge if those who made representations were ‘let off’. Mrs Sheppard, a barrister, also criticised the rising numbers of appeals that councils failed to contest at the tribunal saying: ‘I don’t understand why local authorities reject drivers’ representations and then go no further’. The tribunal, which covers all of England and Wales except Greater London, considers cases where motorists have received a parking ticket then appealed to the town hall, which has upheld the decision. It received 12,423 submissions last year, an increase of 11% on the previous year’s figure. Of cases decided by the tribunal, 34% were won by the motorist because the council did not contest the case and a further 28% were decided in favour of the motorist after the adjudicator considered and rejected the council’s arguments, meaning that 62% of all appeals were successful. In 9 out of the last 10 years, the proportion of successful appeals has been over 60%. Last year in 28 areas more than half of all appeals were uncontested by the local authorities concerned. Areas with the highest proportion of tickets overturned at the tribunal in 2008/09, the most recent figures available, included the Medway towns in Kent, where 360 motorists appealed to the tribunal and 91% were successful, and Slough, where 246 appealed and 84% were successful. The chief adjudicator declined to comment on councils which instructed enforcement officers to issue tickets despite having been warned that their regulations or signposts were legally flawed. But she said it was ‘regrettable’ that the tribunal was still being asked to determine appeals against penalties issued on streets where road signs were misleading and confusing. In some cases, the tribunal has told councils to ensure that their parking officials receive guidance from their legal teams. Parking tickets can only be issued when a motorist has broken a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO), or byelaw, that has been made correctly by the local authority. Mrs Sheppard said that adjudicators were ‘bewildered’ by some TROs, and called for greater clarity so that parking signs are clear and unambiguous.


Councils push for big increase in parking fines

16

Motorists face a sharp increase in parking fines if the Government bows to pressure from councils. Local authorities outside London are lobbying ministers for the right to lift their fines to the levels imposed in the council, taking the upper limit from £70 to £120. The call is backed by the British Parking Association, a body representing councils and car park operators, which says that current fines are not enough of a deterrent. However, critics said that the move was an attempt to increase revenue – in breach of government guidelines – at a time when local authorities face deep budget cuts. Parking Tickets used to boost council coffers

17

Parking tickets and fines up to £130 are being used to boost council finances in defiance of rules that ban them making money out of traffic controls. In the first evidence that local authorities are exploiting motorists to raise cash, Westminster Council has identified parking enforcement as a source of millions of pounds of ‘additional income’. Motoring groups seized on the admission, buried in a briefing by the Council’s director of finance, and accused councils of using parking controls as a ‘stealth tax’. Norman Baker, the transport minister, said ‘I think motorists will worry that this is perhaps a covert attempt to raise money from them unfairly. That’s not the Department of Transport’s objective in any shape or form. What we are doing is looking very objectively and very fairly at the evidence presented to us by the councils on the one hand and the British Parking Association on the other hand. Traffic Wardens ‘pressured’ into issuing tickets

18

‘A judge has warned that traffic wardens expected to issue a minimum quota of tickets were being coerced into acting in a ‘predatory and sometimes dishonest’ manner’. ‘Mr Berkani claimed that he was harassed and eventually dismissed by NSL, the contractor, because he preferred to warn motorists that they had parked illegally rather than issue a fine’ ‘Another warden claimed that he was told that his PCN productivity was ‘the worst of all’ and a third said he was ‘targeted’ by a supervisor for ‘not taking part in the dodgy practises’ and failing to issue enough tickets.

16 The Telegraph 20

th November 2010

17 The Telegraph 27

th June 2011

18 The Telegraph 26

th January 2012


Appendix 2 Summary of Key Points from Hounslow’s Parking and Traffic Enforcement Policy Policy Hounslow’s Parking & Traffic Enforcement Policy provides a comprehensive reference guide to parking enforcement and strategy in Hounslow. It provides an overview of: on-street parking and moving traffic enforcement in Hounslow; details of parking restrictions; exemptions, dispensations, and suspensions; controlled parking zones (cpz’s); and permits. The policy spells out the legislative background (1991 Road Traffic Act and 2004 Traffic Management Act). Objectives Key objectives can be summarised as follows:

• Managing the safe and free movement of vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists;

• Improving road safety;

• Improving the local environment;

• Maximising the use of parking space to balance the needs of road users, including residents, businesses and visitors;

• Improving the movement and accessibility of public transport;

• Meeting the needs of people with disabilities. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 defines the objectives for which parking regulations can be introduced. These can be summarised as:

• Safety;

• Congestion reduction;

• Management of the kerb space where demand for parking exceeds supply;

• Maintenance of access to premises. The precise regulations made by the Council will depend on the circumstances at the location. There is a distinction between ‘’prohibited parking’ and ‘permitted parking’. Prohibited parking relates to regulations introduced for safety reasons, likely to be in the form of yellow lines or ‘school entrance – keep clear’ marking. Where congestion reduction is the issue, single yellow lines might suffice. Enforcement is strictly adhered to on public safety grounds. Permitted parking may include pay and display bays and residents’ zones which are all symptomatic of areas where demand exceeds supply, requiring the Council to give priority to particular groups of motorists, eg. residents and persons with disabilities, or forms of parking such as short stay or loading bays. PCN issued are categorised in terms of higher and lower bands.

Example Band Excess Charge

Being in a bus lane higher £130

Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours higher £110

Parked in a resident or shared use parking place or zone without clearly displaying a valid permit or voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place, or without payment of the parking charge

higher £110

Parked in a permit space or zone without clearly displaying a valid permit.

higher £110

Parked in a parking space or area not designated for that class of vehicle

Higher £110

Parking in a special enforcement area adjacent to a dropped footway

Higher £110


Parking in a designated disabled person’s parking place without displaying a valid disabled person’s badge in the prescribed manner

higher £110

Parked in a taxi rank higher £110 Stopped on a restricted bus stop or stand higher £110 Stopped in a restricted area outside a school, a hospital or a fire, police or ambulance station.

higher £110

Stopped in a pedestrian crossing or crossing area marked with zigzags

higher £110

Parked in a restricted area in a car park higher £110 Parked in a permit bay without displaying a valid permit higher £110 Parked in a designated disabled person’s parking place without displaying a valid disabled person’s badge in the prescribed manner

higher £110

Parked in a car park or area not designated for that level of vehicle

higher £110

Parked causing an obstruction higher £110 Parked after expiry of paid time lower £60

Parked without clearly displaying a valid pay and display ticket or voucher

lower £60

Not Parked correctly within marking of bay or space. lower £60

Approaches The following approaches will be developed to ensure that objectives are met.

