Consultation on Decriminalised Parking Enforcement - Variation of Level of Penalty Charge Notices: Consultation Report

Section 3

Summary of views overall

• 50% of the respondents were in support of the proposals although only 29% operate or were considering operating DPE.
• 33% of the respondents were against the proposals.
• 17% of the respondents felt that the consultation was not applicable to them or not appropriate for them to comment.

Summary of views in support

In relation to improving compliance, with the exception of the 4 local authorities that responded which operated DPE, and provided some high level figures, no other respondents which supported the proposals provided evidence to demonstrate that there was an issue with compliance.

Generally the high level figures provided by the 4 local authorities tended to relate to the number of PCNs issued increasing year on year as the only indication of non-compliance. Although one local authority stated 'the majority of drivers in the city comply with parking restrictions'. Another 'suspected' that the deterrent effect of the PCN has also reduced over time and that an increase in the number of PCNs 'may' indicate that the current deterrent is not effective. Although in another local authority, it was felt that residents would need to be issued with a PCN 5 times in a year to make purchase of a permit a more financially attractive option. The individual who supported the proposal provided no evidence for that support but had an issue with the enforcement, particularly in relation to tow-away vehicles.

Two respondents felt that a tiered approach to charging should be considered.

In relation to combating increasing expenditure, with the exception of the 4 local authorities which responded that operated DPE, and provided some high level figures, no other responses which supported the proposals provided evidence to demonstrate that increasing rates would combat increasing expenditure.

Most local authorities are already at the highest charging band and feel unable to offset rising costs against additional parking ticket income. One local authority suggested that since DPE was introduced in its area operating and staff costs have risen considerably. Another indicated that based on the last full financial year's figures, there was a deficit on the decriminalisation account of approximately £500,000 despite an increase in the income on the previous year. Yet another felt that to meet increased public demands for parking enforcement over wider geographic areas and over more extensive hours it had to increase the number of officers undertaking parking attendant duties.

Summary of views against

The reasons for respondents not supporting the proposals were varied but recurring themes included, a lack of evidence to warrant the increase, a lack of targeting problem areas, viewed as a revenue stream for local authorities, a lack of appropriate parking, excessive parking charges in the first instance across inappropriately large geographic areas and overzealous enforcement. In addition two respondents also felt that the consultation had not been advertised widely enough and some respondents felt the consultation had been too simplistic for such a complex area. Similarly, of the 3 responses from the police (one force and two representative bodies), two made no comment (one felt it not appropriate to comment) and one suggested there was a lack of evidence to support the proposals.

Some individual respondents felt that enforcement practices should be reviewed.