Question response analysis

Below we set out the questions and analyse the responses received on an individual question basis.

Question 1: Do you agree or disagree that the current maximum levels for PCNs, currently set at £80 & £100 (reducing by 50% if paid within 14 days) are appropriate?

The total number answering this question was 99 with 2 not answering.

28 respondents (28%) answered agree for this question. 71 respondents (70%) answered disagree, with 2 not giving a response (2%).

38% of the 8 local authorities who answered this question answered agree while 63% answered disagree.

Question 1 Analysis:

Of the 84 comments received for question 1, 14 were from respondents who answered agree to question 1 and 69 from those who answered disagree. 1 respondent who left a comment did not answer question 1.

Example comments relating to question 1 are included below:

“Agree” response comments:

Individual comments:

“This seems a reasonable amount which should act as a deterrent.”

Local authority comments:

“Previous increase to £100 adequate penalisation for most offences. Would like to see contravention bandings introduced.”

Organisation comments:

“This is on par with England and Wales.”

“Disagree” response comments:

Individual comments:

“I would advocate uplifting these to match those set out in England as even at that level, they appear not be enough of a deterrent to the general public with unauthorised parking still a huge problem. Lower levels of fines surely equals lower levels of compliance, so I would vote to increase the value of PCNs.”

Local authority comments:

“The £60 penalty charge notice was introduced in Scotland in 2001. Inflation from then (using the bank of England inflation calculator) would value that at £113 today. The £100 maximum level set only in 2023 has already been passed and needs to be increased.”

Organisation comments:

“The costs of a PCN is often lower than parking for a day and drivers who know this will park inconsiderately and pay the PCN, especially if they are car pooling and can share the PCN cost. The PCN cost should be higher than the permit and cashless charges to park.”

Question 2: Which of the following four options would be your preferred choice:

1. the current level of £100 (reducing to £50 if paid within 14 days);
2. £120 (reducing to £60 if paid within 14 days);
3. at a (potentially different) level set independently by each local authority; or
4. something else.

The total number answering this question was 100 with 1 not answering.

20 respondents (20%) answered the current level of £100 (reducing to £50 if paid within 14 days), 17 respondents (17%) answered £120 (reducing to £60 if paid within 14 days), 22 respondents (22%) answered a (potentially different) level set independently by each local authority, 41 respondents (41%) answered something else with 1 not giving a response (1%).

13% of the 8 local authorities who answered this question answered the current level of £100 (reducing to £50 if paid within 14 days), 25% answered £120 (reducing to £60 if paid within 14 days), 50% answered a (potentially different) level set independently by each local authority while 13% answered something else.

Question 2 Analysis:

Of the 82 comments received for question 2, 9 were from respondents who answered the current level of £100 (reducing to £50 if paid within 14 days), 13 from those who answered £120 (reducing to £60 if paid within 14 days), 19 from those who answered a (potentially different) level set independently by each local authority and 41 from those who answered something else.

Example comments relating to question 2 are included below:

“The current level of £100 (reducing to £50 if paid within 14 days)” response comments:

Individual comments:

“I think this is a good level to be a deterrent and any more than £100 feels excessive with the cost of living crisis.”

Local authority comments:

“Dundee City Council considers that Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) levels should continue to be set nationally and reviewed every five years, with the next review undertaken before 1 April 2028. This review should focus solely on applying inflation (e.g. CPI) over the previous five‑year period and setting a revised charge rounded to the nearest £10. A regular, inflation‑based national review would be straightforward to administer and would ensure that PCN levels remain index‑linked, consistent and relevant.

Allowing individual local authorities to set their own charge levels could lead to inconsistency across Scotland. This could create public confusion, misunderstanding or dissatisfaction, all of which would be avoided if a single nationally‑set level applied uniformly across all councils. Granting local authorities this discretion would also generate unnecessary administrative work, requiring officers to develop options and reports for elected members. This work can be avoided across all 32 councils if the Scottish Government continues to set a national level that local authorities can follow.”

“£120 (reducing to £60 if paid within 14 days)” response comments:

Individual comments:

“An increase to £120 will have more impact on improving behaviours and reflects the broader cost environment.”

Local authority comments:

“£120 is an appropriate amount when based on the £60 value set in 2001. An annual inflation also needs to be accommodated to ensure the value of a PCN keeps pace with operation costs.”