• Encouraging a ‘customer service’ attitude towards residents, local businesses and visitors to the area in all aspects of the parking operation;

• Developing parking strategies that meet local objectives, focusing particularly on congestion, road safety and accessibility;

• Adopting best practice guidance available, including enforcement operations that are firm but fair and are reasonable to motorists and others who live and work in the borough;

• Establishing clear performance standards in applying parking restrictions;

• Communicating clearly to motorists what regulations are in force and how compliance is to be achieved;

• Implementing appropriate recruitment, retention and training practices to ensure professional parking enforcement throughout the Borough;

• Ensuring the process for challenging and appealing penalty charge notices is consistent and transparent;

• Strengthening the status and profile of the parking appeals procedure and the role of the Independent Adjudication Service;

• Maintaining independent scrutiny of Parking Enforcement;

• Monitoring and publishing the standards we achieve. Enforcement ethos This Policy document confirms our desire for a ‘customer service’ attitude towards residents, businesses, and visitors in all aspects of parking Enforcement. Consistent – It is inevitable that some drivers will feel aggrieved and occasionally errors will occur. Our intention is to keep these to a minimum through clear policies, robust procedures and by employing high calibre, well trained staff. Where mistakes have occurred, we will acknowledge them and rectify them as soon as possible. Effective – The council recognises that a practical, common sense approach is needed to carry out its parking enforcement responsibilities. The CCTV operators and the Council’s Civil Enforcement Officers who enforce parking restrictions, all receive comprehensive training to


enable them to carry out their duties effectively and to ensure that officers carry out their work in a non-discriminatory and reasonable manner. Progressive – The use of technology assists in ensuring that Penalty Charge Notices are correctly issued. Required evidence is collected to enable the penalty to be pursued and provide motorists with proof of contravention in order to reduce errors and time spent on the appeals process. Lessons leaned and feedback provided will be used to improve the way we conduct our business. We will publish useful information to enable Hounslow’s road users to understand what we are seeking to achieve, why we do it and how we perform against our stated aims. Cancellation / Mitigation – The Department of Transport guidance advises that ‘under general principles of public law, authorities have a duty to act fairly and proportionally and are encouraged to exercise discretion sensibly and reasonably and with due regard to the public interest’. Hounslow will ensure that each case is treated on its own merits, and always give challenges and representations fresh and impartial consideration without regard to financial interest in the penalty or decisions that may have been taken at an earlier stage. Vehicle Removals – A vehicle may be removed when it is observed in contravention of the parking regulations that apply and a PCN has been issued. 5 Priority criteria taking into account the need to ensure pedestrian and motorist safety and the level of inconvenience that vehicles parked in contravention can cause to residents – have been set. Vehicles will be removed to the Council car pound. To reclaim the vehicle the owner/keeper will have to attend the pound with relevant proof of ownership and identify and will be required to pay the outstanding PCN value plus removal fee and any storage charges that apply. CEOs have no opportunity to use discretion and the council’s staff have been advised that these removal criteria must be strictly adhered to. Structure of Parking & Traffic Enforcement in Hounslow Hounslow’s Parking Enforcement consists of three key strands:

• Parking Enforcement carried out by CCTV and Civil Enforcement Officers;

• Parking Operations;

• Parking Processing. Parking Enforcement – On Street Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs) are responsible for the enforcement of parking restrictions throughout the LB of Hounslow. The CCTV service is managed by the authority but the officers are currently supplied by a contractor. CCTV enforces Parking and Bus Lane contraventions and there are plans to commence Moving Traffic Contraventions (MTC’s) enforcement later in 2011-12. Parking Operations – Operational Support Officers are responsible for the installation, repair and maintenance of the entire Borough’s paid for parking equipment which includes the collection of revenue from the machines. This team carries out the suspension of parking bays and the signing and placing of traffic cones to ensure free access and traffic movement for major events. The removal from the Borough’s car parks of illegally dumped rubbish and the trimming of vegetation is also part of the team’s remit. The Operational team also carry out independent verification and site checks of parking enforcement signs and lines. Parking Processing – Parking Correspondence and Notice Processing team of officers are employed by LB Hounslow to deal with the processing of Penalty Charge Notices (PCN’s) and associated correspondence. This provides automatic review of the enforcement activity conducted by the CCTV and ‘on street’ enforcement officers. This team also processes payments, parking permits, Disabled Person’s Parking Permits, Freedom Passes and Taxicards.


Service Development – Contract and Performance Monitoring Officers along with Team Managers are responsible for reviewing current performance, identifying areas for improvement and project managing the delivery of new initiatives supporting our policy objectives. The team also deal with complaints and Freedom of Information requests as well as providing customer feedback. Representation and Appeals Process In summary, a Parking ticket (PCN) is affixed to a vehicle or handed to the driver by a CEO, or using CCTV a PCN is sent in the post to the owner of the vehicle. Motorists in receipt of a PCN can pay a discounted fine (50%) for certain offences. Motorists can challenge a PCN. If a challenge is accepted or rejected, the relevant person will be informed in writing. When the Council receives ownership details from DVLA , a Notice to Owner (NtO) is sent. The purpose of NtO is to ensure that the PCN was received by the vehicle owner and to remind the vehicle owner that the PCN is now to be paid in full and if it is not paid within a further 28 days it may be increased. It also gives the owner an opportunity to make formal representations against the penalty charge. The NtO indicates 9 grounds on which representations can be made. If a representation is made, and accepted, the PCN will be cancelled. If the representation is rejected the keeper can pay or appeal to an Independent Adjudicator at PATAS. The Parking Adjudicator is independent of the Council and he or she will consider whether or not the PCN was issued correctly. Hounslow registers de-criminalised 0n-street parking charges with Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC). The following stages occur before the charge is registered with TEC:

• A PCN would have been issued.

