Question Response Analysis
Below we set out the questions and analyse the responses received on an individual question basis.
Contravention Codes
Question 1
Do you agree with the proposal to create a Scottish equivalent of the contravention codes?
The total number answering this question was 345.
258 respondents (75%) answered yes to this question. 87 answered no (25%).
100% of the 18 local authorities, who answered this question answered yes.
Question 1 Analysis
Of the 345 answers received for question 1 there was 217 comments received. 150 (69%) had answered yes and left a comment. 67 (31%) had answered no and left a comment.
Examples of comments relating to question 1 are included below:
“Yes” response comments
Individual comments
It makes sense to update the limited number of contravention codes, and there is no shame and much benefit to be had by aligning with the more comprehensive set of codes in force in England and Wales.
I believe this is long overdue. I do believe however that it is very important to remain aligned to the codes of other UK nations. This makes things clearer for drivers, clearer for those enforcing and also from a system software and training perspective.
Extra specificity would presumably allow better analysis of parking patterns, and inform future legislation.
Local authority comments
It will help to reduce any confusion for road users throughout Great Britain.
Some parking contraventions are clearly more serious and have greater impact on other road users so a graduated scale that reflects the severity of the contravention is very appropriate.
Organisation comments
We agree with the proposal to align contravention codes with England and Wales. This makes for a more simplified approach for Logistics companies that operate across the UK.
“No” response comments
Individual comments
Amending the list through guidance is too easily brought about without due consultation.
A simpler system, with fewer codes is presumably simpler to enforce.
Organisation comments
In the consultation, Transport Scotland admits “In practice, we understand that local authorities in Scotland currently use the higher band for enforcing parking contraventions.” Introducing higher and lower bands has therefore been made irrelevant by councils already ramping fines up to the maximum.
Question 2
Do you agree in principal that PCN levels should be increased?
The total number answering this question was 345 with all either answering yes or no.
243 respondents (70%) answered yes to this question. 102 answered no (30%).
Out of the 18 local authorities that responded, (100%) answered yes to this question.
Question 2 Analysis
Of the 262 comments received for question 2, 175 were from respondents who answered yes and 86 from those who answered no.
Example comments relating to question 2 are included below:
“Yes” response comments
Individual comments
Casual observation of hotspot areas near my home will reveal that the same vehicles are repeatedly parking illegally in the same places and often getting ticketed. The current charge levels don't seem to do the trick.
The current rates and enforcement are not a deterrent to the average motorist. They are routinely highlighting this with inconsiderate parking such as disabled bays without the relevant badge, single yellows, bus stops, and active taxi ranks. All these can be observed within Glasgow on a daily basis. Glasgow taxi drivers are regularly missing out on work because of parked vehicles obstructing the taxi ranks. With regards to the consultation, a higher charge for parking infringements with a more proactive approach to enforcement such as later shifts etc would be beneficial.
Currently to park in the NCP car park in Glasgow city centre it costs £26.50, it is cheaper to take a fine as car will sit with a fine for more than a day, risk of being caught is low.”
Local authority comments
The PCN level has remained static for an inordinate amount of time. The current rates do not always represent a deterrent.
Organisation comments
It is clear that the current PCN level is no longer a deterrent and hasn’t been increased for a number of years; inflation and average wages have eroded the deterrent effect resulting in people willing to take a chance or, as Transport Scotland recognised, treating the PCN as a ‘parking charge’ especially if divided between the vehicle occupants.
“No” response comment
Individual comments
This is way beyond any reasonable inflation led increases, Sure, some local authorities hike parking costs annually way beyond inflation to raise revenues but that's no excuse to raise penalties just so that they are always higher than the cost of parking for a day.
Parking fines should not be increased at this time. The country is just coming out of a period restricted by a pandemic, The increased fines will hit poorer families worse and hit hard working families who are struggling to get back on their feet after furloughs and restrictions caused by the pandemic. It will also impact on businesses many of whom will struggle to find their feet again after being closed for nearly 18 months. It's just another form of indirect taxation. absolutely object to this.
Maybe in London these would mitigate parking costs however not in towns in Scotland these charges are high enough.
Organisation comments
We acknowledges that parking enforcement has an important role to play in ensuring road users abide by the rules and that highway authorities can undertake their statutory duty of managing traffic flow. However, the logistics industry receives millions of pounds a year in Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) costs whilst carrying out deliveries and servicing activity for businesses, residents and visitors in the capital. We have produced compliance materials to help operators plan their deliveries and ensure drivers understand the rules on loading/unloading, which differ to parking. Nevertheless, in many cases there is simply nowhere to stop and deliver legally, or the hours of loading bays do not meet the needs of businesses or residents receiving deliveries.