Organisation comments:

“The £60 is in-line with other car park operators and sets a deterrent, and encourages for payment to be made early.”

“a (potentially different) level set independently by each local authority” response comments:

Individual comments:

“Different authorities have differing needs. Some have tourists, some don't. Let them decide on a case by case basis.”

Local authority comments:

“The City of Edinburgh Council’s preference would be to introduce Option C.

Council’s already have a wide range of powers to manage their road networks and to set numerous transport and parking charges, such as pay and display or parking permit prices. These levers help Councils to effectively control traffic and manage demands to address such problems as congestion and pollution whilst also taking steps to enhance road safety. However, PCN prices are anomalous as they are not set locally, have no local accountability and historically have not always kept pace with inflation and rising parking prices. That being the case, before the latest charge increase there was a time in certain circumstances where it was cheaper for a motorist to accept a PCN than to comply with the parking regulations. 

Travel patterns and parking demands can vary greatly across the country and are significantly higher in Edinburgh’s city centre, than in comparison with some more rural local authorities. That being the case, whilst the argument for consistency across Scotland is recognised, a one-size fits all approach is no longer viable.

The Council suggests that any changes to PCN charge levels, should also include a review of Bus Lane PCNs to ensure that they are also reviewed in a similar manner and not left behind, as it is not clear whether these are included in this consultation or not.

The Council also recognises that the setting of PCNs issued under Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 contraventions is a separate process and it would be good to have clarity on whether this consultation also includes these charge levels, or if control of these would remain with Scottish Ministers.”

Organisation comments:

“We feel the LA should choose the charges to accommodate their permit and cashless policies and to deal with local issues where compliance is low or you have persistent or nuisance vehicles (i.e. untaxed, no MOT, no insurance).”

“something else” response comments:

Individual comments:

“There should be a framework of penalty levels, with different charges applying for different offences. Local authorities should be able to choose their own process, but only within that set framework and it should not be possible for any authority to simply choose the highest levels for all offences. At its simplest, this could mean one level for offences related to pay and display and permit bays, another for parking in disabled bays and a higher level for yellow line offences. A top tier could apply to restrictions where loading prohibitions are in effect, ensuring that the highest penalties are reserved for those offences where there is the greatest impact on the movement of traffic or on road safety.”

Local authority comments:

“Would support moving to £120 if moving to contravention bandings. £120 for greater offences such as double/doubles, disabled bay and bus stop offences. Lower bandings would cover lesser offences such as expired tickets - these could perhaps be set at £80.”

Organisation comments:

“I think that raising the maximum PCN levels to at least £120 for lower-level contraventions and £160 for higher-level contraventions, with the existing 50% discount for early payment retained. This approach mirrors recent changes in London and ensures penalties remain proportionate, fair, and effective as a deterrent.”

Question 3: Option C for question 2 would mean removing current Scottish Ministers guidance on maximum PCN levels, leaving each local authority to set their own maximum levels independently. Do you anticipate any positive or negative effects should option C be implemented?

Question 3 Analysis:

86 comments were received for question 3.

Example comments relating to question 3 are included below:

Individual comments:

“Negative potentially but appreciate that the affordability of fines differs by local area so the ability to have lower levels in areas of deprivation would be useful to consider and high levels where PCN's wouldn't have the same impact.”

“I think that it would have a positive impact, as we can ensure local severity of offences can be targeted through increasing such a deterrent.”

Local authority comments:

“Positive effects could be individual authorities can adapt the PCN level to suit their own local needs and policies for managing congestion and the wider road network and to achieve a sustainable operating base for enforcement. Would also potentially allow for PCN levels to be adjusted more readily than is currently possible via ministerial guidance. Negative effects could be differences between neighbouring authorities, but these variations already exist with parking charges and with low emission zones.”

“I don't think this would impact greatly on the local authorities who have autonomy over other fees and charges for example TTRO and other permit relating to Roads and the management of those assets.”

Organisation comments:

“Our members would strongly oppose this option. Consistency of charges across the network and local authorities is essential for logistics and freight operators to plan and manage costs effectively. Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) often occur when drivers are delivering goods at the request of customers - not because they are parking inconsiderately.

A patchwork, piecemeal approach with charges independently set by each local authority would create significant administrative burdens for operators. There are also concerns that this could be perceived as a revenue-generating opportunity for local authorities, rather than a measure to improve compliance or safety.”

“I think it would cause confusion to motorists if it is not standardised across the sector.”