• A NTO/PCN/EN would have been sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle. This amount should have been paid or disputed.

• A Charge Certificate would have been issued.

If the owner wishes to contest the charge (s)he must file a valid Statutory Declaration or Witness Statement with the TEC. There are only three grounds on which the declaration can be based. They are:

• Owner has not received the notice to owner, penalty charge or enforcement notice;

• Owner made representations to Hounslow but you did not receive a rejection notice; and

• Owner made an appeal to the Parking/Traffic Adjudicator (following the rejection, by Hounslow, of your representation) and you received no response.

When filling a Witness Statement, there are four grounds of response:

• Owner has not received the notice to owner, penalty charge notice;

• Owner made representations to Hounslow but you did not receive a rejection notice; and

• Owner made an appeal to the Parking/Traffic Adjudicator (following the rejection, by Hounslow, of your representation) and received no response and

• Owner paid the penalty charge in full. The Statutory Declaration must be sworn before any of the following before it can be accepted by the TEC:

• An Officer appointed by the Judge to take affidavits;

• A JP at any Magistrate Court;


• A Solicitor or Commissioner for Oaths. TEC will revoke the Order for Recovery. This does not mean that the penalty charge has been cancelled. Hounslow may continue to pursue the charge and will contact owner if it intends to take further action. If owner does not file a Statutory Declaration/Witness Statement with TEC within the specified time, Hounslow may enforce the charge by requesting a warrant. Once the warrant has been authorised by TEC, Hounslow will employ private bailiffs to execute the warrant.


Appendix 3 Annual Parking & Traffic Enforcement Report Financial and Service Activity Data Summary of Income and Expenditure For Hounslow’s Parking Service for the performance year 2010-11

2009/10 Actual

2010/11 Budget

2010/11 Actual

2010/11 Variance to budget

£’000 £’000 £’000 £’000 On Street Parking Income and Expenditure

PCN Income 4,534 4,866

Machine Collections 2,168 2,351

Permits and other 1,719 1,984

Total Income – On Street Parking 8,421 8,749 9,201 452

Total Expenditure – On Street Parking -3,546 -3,492 -3,542 -50

Net Surplus – On Street Parking 4,875 5,257 5,659 402

Off Street Parking Income and Expenditure

Total Income – Off Street Parking 2,179 2,204 2,038

Total Expenditure – Off Street Parking -1,877 -2,155 -2,214

Net Income/Expenditure – Off Street Parking 302 49 -176 -225

Concessionary Fares -5,078 -6,481 -6,471 10

Net Income/Expenditure 99 -1,175 -988 187

Top Contraventions Committed in descending order

• Wheels on Footpath;

• Loading/Unloading;

• No valid permit or ticket;

• Restricted bus stop;

• Expiry of paid time;

• Restricted street;

• Wrong class of vehicle; CCTV Hotspots – The list below shows the location and number of PCNs issued by the fixed term CCTV cameras – descending order.

• Chiswick High Road;

• New Road;

• Gould Road;

• Turnham Green Terrace;

• Kingsley Road;

• Hanworth Road;

• Douglas Road;

• Bear Road;

• Hounslow High Street;

• Rosemary Avenue. CEO Hotspots – The list below shows those roads where the majority of PCNs were issued by CEOs – in descending order. Chiswick High Road; Alexander Road Car Park; Holloway Street Car Park; Bath Road Car Park, Hounslow; Civic Centre Visitors Car Park; Heathfield Terrace; Bath Road, Hounslow West Car Park; School Road Car Park; Brentford Fountain Car Park; Turnham Green Terrace.


Appendix 4 Parking and Traffic Enforcement Scrutiny Working Group Findings

a) Enforcement of Traffic Regulations with Particular focus on CCTV of bus lanes, main roads, parking and moving traffic regulations;

• Members consider a case may be emerging to divert some of the parking surpluses away from wider transport objectives to repair and maintenance of basic parking infrastructure – to reduce problems with Pay & Display machines, parking meters, non compliant signage, road markings, etc.

• Members would like an update on the results or progress in respect of the CPZ review;

• Members would like more information about the authority’s approach to enforcing planning consents in relation to vehicle crossovers and associated parking issues;

• Members would like more details about the use of CCTV cameras for community benefits and traffic enforcement – and the policy, procedures, and practical issues associated with this;

• b) Administration of challenges, representations and appeals against penalty charge notices (pcns)

• Members felt that there was evidence of robust procedures but were sceptical about the extent of Hounslow’s commonsense approach, particularly in respect of a sympathetic response to ‘marginal’ cases.

• Members were concerned that the low local successful representation and appeals rate varied so significantly from the far higher PATAS appeal rate.

• Members were divided in their views about whether people in Hounslow were given fair treatment but there was agreement that it would be better to get the right decision made earlier in the process. Members sought evidence about these matters through a scrutiny analysis of redacted files;

• Scrutiny members were concerned about the administration management issues highlighted in Parking Services and request feedback about how the Corporate Resourcing Review is going to deal with such matters.

c) Administration of the Parking Permits Scheme

• Members felt that ‘texting’ communication about permit renewals should be introduced. A business case should be put together by Parking Services. Resources should be made available to progress this.


Appendix 5 Parking Appeal Statistics

Authority & Year

Total PCNs

High Level Parking PCNs

Low Level Parking PCNs

Bus Lane PCNs

Moving Traffic PCNs

Appeals Considered

Appeals Refused

Appeals Upheld

Of which not

contested

Vehicles removed to pound

No % % % % No % % % No

Hounslow

2011-12 141,131 65% 28% 7% 0% 2,504 54% 46% 14% 717

2010-11 139,213 71% 27% 2% 0% 2,737 57% 43% 14% 792

2009-10 134,663 66% 32% 2% 0% 1,932 34% 66% 32% 1,246

2008-09 147,300 65% 32% 2% 0% 1,720 27% 73% 39% 1,169 All London Authorities

Average No per Authority

2011-12 4,931,816 63% 20% 5% 11% 64,903 52% 48% 21% 1,482

2010-11 4,813,865 63% 21% 4% 12% 69,132 50% 50% 21% 1,454

2009-10 4,855,073 63% 23% 4% 10% 61,002 37% 63% 33% 1,552

2008-09 5,443,147 64% 22% 4% 10% 70,713 28% 72% 44% 1,990


Appendix 6 Appeal Upheld Decisions for Penalty Charge Notices – April 2012 Head of Parking Services forwarded appeal decision documents for Penalty Charge Notices, issued by LBH which were heard by PATAS in April 2012. 207 documents were received. 137 (66%) appeals refused cases, 16 (8%) ‘not contested’ cases, 54 (26%) ‘allowed’ (appeals upheld) cases in April 2012. Of the latter ‘54’ upheld: 25 (46%) of the appeals were upheld because the PCN was not correctly issued; 22 (41%) of the appeals were upheld because of the authority’s procedural impropriety; 7 (13%) were a mixture of the 2.