Question 3
We have set out two proposals, (proposal (a) and proposal (b)). Which one do you prefer? If you do not prefer (a) or (b), please select (c).
The total number answering this question was 343.
42 respondents (12%) selected proposal a. 175, (51%) selected proposal b. 126, (37%) selected proposal c. 2 respondents did not answer this question.
Current
| Level of PCN | Time period one | Time period two | Time period three | Time period four |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | £25 | £50 | £50 | £75 |
| Higher | £30 | £60 | £60 | £90 |
Proposal (a)
| Level of PCN | Time period one | Time period two | Time period three | Time period four |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | £40 | £80 | £80 | £120 |
| Higher | £50 | £100 | £100 | £150 |
Proposal (b)
| Level of PCN | Time period one | Time period two | Time period three | Time period four |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | £50 | £100 | £100 | £150 |
| Higher | £60 | £120 | £120 | £180 |
12 of local authorities who responded selected proposal b (67%). 6 of the remaining local authorities selected proposal a, (33%).
Question 3 Analysis
Of the 246 comments received for question 3, 18 (7%) were from respondents who selected proposal a. 122, (50%) were from respondents who selected proposal b and 104 (42%) had selected proposal c. Two respondents omitted from selecting a proposal but left a comment (1%).
Example comments relating to question 3 are included below:
“Proposal a” response comments
Individual comments
It isn’t so much of a jump at the moment but maintenance scope to increase further in a couple of years and keep rate under review.
If the charge is too high it may cause financial burdens on certain drivers and the result would be having to take even more costly action to recoup the debt, which at the end of the process the driver may still be unable to pay.
Local authority comments
It appears a high increase to go to Proposal B for such contraventions as slightly overstaying your time, etc. Proposal B would also take the PCN levels above private car parks.
The average of the lower and higher PCNs in Proposal (a) is, as outlined in Question 2, close to what the value would be taking into account inflation, which seems fair and can be justified. While Proposal (b) might be considered more of a deterrent it would be harder to justify.
Proposal b” response comments
Individual comments
This should have a higher impact and be more realistic to the penalty of illegally parking. The time impact and distress caused by some of the illegal parking results in high costs to people and business so this would demonstrate some of their actions.
The higher the level, the more effective the PCN will be as a deterrent. We need action on parking in our cities and towns, as the number of vehicles has continued to increase over the past twenty years and irresponsible parking has become a real problem.
This will help ensure there is a reasonable deterrent in helping to manage the land. And as such this higher deterrent should actually result in fewer PCNs being issued as motorists avoid getting a significantly higher PCN amount.
Organisation comments
It would potentially mean less PCNs being issued and therefore resulting in better land management.
We support proposal b as it is clearly necessary to provide a deterrent to inconsiderate or dangerous parking. Higher penalty charges are known to be more of a deterrent, which is why proposal b is preferred.
Local Authority comments
The bandings will allow LA's flexibility in selecting the higher or lower levels for parking contraventions whilst also providing a deterrent to illegal parking and supporting the DPE function.
Proposal c” response comments
Individual comments
I feel that there needs to be consideration to the fact that a lot of parking fines are received due to accidental errors, so would suggest that an increased charge may be more prudent for repeat-offenders (perhaps more than 1 every circa 3 months, before receiving an increased charge) rather than first time offenders.
Penalties should be proportional to one’s income, with a minimum level set at around £200. There is no excuse for parking illegally, and it has very real effects on people's lives. Stamp it out by increasing the penalties.
A mixture of a and b. Lower PCN £30, £60 etc Higher. PCN £60,£120 etc.
Should be decreased not increased seems to be a way of collecting money not controlling parking.
Organisation comments
These two scenarios, similar in scale, can both be easily absorbed by a car full of passengers; it’s only a slight increase – per person – on top of a match day ticket or concert ticket price. These proposals will continue to facilitate illegal parking, but the levels should be aiming to actually deter illegal parking. An additional fine should be added, at a much higher level than either of these proposed. For example, at quadruple the rate currently proposed.
Question 4
Do you agree with our proposals to place the new provisions within the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 as higher level contraventions? Double Parking / Parking over a dropped kerb / Pavement Parking.
