Parking hell: The parking industry investigated, continued (page 3) ...
. . . ARTICLE CONTINUED FROM HERE . . .
“If councils are trying to maximise their parking revenues, you have to ask what’s the purpose,” says Councillor Daniel Moylan, responsible for parking policy at Kensington & Chelsea. “Frankly, it’s keeping the council tax down. As a resident, what would you want – your local services paid for by the delinquent motorist, or through higher council tax?”
Moylan is blunt about where he sees the current problem. “The fines are intended to act as a deterrent,” he says. “Yet in one recent survey, we found 900 illegally parked vehicles, of which just 5 per cent got tickets. People take a chance, and blame the system if they get caught. Surely we should put the fines up to deter illegal parking!”
Yet as Moylan admits, his council’s reputation has lately taken an embarrassing blow. Last June, a BBC One Whistleblower documentary showed a Kensington & Chelsea parking attendant – employed by APCOA, the council’s contractor – allegedly plotting to steal a motorcycle. Other PAs were filmed telling an undercover reporter to meet his ticket “target” by penalising nonexistent offences when cars were not present, ticketing abandoned vehicles and ignoring the standard five-minute observation period. In neighbouring Westminster, a PA was shown taking bribes for allegedly settling drivers’ tickets using illegally obtained credit-card numbers.
“You’ll always have bad apples,” Moylan says. “But it’s the [APCOA] management culture that we’re not happy with, and I’ve made that clear to them. I don’t think PAs should be put under the sort of pressures APCOA seems to be putting them under.” Last month, the council moved its parking contract form APCOA to NCP.
Still, Moylan is left with a few doubts of his own. "What I don't understand," he reflects, "is why PAs would need to resort to subterfuge to issue that number of tickets. What baffled me about Whistleblower was why the reporter could only find three or four illegally parked cars. In our surveys, half of drivers admitted having knowingly parked illegally. And we know they're out there."
++++
Parking enforcement was never much of an issue until the postwar boom in car ownership. The first UK parking meter – in Manchester Square, Marylebone – was not considered necessary until 1958; it took 11 more years before traffic wardens followed. A Road Traffic Regulation Act in 1984 specified the strict grounds for which parking could be regulated, mainly for road safety and regulating traffic flow. Raising money was not part of the plan.
The police were responsible for parking enforcement, but it was never much of a priority. Local councils grew increasingly restless. Studies in Sheffield and Rotherham during the late Eighties suggested that only 1 per cent of cars parked illegally were being ticketed, with many of these fines unpaid. A lobbying campaign by local authorities led to a new Road Traffic Act in 1991, which “decriminalised” parking offences and put councils in charge of enforcement. As more councils applied to use these powers, the number of penalty charge notices rose sharply.
By law, local authorities must separate parking revenue from their other income, money that is “ringfenced” for specific transport and environmental uses, such as highway improvements and subsidised public transport. Recently, however, this ringfence has been radically widened by a new Traffic Management Act to include any lawful expenditure incurred by councils achieving “beacon” status. The reform, seen by critics as a further incentive for councils to maximise parking profits, caused alarm among the parking adjudicators who independently hear motorists’ appeals.
“There is an urgent need for more transparency and accountability in the councils’ activities,” Caroline Sheppard, chief adjudicator for England and Wales, concluded last year. “Before [the ringfence is widened], there should be standards set for civil traffic enforcement.”
Councils across the country, in the meantime, are starting to consider how they will use their new-found powers to fine drivers not merely for parking, but for entering bus lanes, blocking box junctions, and various other “moving traffic” offences. And, of course, how they will be spending the money that may soon be theirs to use as they please.
. . . ARTICLE CONTINUES HERE . . .
“If councils are trying to maximise their parking revenues, you have to ask what’s the purpose,” says Councillor Daniel Moylan, responsible for parking policy at Kensington & Chelsea. “Frankly, it’s keeping the council tax down. As a resident, what would you want – your local services paid for by the delinquent motorist, or through higher council tax?”
Moylan is blunt about where he sees the current problem. “The fines are intended to act as a deterrent,” he says. “Yet in one recent survey, we found 900 illegally parked vehicles, of which just 5 per cent got tickets. People take a chance, and blame the system if they get caught. Surely we should put the fines up to deter illegal parking!”
Yet as Moylan admits, his council’s reputation has lately taken an embarrassing blow. Last June, a BBC One Whistleblower documentary showed a Kensington & Chelsea parking attendant – employed by APCOA, the council’s contractor – allegedly plotting to steal a motorcycle. Other PAs were filmed telling an undercover reporter to meet his ticket “target” by penalising nonexistent offences when cars were not present, ticketing abandoned vehicles and ignoring the standard five-minute observation period. In neighbouring Westminster, a PA was shown taking bribes for allegedly settling drivers’ tickets using illegally obtained credit-card numbers.
“You’ll always have bad apples,” Moylan says. “But it’s the [APCOA] management culture that we’re not happy with, and I’ve made that clear to them. I don’t think PAs should be put under the sort of pressures APCOA seems to be putting them under.” Last month, the council moved its parking contract form APCOA to NCP.
Still, Moylan is left with a few doubts of his own. "What I don't understand," he reflects, "is why PAs would need to resort to subterfuge to issue that number of tickets. What baffled me about Whistleblower was why the reporter could only find three or four illegally parked cars. In our surveys, half of drivers admitted having knowingly parked illegally. And we know they're out there."
++++
Parking enforcement was never much of an issue until the postwar boom in car ownership. The first UK parking meter – in Manchester Square, Marylebone – was not considered necessary until 1958; it took 11 more years before traffic wardens followed. A Road Traffic Regulation Act in 1984 specified the strict grounds for which parking could be regulated, mainly for road safety and regulating traffic flow. Raising money was not part of the plan.
The police were responsible for parking enforcement, but it was never much of a priority. Local councils grew increasingly restless. Studies in Sheffield and Rotherham during the late Eighties suggested that only 1 per cent of cars parked illegally were being ticketed, with many of these fines unpaid. A lobbying campaign by local authorities led to a new Road Traffic Act in 1991, which “decriminalised” parking offences and put councils in charge of enforcement. As more councils applied to use these powers, the number of penalty charge notices rose sharply.
By law, local authorities must separate parking revenue from their other income, money that is “ringfenced” for specific transport and environmental uses, such as highway improvements and subsidised public transport. Recently, however, this ringfence has been radically widened by a new Traffic Management Act to include any lawful expenditure incurred by councils achieving “beacon” status. The reform, seen by critics as a further incentive for councils to maximise parking profits, caused alarm among the parking adjudicators who independently hear motorists’ appeals.
“There is an urgent need for more transparency and accountability in the councils’ activities,” Caroline Sheppard, chief adjudicator for England and Wales, concluded last year. “Before [the ringfence is widened], there should be standards set for civil traffic enforcement.”
Councils across the country, in the meantime, are starting to consider how they will use their new-found powers to fine drivers not merely for parking, but for entering bus lanes, blocking box junctions, and various other “moving traffic” offences. And, of course, how they will be spending the money that may soon be theirs to use as they please.
. . . ARTICLE CONTINUES HERE . . .
posted by David Rowan at Wednesday, January 31, 2001
<< Home