No Contravention Date

Decision Date

Appeal Status

Appeal Category PATAS Comments –Reason for Upholding the Appeal

1 06-10-11 16-04-12 Allowed ‘Procedural impropriety’ – a failure by the enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed upon it by the Traffic Management Act 2004, Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions Regulations 2007 in relation to the imposition of recovery of a penalty charge or other sum.

Mr M appeared before me today for the personal hearing of his appeal The authority had never actually received formal representations in response to the Notice to Owner in relation to this PCN. Consequently, I find that in purporting to issue a Notice of Rejection they had taken a step at a time when they were not authorised to do so.

2 22-09-11 16-04-12 Allowed PCN not correctly issued. The appellant has attended today. It is my general practice when there has been lengthy footway parking by residents outside their



Decision Date

Appeal Status


houses and this has been effectively condoned, to order the first PCN cancelled….The Council needs to be fair with any change in practical enforcement policy and the doctrine of legitimate expectation may assist a motorist who is not treated fairly in such a context.

3 03-12-11 17-04-12 Allowed Procedural impropriety’ The purported service of a charge certificate before the enforcement authority is authorised to serve it.

4 21-11-11 17-04-12 Allowed PCN not correctly issued The appellant attended the hearing. Appellant’s evidence sufficiently persuasive. LA photographs not convincing.

5 03-02-12 18-04-12 Allowed Procedural impropriety The appellant appeared at the hearing before me. Authority failed to consider representations

6 12-12-11 19-04-12 Allowed PCN not correctly issued There were 2 photographs taken by the CEO. There is no evidence from these photographs of any contravention and it is impossible to even see the registration plate of the vehicle. The Council has also produced no evidence of any



Decision Date

Appeal Status


signage in place at the location to alert motorists to the pay and display parking restrictions.

7 24-11-11 19-04-12 Allowed PCN not correctly issued I have preferred the appellant’s evidence which I find to be stronger than the authority’s evidence.

8 04-12-11 19-04-12 Allowed Procedural impropriety and PCN not correctly issued

The appellant Mr S appeared before me. I am not satisfied that the contravention is proved. I also find that the local authority failed to serve the appellant with the appeal documents within the requisite time frame.

9 21-11-11 19-04-12 Allowed PCN not correctly issued I have reviewed the CCTV footage and still images submitted by the Council. While the footage does show an image of a plate attached to a post, it is impossible to see what the restrictions are. I cannot be satisfied from this evidence that any restrictions were properly signed.

Outside agreed timescales for consideration

04-11-11 19-03-12 Allowed PCN not correctly issued The appellant appeared before me. I found her to be a truthful and honest witness. She stated that she does have an operational



Decision Date

Appeal Status


permit which has expired and she therefore went to purchase a pay and display ticket and returned to the vehicle just as the parking attendant had issued a penalty charge notice. The appellant says she showed the ticket to the parking attendant and the time of issue is approximately the same time as that of the issue of the penalty charge notice. The appellant stated that the pay and display machine was approximately eight cars away and had the parking attendant attended the machine he would have seen her purchasing a ticket. The appellant can be seen in the photographs returning to her vehicle. There is a direct conflict of evidence on this issue. However, I accept what the appellant says and that she was in the process of purchasing and displaying a pay and display ticket and am therefore not satisfied that the contravention did occur.

10 26-11-11 20-04-12 Allowed PCN not correctly issued and Procedural Impropriety

Mr M attended in person at the hearing of his appeal before me.



Decision Date

Appeal Status


It is not just the placing of the sign that I am troubled by the authority’s evidence in this case. The quality of the photographs taken by the CEO do not permit me to be able to read what is said on the notice. Nor has the authority produced the suspension authorisation. I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that the appellant did park in a clearly signed suspended bay.

11 23-11-11 23-04-12 Allowed PCN not correctly issued and Procedural impropriety

Mr M attended before me today. The nominated grounds of appeal calls into question the validity of the procedural steps undertaken by the enforcement authority Whilst it is established that it is not permissible to park a vehicle and then go in search of appropriate coinage, it is incumbent upon an Enforcement Authority to afford a motorist sufficient time to comply with conditions attached to a parking regime. In this instance I accept that Mr M



Decision Date

Appeal Status


was still in the course of complying with the parking regime, rather than having parked and then sought coinage.

12 23-11-11 23-04-12 Allowed PCN not correctly issued. Mr D has provided a copy of the pay and display ticket which would have been valid at the time of issue. He says that he displayed the ticket in the rear passenger side window. On any view this was an odd thing to do. Even so I would expect an Enforcement Officer paying proper attention to have seen it. I have taken some persuading that this was in fact the case. However, having considered the case very carefully, I do not feel able to dismiss Mr D’s account and accordingly I allow the appeal.

13 30-10-11 24-04-12 Allowed PCN not correctly issued The appellant appeared at the hearing before me. The authority has produced some evidence but it seems the authority has mixed up evidence in relation to two separate vehicles and the CCTV footage produced does not relate to the



Decision Date

Appeal Status


appellant’s vehicle. The photographs produced show the appellant’s vehicle but on the basis of the photographs I cannot be satisfied the vehicle was stopped as alleged.