The total number answering this question was 343.
247 respondents (72%) answered yes to this question. 96 answered no (28%), with 2 not responding.
All 18 local authorities answered yes.
Question 4 Analysis
Of the 238 comments received for question 4, 160 were from respondents who chose yes, (67%). 78 were from respondents who chose no (33%).
Example comments relating to question 4 are included below:
“Yes” response comments
Individual comments
These infractions affect those with poor mobility, the aged, mothers with buggies, wheelchair users, and are regularly seen on our roads. Double parking is particularly dangerous for cyclists (drivers often double park, even when there is a bay open, because they don't want to pay the parking fee).
I live in a street that backs onto a local Junior football ground and on match days the parking is horrendous. We have players, officials and fans parking on both sides of our narrow street which would make it impossible for an emergency vehicle to get through without wiping out the parked cars. Also have vehicles parking on pavements meaning that local residents who are out pushing their children in a pram or elderly/disabled relatives in a wheelchair need to go on the busy road to get to their destination.
Organisation comments
Double parking causes real issues and can often, block roads. The deterrent needs to be as high as possible to minimise this type of contravention.
Local Authority comments
These new provisions aim to protect the most vulnerable people in our communities from the most inconsiderate and anti-social parking problems. The enforcement of such provisions strongly supports the transport hierarchy and puts pedestrians and cyclists at the forefront of parking policy.
As these are very much related to improvements to Road Safety there is no doubt that we should be targeting the Higher level of contravention.
Enforcing these contraventions at a higher PCN charge level would help deter such parking and help authorities with limited DPE powers to tackle this problem more effectively, sending a clear message that such parking will no longer be tolerated.
“No” response comments
Individual comments
It’s just about impossible to park anywhere that’s why people sometimes have to park illegally to try and do their jobs .Get rid of the double yellow lines outside people’s houses where there is no need And remove these ridiculous cycle lanes that nobody uses, but are causing congestion everywhere.
Pavement parking should not be a specific offence as in many parts of the country houses were built with either no provision for off street parking or grossly inadequate provision for off street parking and with roads insufficiently wide to permit parking and traffic to flow. This is not just an issue for older houses, in many more modern developments, this inadequate parking provision was an express condition of development which completely ignores the reality that people live in.
Organisation comments
Although we accept that pedestrians need to be protected from selfish parking that blocks pavements, it considers current lower-levels of fines to be adequate.
Question 5
Do you anticipate any potentially negative implications the proposed changes to the PCN levels?
The total number answering this question was 336.
176 respondents (52%) answered yes to this question. 160 answered no (46%), with 9 not giving a response.
17 local authorities responded to this question. 13 answering yes and 4 answering no. 1 local authority did not answer this question.
Question 5 Analysis
Of the 182 comments received for question 5, 153 (85%) were from respondents who answered yes and 27, (15%) from those who answered no.
Example comments relating to question 5 are included below:
“Agree” response comments
Individual comments
People who are fined for parking "offences" that in many cases used to be perfectly legal will be even more out of pocket. Given how many people in Scotland already struggle with the cost of living this will not help.
City centres have been severely impacted by the pandemic and this will only discourage members of the public from travelling.
It is possible there may be an slight increase in aggressive behaviour from drivers however we all regularly attend conflict management courses ( this is part of our risk assessment ) . We have body worn cameras and other PPE.
Local authority comments
The obvious negative implication on introducing the proposed changes to PCN levels will be the financial hardship this will undoubtedly cause to some motorists issued with a PCN for contravening restrictions in operation. However, it is the responsibility of every motorist to observe and comply with all road traffic laws including any waiting or loading restriction in operation and those who do will not be penalised.
Organisation comments:
If the proposed changes are implemented, then plainly, there will be negative reaction from the media and general public, as these parties would take a narrow view as opposed to considering all factors.
“Disagree” response comments
Individual comments
Other than upsetting drivers, no, I believe these changes would improve our communities.
Deliveries can still take place, by parking on the road. Rarely is the road too narrow to allow traffic to pass.
Organisation comments
Our findings reinforce the need for charges to be effective, encouraging compliance with parking rules and deterring anti-social behaviour. A sufficient deterrent enables effective parking management that enables an improved parking experience for the responsible motorist. It's important all motorists and pedestrians are aware of the changes to PCN levels before it is implemented and why they are happening, so a good public awareness campaign is essential.
< Previous | Contents | Next >