Decriminalised parking enforcement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE) is the name given in the United Kingdom to the civil enforcement of car parking regulations.

Contents 1 Background 2 Revenue potential 3 Benefits 4 Controversies 5 Reform 6 References 7 External links 8 Notes

[edit] Background

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, in return they would be allowed to keep the proceeds. Thus in areas where DPE has been granted, parking offences cease to be criminal offences.

Without DPE the money collected by the police, from the issue of parking tickets is passed directly to central government. With DPE in place, the local authority retains the income generated from parking penalties to finance parking enforcement and certain other activities such as local transport measures. Local authorities have been able to charge for on-street parking since 1958, but without the effective enforcement provided by DPE, such charging was of limited effect. Local authorities adopting DPE generally employ contractors to run their scheme.

The powers granted by DPE to deal with parking offences include:

• The issue of a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) - a parking fine
• The immobilisation of the vehicle - usually by clamping - until a release fee is paid
• The removal of the vehicle from the street

Appeals against council decisions on PCNs can be made to the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) in London, and to the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) in the rest of the UK. These bodies are tribunals established under DPE; appeals against their decisions can generally be made only on points of law, through judicial review. They are not independent of the councils, being funded solely by a fee of 60p per PCN, and being scrutinised by representatives from DPE councils.^[1]

[edit] Revenue potential

Local authorities raise more than £1 billion a year from parking fines.^[2][3] Some of the money raised goes into the costs of operating the system. Local authorities must report their income from parking fines and charges and must also state what any surplus is spent on. Typically the revenue from such schemes (if lost parking fees from infringing motorists are excluded) is greater than the cost of running the scheme and the surplus goes into the public purse, along with the parking fee income. The surplus revenue is ring-fenced to be used for transport related expenditure unless the Council is judged to be 'excellent' by the Audit Commission, in which case the surplus goes into the Council's general budget (as is the case for Kensington and Chelsea^[4]). In 2005/6 the City of Westminster received GBP 65.4 million in parking revenue for on-street parking^[5]. From one road in London, £3.2 million was raised in the year 2005-06^[2].

[edit] Benefits

Claimed benefits for DPE include:

• Less congestion due to lack of obstruction
• Higher turnover of parking spaces - thus easier to park
• Reduced pollution and fuel use due to less circulating traffic and less congestion
• Safer streets due to less circulating traffic
• Improved emergency service access due to less obstructed streets
• Reduced demands on police resources

[edit] Controversies

This section does not cite any references or sources. (February 2008) Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

Controversies associated with DPE are largely concentrated in the following areas:

• Over zealous enforcement of trivial infringements with no discretion exercised, or even the use of corrupt enforcement practices, often arising from the pressures of revenue targets set by enforcement contractors.
• Representations to the Local Authorities, or their contractor, are routinely rejected with no attempt to address specific points raised.
• Appeals to the relevant parking appeals body are often not contested by Local Authorities.
• Conflict of interest issues arise because of the mechanism which allows the local authorities to both make the rules and profit from their enforcement.
• Under the 1991 Act vehicles automatically become liable for clamping and towing without any application of discretion or consideration of proportionality. These penalties are higher than those levied for many criminal offences and are enforced without trial, with presumption of guilt, and effectively with no right of appeal. (Only the PCN may be appealed, on technical issues of whether the law has been properly applied. Citizens have no additional rights against clamping and towing.)
• Specific regulations at specific locations are not made clear enough to drivers.
• The methods of fining, particularly with civilian wardens, were claimed to infringe the English Bill of Rights, which prohibits "fining or forgeiture without conviction", a 2006 court ruling declared parking fines not to be fines, however. The situation is further complicated by the fact that this latest ruling superficially conflicted with the Metric Martyrs case ruling on the status of the Bill of Rights, but no further appeals are pending.
• It has been widely claimed that if parking fines are no longer fines, they are inadvertently eligible for tax deductibility, which experts have estimated could cost the Inland Revenue significantly.

[edit] Reform

The summary of an inquiry into parking policy and enforcement by the Transport Committee of the UK House of Commons^[6] states:

In addition to the main task of introducing a unified system of parking enforcement in Britain, we have found that the following action is required:

• Clear performance standards in applying parking restrictions must be established
• It must be made clearer to drivers what regulations are in force and how compliance is to be achieved
• Appropriate recruitment, remuneration and training is needed to ensure a professional parking service throughout the country
• The process for challenging penalty charge notices must be made much more transparent
• The impact of the parking adjudication service must be increased and its profile heightened
• Scrutiny of local authority parking departments is woefully inadequate and needs to be strengthened
• Local authorities must develop parking strategies which meet local objectives fully, focusing particularly on congestion, road safety and accessibility.

[edit] References

• Parking Legislation - A History from the website of the National Parking Adjudication Service for England and Wales
• London Assembly Inquiry: Decriminalised parking enforcement from the RAC Foundation
• Bill Garrett. "Parking mad", BBC, 2006-08-03. 

[edit] External links

• British Parking Association - Official website of the Professional Association representing organisations in the Parking and Traffic Management Industry
• UK Parliament Transport Committee - Official website of the committee that examines the expenditure, administration and policy of the UK Department for Transport and its associated bodies

[edit] Notes

1. ^ Transport Committee (2005-09-01). "Memorandum submitted by Neil Herron on behalf of the Metric Martyrs Defence Fund". . UK House of Commons
2. ^ ^{a b} David Millward. "Streets where traffic wardens rule", The Daily Telegraph, 2006-10-27. 
3. ^ Graeme Wilson. "Motorists pay record £1bn parking bill", The Daily Telegraph, 2006-06-22. Retrieved on 2008-01-27. 
4. ^ What happens to the money?. Parking matters. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (July 2006).
5. ^ Westminster City Council (2006-06-21). "Parking in Westminster - the facts". Press release.
6. ^ Transport Committee (2006-06-22). "Transport - Seventh Report: Parking Policy and Enforcement". . UK House of Commons

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2007)