01-04-11 ? Allowed PCN not correctly issued On the council’s cctv footage of the incident there is a time plate behind the vehicle which is clear and compliant. Insofar as kerb markings are concerned however the only such markings I can see, which is behind the vehicle, is to my mind too degraded to clearly indicate that a loading bay is in force at this spot. On that footage there may be further kerb markings but the camera operator does not focus on them and I cannot determine on the footage whether or not they are clear. Insofar as kerb markings are concerned

30-06-11 05-03-12 Allowed PCN not correctly issued The appellant appeared before me at the hearing I have considered the evidence and am persuaded by the appellant that the sign shown in the photographs produced by the



Decision Date

Appeal Status


authority cannot be a sign in the street where the vehicle was parked.

14 19-04-11 26-04-12 Allowed Procedural impropriety The authority has failed to produce a copy of the penalty charge notice.

15 13-02-12 26-04-12 Allowed Procedural impropriety The authority has failed to produce a copy of the penalty charge notice with the evidence bundle.

16 29-10-11 26-04-12 Allowed PCN not correctly issued The appellant has explained the vehicle was parked to unload a heavy guitar and the appellant has produced a witness statement in support. The authority has produced a copy of the cctv footage. The footage shows the driver returning to the vehicle so the loading is not seen.

17 28-10-11 26-04-12 Allowed Procedural impropriety The appellant company was represented at the hearing before me by Mr M There is no photograph showing this penalty charge notice affixed to the vehicle. As a result, I cannot be satisfied that the penalty charge notice alleging a contravention at 07.34 was in fact



Decision Date

Appeal Status


properly served.

18 ? 26-04-12 Allowed Procedural Impropriety The authority has failed to produce a copy of the penalty charge notice.

19 08-12-11 27-04-12 Allowed Procedural Impropriety The authority has failed to produce a copy of the penalty charge notice with the evidence bundle.

20 26-11-11 27-04-12 Allowed PCN not correctly issued and procedural impropriety.

In the case summary, it is said that the appellant has claimed that he was dropping off a disabled passenger but that the cctv footage did not show this; it shows him loading items into his vehicle. I have no idea where either of these suggestions has come from. The appellant has made no such claim, and the footage shows no such incident. Very odd. I assume that this paragraph has wandered in from another case entirely. It does not inspire confidence in the authority’s ability to consider each case on its merits.

21 19-11-11 27-04-12 Allowed Procedural Impropriety There was no appeal form enclosed with the Notice of Rejection. A charge certificate was served prior to an appeal form being provided by the local authority to the appellant.



Decision Date

Appeal Status


22 31-12-11 30-04-12 Allowed Procedural Impropriety Without a copy of the penalty charge notice there is no evidence that a contravention occurred.

23 ? 30-04-12 Allowed PCN not correctly issued and procedural impropriety

The Council has not provided a copy of the PCN it relies on and in its absence it is impossible to be satisfied that any penalty is lawfully due. The Council has also failed to provide a full copy of the relevant Traffic Management Order. In its absence I will assume it contains the usual exemption for vehicles waiting for a gate or barrier to be opened; and I do not as a matter of common sense take a great deal of persuading that this Sainsbury’s vehicle was waiting to gain access to the store to which it was delivering. The Council’s statement in response that the location was ‘furthermore’ subject to waiting and loading restrictions shows that it does not appear to have grasped that vehicles are legally permitted to wait whilst a gate or barrier is opened (subject normally – only sight of the TMO would enable one to say for



Decision Date

Appeal Status


certain – to a rider, fairly easy in practice to prove in London’s restricted streets that there was nowhere else the vehicle could conveniently have waited for that purpose) The Council’s failure to provide PCN,TMO, and sufficient evidence of a correct application of the relevant law might lead it to reflect that it is a little fortunate that the appellants have not chosen to pursue an application for costs.

24 27-11-11 30-04-12 Allowed Procedural Impropriety I have not examined the Council evidence in this case and I am ruling that it was delivered too late to be considered. I am not adjourning in order to await a courier run from Surrey with the dvd.

25 15-12-11 30-04-12 Allowed Procedural Impropriety The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises … photographic capture purporting to show the said vehicle in situ. The only image demonstrating the said vehicle registration mark does not substantiate the allegation.



Decision Date

Appeal Status


The extracts of Traffic Management Order provisions are of limited evidential value since they do not reveal the Articles of the same.

26 24-10-11 30-04-12 Allowed Procedural Impropriety The authority has failed to produce a penalty charge notice with the evidence bundle.

27 17-02-12 30-04-12 Allowed PCN not correctly issued It seems to me on the basis of the CCTV evidence and site photographs that the kerb markings, essential to alert a delivery driver on parking that there may be a loading prohibition and that he should look for a time plate, have worn beyond the point at which they may be said to be even substantially compliant with the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002.

28 17-12-11 30-04-12 Allowed Procedural Impropriety The appellant company seeks to transfer liability for the incurred penalty charge to the hirer of the vehicle, Mr B. I accept that he is the person liable for the incurred penalty charge.

29 07-10-11 30-04-12 Allowed Procedural Impropriety I have no reason to doubt that the appellant did not receive the



Decision Date

Appeal Status


original rejection notice. It was not therefore I find served upon him within the required 56 days.

30 24-11-11 30-04-12 Allowed PCN not correctly issued The appellant has attended in person today. I have accepted that the line was too scrappy and worn for the penalty charge to stand given that this was, as I accept a genuine mistake and a night time parking initially.

31 11-11-11 30-04-12 Allowed PCN not correctly issued The appellant, who I have heard in person, submits as he has done from the outset that the bay markings were not clear. I am left with the impression that these markings may well have a degree of ambiguity about them. On the evidence as it stands I am unable to be satisfied that the bay markings which form the basis of the contravention were in contest sufficiently clear.

32 01-11-11 02-04-12 Allowed PCN not correctly issued I am not satisfied noting the tone, content and consistency of the driver’s detailed written submissions that the penalty charge notice was properly served



Decision Date

Appeal Status


in this case.

33 01-11-11 03-04-12 Allowed PCN not correctly issued I do not believe it would have been at all practicable for the appellant to have left the pool to check intermittently whether the council had repaired its machine. The wording on the penalty charge does not really match the contravention because at the time of parking the motorist could not do what was required because of machine defect.

34 17-12-11 04-04-12 Allowed PCN not correctly issued I prefer the evidence of the appellant to that of the parking attendant. The quality of the photographic evidence is poor, and from which I cannot conclude that a contravention occurred. Further, I am not satisfied that the penalty charge notice was fixed to the vehicle as claimed.

35 06-09-11 04-04-12 Allowed Procedural Impropriety I find the failure to produce a proper copy of the Penalty Charge Notice to be a procedural impropriety.

36 05-10-11 04-04-12 Allowed PCN not correctly issued Mr S attended today. I accept the appellant’s evidence. I find as a fact that at the time that



Decision Date

Appeal Status


this penalty charge notice was issued the appellant’s carer was in the car and about to put the disabled badge on the dashboard. The civil enforcement officer did not allow sufficient time to enable her to do so before the penalty charge notice was issued. The local authority wished to enforce this penalty charge notice because they stated they had previously exercised discretion to cancel a penalty charge notice in similar circumstances. However, I have seen a letter from the local authority to Mr S dated 12th September 2009 in relation to PCN NJ**** , The letter indicates that the penalty charge notice was cancelled because a charge certificate was issued in error. It did not refer to discretion being exercised.

37 17-01-12 04-04-12 Allowed Procedural Impropriety During the course of the hearing the contemporaneous footage was played, but the footage related to another vehicle on another day, committing what appeared to be a different



Decision Date

Appeal Status


contravention.

38 17-02-12 04-04-12 Allowed PCN not correctly issued On 14th March, Mr K attended the hearing. He had real difficulty speaking In all the circumstances, the Adjudicator agreed to adjourn the matter for the local authority to reconsider their discretion. The Adjudicator stated that if the local authority chose not to reply the Adjudicator will infer that they no longer wish to resist the appeal. The local authority has very fairly chosen not to reply.

39 15-10-11 05-04-12 Allowed PCN not correctly issued Mr P has detailed the attempts he made to effect payment for parking in the New Road car park in Feltham on Saturday 15th October 2011. He explains that he attempted to use the Ring Go payment system and details five phone calls that he made in repeated attempts to pay between 12.45 and 122.59. He made three attempts to use the automated service with his pre-registered credit card but these were all (un?)successful. He then attempted to register a different credit card that found that the



Decision Date

Appeal Status


automated system jumped a step or failed to recognise the length of the card number. He further repeated this process at least twice but each time could not successfully enter his card number. He then rang default reporting phone number on the car park sign. It is an inherent condition of the paid parking scheme that the systems for accepting and recording payments must be available to motorists and where it is not, they may not enforce the restrictions.

40 16-11-11 05-04-12 Allowed PCN not correctly issued I found the appellant who attended the hearing today, to be an honest and credible witness. I accepted his evidence that on parking he had sought to pay for parking, he putting too much money into the machine, he pressing a coin reject button on it, the machine nevertheless swallowing his payment without a ticket being issued.



Decision Date

Appeal Status


I noted the council’s evidence that this machine was working correctly but I was satisfied at the time at which the appellant tried to use it it was not. The council provided no evidence as to payment instructions given on the machine or what any such instructions stated the motorist should do where the payment has not been accepted. I accepted the appellant’s evidence that he telephoned the automated service fault line telephone number given on the machine he leaving the information it requested he believing having done so that he had done everything he could to lawfully park he then leaving the vehicle parked in the bay. I was satisfied against this background that the appellant had a legitimate expectation that his vehicle would not incur a penalty charge.

41 17-12-11 10-04-12 Allowed Procedural Impropriety The allegation in this case is that the appellant’s vehicle was parked



Decision Date

Appeal Status


adjacent to a dropped footway. In this case I find that the local authority’s evidence is too uncertain. In addition, the local authority has included evidence for another matter, which I find confusing.

23-07-11 05-03-12 Allowed PCN not correctly issued Mr B appeals as he states that he believed that footway parking in Gould Road was permitted by the local authority. I allow this appeal as I find that as a result of previous parking practice and the letter of 29th November 2010 he had a legitimate expectation that footway parking would not be enforced.


Mrs C appeared before me in person. The authority’s case is that her vehicle was parked in a special enforcement area on part of the carriageway in Whitestile Road on Wednesday 12th October 2011 which had been raised to meet the level of the footway. Having carefully considered all of the evidence it is not self evident



Decision Date

Appeal Status


why this particular area of the carriageway has been raised. The authority has not produced any evidence on this point. The area that has been raised is a wide one and one of the photographs suggest it may have been for traffic calming measures. It is by no means clear that it is being raised to facilitate pedestrian crossing. In addition, the authority has painted a white line on the raised area and Mrs C contains that when she parked the white line had not been repainted. While such lines are merely advisory I do find the absence of a T-bar, and the fact that the whole length of the original white line has not been repainted, to be confusing.

43 21-10-11 10-04-12 Allowed PCN not correctly issued Mr K attended the hearing. Reason Mr K provided photographic evidence on his mobile phone at Inwood Road adjacent to and abuts Bristow Road, which is the alleged place of contravention. Mr K’s



Decision Date

Appeal Status


photograph was taken from a parking machine in Bristow road. There was a bag over that machine. Mr K also provided a photograph of the machine in Inwood Road. It showed that the machine was also out of order but there was no bag on it.

44 28-11-11 10-04-12 Allowed PCN not correctly issued I have heard the appellant in person who I find an honest and credible witness. The authority did not appear and was not represented. On the evidence before me I cannot be satisfied that the vehicle was parked more than 50cm from the edge of the carriageway. The cctv footage is from behind the vehicle and does not give a clear view of the position of the vehicle in relation to the kerb. I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred.

45 04-10-11 10-04-12 Allowed PCN not correctly issued The appellant Mr D, attended before me today to explain the contention personally. The appellant denies liability for ensuring the penalty charge



Decision Date

Appeal Status


notice on the basis of prevailing circumstances as explained in his written representation; that the penalty charge notice was issued during the currency of time duly purchased, and that although the paid-for time voucher had become dislodged the information it contained was still visible; since it had come to rest on the ledge of the dashboard. The appellant reiterated his contention at the hearing, providing more detail, the voucher displayed and a corroborative letter form an independent witness. I found the appellant’s evidence to be cogent and credible and I accepted it in its entirety.

46 04-10-11 10-04-12 Allowed Procedural Impropriety The appellant, whom I have heard in person genuinely believed the bus seen ahead of his vehicle in the cctv evidence had its hazard lights on and had broken down, and it seems that the other motorists may have made a similar assumption.



Decision Date

Appeal Status


The appellant, however, saw the cctv evidence for the first time at the hearing before me. I accept his evidence that although he received the council’s dvd it was unplayable (although he attempted to do so on more than one machine). The moving images are in these cases the most important part of the evidence and the council is under a duty to serve them in playable form in time. In my judgement its failure to do so in this case precludes it from enforcing this penalty and the appeal is allowed. .

47 03-02-12 11-04-12 Allowed Procedural Impropriety The authority has failed to produce a copy of the relevant PCN with the evidence bundle.

48 14-02-12 12-04-12 Allowed PCN not correctly issued. Mr T appeared in person I am allowing this appeal for two reasons. Firstly, I am not satisfied that the bay suspension was lawful. I have reviewed the photographic evidence of the suspension sign that was erected and the purpose of the suspension is not identified.



Decision Date

Appeal Status


Secondly, the suspension sign was only erected on 10th February for a suspension to take effect 4 days later on 14th February 2012. Mr T tells me that his car was already parked when the suspension notice was erected. The council must give reasonable notice of a suspension and there is no evidence of any emergency works which would have justified such a suspension on such short notice.


I am allowing this appeal for two reasons. Firstly, there is no evidence submitted by the council showing the signage that was in place at Airedale Avenue to alert motorists to the yellow line [parking restrictions that were in force when this PCN was issued. Secondly, the photographs taken by the CEO show that the single yellow liner is so faded and broken as to be in places barely discernable. The council cannot expect to enforce parking restrictions if it does not maintain road markings to an acceptable standard. A motorist looking at a



Decision Date

Appeal Status


faded and broken yellow line of this nature might reasonably conclude that there was no longer any restriction in operation.

50 ? 12-04-12 Allowed PCN not correctly issued. The issue is whether the appellant’s vehicle was parked or was in the course of a manoeuvre to take up a parking space that was about to be vacated. It is a question of time and the imminence of the vacating vehicle. The appellant says he was waiting to reverse into a space that was about to become free as the vehicle occupying it was in the process of moving out.

51 08-11-11 13-04-12 Allowed Procedural Impropriety This penalty charge notice was issued because the Enforcement Authority says that the appellant’s vehicle was parked in a resident’s permit bay without displaying a permit. Unless the appellant expressly concedes that the restrictions were properly marked and signed in compliance with the relevant part of the Traffic Signs Regulations and Directions 2002, the Enforcement Authority must first establish with evidence that they were. This is normally done



Decision Date

Appeal Status


by evidence from the Civil Enforcement Officer, who issued the Penalty Charge Notice or the cctv footage if issued following observation by camera, or photographic evidence and/or maps/plans of the area. The evidence supplied is the notes of the civil enforcement officer who issued the penalty charge notice and the photographs he took. The photographs are black and do not show anything. The notes do not mention a sign/time plate and whilst the Enforcement Authority has produced a location plan there are no signs marked on it.

52 ? 13-04-12 Allowed Procedural Impropriety The appellant attended in person. The Enforcement Authority has not produced a copy of the penalty charge notice.

53 06-07-11 14-04-12 Allowed PCN not correctly issued. Mr C attended in person at the hearing before me. He had been issued with a Penalty Charge Notice as a Civil Enforcement Officer was unable



Decision Date

Appeal Status


to see any pay and display ticket in his vehicle. Mr C told me that he had displayed a ticket but that it had slipped forward on the dashboard making it difficult for the CEO to see. Looking at the photographs taken by the CEO no PCN can be seen. However, I accept that Mr C did purchase and display the ticket in the approved manner. This is not one of those cases where a ticket has fallen to the floor (where an appeal would be bound to fail however unfortunate that might be). The ticket had merely slipped forward. I accept Mr C.'s evidence that it was still visible. His being a large 4x4 vehicle, it may not have been immediately apparent to the CEO, but I do accept that it was properly exhibited.

54 05-10-11 16-04-12 Allowed PCN not correctly issued. The appellant’s case is that she entered this one way road only to find it closed by road works towards the end – something of which no warning had been given as confirmed by the letter from her witness. She parked in order to



Decision Date

Appeal Status


consider how best to deal with the situation and to obtain advice and how to escape this lobster pot of a road. In the absence of any evidence form the council to refuter her account, I accept it, and it seems to me her actions were perfectly reasonable in the circumstances. Why the council thought it appropriate to pursue a penalty against a vehicle trapped in this unusual situation is a mystery; one can only assume it has not fully understood the appellant’s case. In my judgement the vehicle was within the exemption for vehicles parked as a result of circumstances beyond the driver’s control.

71 12-02-07 Cover Report.doc

Appendix 7 Notes of Meeting with Tom Sargeant – Parking Processing Team Leader – Parking Services on 18th July 2012. Present: Councillor John Todd, Tom Sargeant, Alan Weaver On 18

th July Scrutiny Member Councillor Todd and Scrutiny Officer Alan Weaver met Tom

Sargeant – a Parking Processing Team Leader to discuss Parking Services Staff Roles and Responsibilities, Communication, Coordination and Control. Tom forwarded the following details relating to Parking Services staff structure. Staffing Staff Structure The Staff Structure can be broadly categorised as Parking Enforcement, Parking Processing (Back Office), and Parking Operations comprising 83 staff.

Parking & Traffic Enforcement Structure Chart

Service Head Section Head Numbers Details

Head of Parking & Traffic

Enforcement Services (1)

Processing Manager(1)

(35) staff 24 Business Support Officers provide support to 3.5 Parking Processing Team Leaders; 2 Contract & Performance Monitoring Officers; 1 Sales and Marketing Officer;

Enforcement Manager(1)

CCTV Manager (1)

(44) staff

(1) staff

40 CEOs; 3 Supervisors; 1 Administration Officer 1 Administration Officer

Operations Manager (1)

(6) staff

6 Operational Support Officers

Tom liaises with 10 BSOs. Team Leaders (TLs) like Tom are trained in all areas within Parking Services, and are interchangeable as required. Parking Service TLs manage all aspects of workload and business processing in the back office, and direct staff on these issues. Shared Service are responsible for the BSOs, and in particular their HR issues, but do not manage their work. Business Support Officers do not report directly to Parking Processing Team Leaders. They report to a Shared Services Team Leader who reports to a second tier officer, the Head of Business Support. Staff Management and Monitoring BSO staff performance is partly monitored through monthly quality feedback spreadsheet that evaluates staff on the following criteria:

• Case Progression Notes;

• Letter Printed

• Address/Salutation;

• Grammar/Spelling;

• Appropriate Information Requested;

• Correct Decision;

• Points Addressed.


Consideration of these spreadsheets forms part of the monthly 121 discussions with BSOs. This Quality Feedback data is available to all management levels within Parking Services, and forms part of monthly management reporting.

Staff Communication/Liaison Tom highlighted staff communication arrangements. Processing Manager (MG) meets with Team Leaders every 2 weeks and feeds down corporate issues. Councillor Todd queried whether there was sufficient upward communication about service issues. Tom felt that there might be more scope for this Parking Processing Team Leaders hold a monthly meeting with Team Leader Business Support. Relationships with Team Leader Business Support and BSOs are good. In addition, there are regular lively discussions of Parking Processing Team Leaders with Enforcement Manager (about quality of PCNs issued) and Traffic (about visibility/maintenance of painted parking bays/spaces). Tom acknowledged Councillor Todd’s ideas for development of a staff suggestion scheme might be a good idea. Staff Skills/Training Training to C & G level is going to be available initially to CEOs and BSOs handling correspondence. Appropriate training and qualifications will also be offered to the staff within Parking Services. Miscellaneous Innovation – Parking Services were actively exploring scope for market testing through West London Alliance. Case Reviews – If the motorist chooses to pay the PCN instead of contesting it through the statutory process, they lose the right to contest it a later date or request a refund of the charges they have paid. Where case reviews show that PCNs were not properly issued, the authority does not reimburse the keeper/motorist for the penalty charge sum. PATAS Appeals – Procedural Impropriety - The Service receives from PATAS notification of approximately 12 appeal cases details per day. Each contested case involves collation of 60 pieces of paper by an officer. There is an evidence checklist completed by the officer for each case to ensure that it has the appropriate sections included. However, there is no quality assurance to check that the documentation has been put together properly. CCTV/Photographs – Re brief discussion about continuing problems with image quality, Tom pointed out that there are often technological problems outside the control of the operatives. Associated evidence often proves the case conclusively without photographic supporting evidence. Nevertheless, poor quality of photographic evidence will often be used to uphold the appeal. Reasons for Not Contesting – Tom listed the following criteria for not contesting:

• Evidence not produced previous to appeal stage;

• More detailed analysis of evidence highlights strength of motorist’s/keeper’s case – NB – consideration of initial challenges and representations are focused on the grounds cited by the motorist/keeper rather than a comprehensive overview of the case – which would take place at appeal stage;

• Mitigation;

• Insufficient staff resources to contest.


Reasons For Non Attendance – Tom highlighted the following factors: 1 to 2 cases considered per day relate to personal cases. More cases are heard but these are postal which the appellant will not be attending. The personal cases that are considered are scheduled to suit the circumstances of the appellant. Routine attendance for these by Parking staff is neither practicable or an effective use of staff time.

Improvements Tom highlighted/acknowledged the need for improvements in the following areas:

• Far more subtle communications and better public relations with Hounslow residents is needed;

• There needs to be much better liaison with other sections, particularly Traffic.


Appendix 8 Internal Audit Final Report Summary 2011/12 Parking Enforcement – Audit Committee 21st June 2012 Email 26

th June 2012

Further to our discussions, I have now had a chance to review the file and confirm what testing the auditor undertook in respect of the issuing of PCNs. I can confirm that we looked at the representation process in terms of the process, i.e. whether they were dealt with in accordance with the laid down procedures. However, this was obviously part of a much wider audit and so, given the time constraints, the auditor did not confirm whether that the Parking Section had a process by which the outcome of representations were either all approved by someone else or, at least, subsequently reviewed on a sample basis. Given what we know now (members concerns were not made available to the auditor at the beginning of the audit), this should be a key control going forward to address the issue. Additionally, had we known about the issue, we would have looked in more detail at the types of management information available to managers and, in particular, trend analysis in respect of successful/unsuccessful representations. As mentioned, the time constraints for the audit and the scope we were attempting to cover, meant that we were never going to find some of the ‘softer’ issues we discussed. We have covered the key systems and controls in place for administering parking enforcement, for example those in respect of representations, but it would not cover whether the number of representations received/rejected was higher/lower than expected. Hope this helps. Please feel free to call me. Brian Welch Sector Manager Deloitte and Touche Public Sector Internal Audit Ltd


Appendix A PCN Processing FlowChart Appendix B Full List of Meetings

Date Meeting & Purpose Attendees

Tuesday 24th April

2012 Parking & Traffic Enforcement Scrutiny Working Group discussion with Lead Member and Environment department Officers

Councillors Mayne (Lead Member) – Ellar (Chair O & S), Sangha (Chair F & P), Bains, Carey, B.Fisher, O’Reilly, Todd, Officers S.Prince, A.Weaver, I.Carter

Wednesday 25th April

2012 As above Councillors Mayne (Lead Member)

– Ellar (Chair O & S), Sangha (Chair F & P), Carey, B.Fisher, O’Reilly, Todd, Officers S.Kamath, S.Prince, A.Weaver, N.Awan.

Thursday 26th April

2012 As above Councillors Ellar (Chair O & S),

Sangha (Chair F & P), Carey, B.Fisher, O’Reilly. Officers S.Kamath, S.Prince, A.Weaver.

Tuesday 29th May

2012 Finance & Performance Scrutiny Panel- Consideration of Interim Report on Review of Parking & Traffic Enforcement Services in Hounslow

Councillors Sangha (Chair), Carey, Chatt, Hearn, Todd Officers – A.Weaver, J.Winstanley.

Wednesday 18th July

2012 Meeting of Scrutiny Member/ Officer with Parking Processing Team Leader about Parking Staffing Arrangements and Working Practices

Councillor Todd, Officers T.Sergeant, A.Weaver.

contact: alan weaver september 2012 draft final report by...

Documents