Agenda item

Richard Webb, Director of Community Safety and Enforcement, and Freddie Mohammed, Parking Representations and Appeals Manager, were in attendance to answer Members’ questions in relation to the report in the agenda pack.

It was noted that it would be helpful if APCOA could attend a future meeting of the Select Committee to answer Members’ questions.

Councillors asked about the contract key performance indicators in Appendix 2, questioning if everything was as perfect as it seemed. It was explained that the report provided a snapshot of the last month and that there had been months with amber and red indicators, which were addressed in contract meetings.

Members suggested an annual review to identify patterns and raised a ward-related issue about enforcement consistency at Ruislip Lido during the summer months. Officers acknowledged the challenges around parking in and around the Lido and explained the deployment of tow trucks and CEOs during the summer, mentioning the limitations due to the lack of a pound and the need to move obstructive cars to another location.

In response to further questions from the Committee, it was explained that CEOs worked autonomously, and it was not possible for officers to monitor them at all times due to a lack of resources. However, body worn cameras could be tracked, inactivity was monitored and contractor supervisors made their own checks – the data was fed back to LBH officers and footage could be reviewed when necessary.

Councillors enquired about the contract with APCOA and whether competitors were regularly considered. Officers stated that the existing contract had begun in April 2022 and would run until 2027. It was explained that the contract had likely been awarded based on value for money and that other contractors might not engage with them until the end of the current contract. Officers also highlighted the factors affecting PCN numbers, such as policy decisions and the deployment of CEOs in different areas.

Members sought further clarification regarding the responsibility for issuing FPNS for idling cars and the shift to cashless parking. It was explained that idling was a criminal offence under the public spaces protection order, requiring different systems and training for officers hence it would be difficult to train CEOs to take on responsibility for both parking and idling offences. It was confirmed that cashless parking systems allowed for payment by phone and card, and problematic locations would be considered for appropriate steps.

Councillors pointed out that a year-on-year comparison of PCN data would be helpful. In response to further queries raised by the Committee, it was confirmed that adequate signage was a legal obligation under the Traffic Signs Directive. The onus was on drivers to familiarise themselves with the signs and the restrictions in place.

With regard to cashless payments, it was recognised that scams using fake QR codes etc were a national problem. Officers regularly discussed this matter with the Police and did everything possible to raise public awareness. It was confirmed that CEOs had been instructed to remove fake QR codes or cover them when possible. Members heard that data relating to scams was not recorded centrally. However, officers would continue to monitor this and target areas where there had been a spike in criminal activity.

In response to questions from Members regarding blue badge fraud, it was confirmed that there was no requirement for residents to display their photograph. The Committee was advised that CEOs could ask to inspect badges and that initiatives with the Counter Fraud Team had been undertaken.

At the request of Members, it was agreed that officers would clarify the meaning of the term ‘statutory’ parking dispensations as referenced on page 41 of the report.

Further to Councillors’ queries, it was agreed that officers would clarify whether income generated had matched expectations and the % usage of the Hillingdon First Card in the Borough. It was agreed that this information would be sourced after the meeting and fed back to the Committee.

In response to concerns raised by Members regarding the safety of CEOs and the reliance on body-worn cameras, the Committee heard that CEOs were trained in conflict management and there were protocols in place for code yellow and code red situations. Code reds were discussed at monthly meetings and closely monitored. It was also mentioned that CEOs had mobile phones as back up should their devices fail and that incidents were reported to the police to build a pattern or trend.

It was reported that CEOs were encouraged to report any incidents so these could be logged and addressed. CEOs did not routinely work after 19:00 hours; thereafter any out of hours parking-related problems would need to be reported to the Police. Members were informed that CEOs’ working hours could be extended from time to time if needed but a permanent change in hours would require an amendment to the current contract.

Further to the Committee’s questions regarding banding, it was confirmed that two things had happened in parallel; one was Hillingdon’s application to move from Band B to Band A. The second was the London Council's application to increase the band fine rates across London. Members heard that the increase in fine levels had been agreed, and this had impacted on LBH’s application to go from Band B to Band A. It was confirmed that the Pan London change would now increase the fine levels even higher than it would have done. This had undermined Hillingdon’s consultation somewhat as the Council had consulted publicly about a change based on moving from Band B to Band A at a certain level, and now those levels had completely changed. The Cabinet Member would therefore need to decide whether to continue to push for Band A, remain on Band B or revisit the matter at a later stage.

Officers were requested to provide information on the incidence of code reds in car parks. It was agreed that this would be followed up after the meeting.

In response to further questions from Councillors, it was confirmed that approximately 40% of Hillingdon’s residents now used the pay by phone parking service. It was noted that fines could only be cancelled where there was evidence of error. The Traffic Management Act was inflexible – once a parking ticket had been issued, the onus was on the recipient to prove that it had been issued in error.

Noting that similar pay-by-phone locations sometimes had different parking codes and different parking rates which was somewhat confusing, Members enquired whether the current system could be simplified. It was agreed that officers would review this further outside of the meeting to see if changes could be made to simplify the system.

Councillors asked about the effectiveness of the ANPR van and its potential for issuing tickets. The officer explained that they had trialled an ANPR van and were evaluating its cost-effectiveness. They mentioned that the van could cover more ground efficiently, but for most offences, a CEO still had to issue the ticket.

Members enquired about the percentage of PCNs that went to debt collection. Officers stated that they had access to this data and could provide it, explaining that the decision to pay or contest a PCN varied among individuals.

In response to questions about the split of revenue between APCOA and the Council, it was explained that APCOA was paid a fee to deploy officers, and the revenue from fines went to the Council to offset the costs. It was emphasised that the contract was not based on the number of PCNs issued but on compliance.

Finally, it was noted that, prior to the meeting, the Chair had requested a breakdown of the £4.5 million mentioned in the report regarding spend on traffic wardens. It had been agreed that officers would provide this information outside of the meeting.

RESOLVED: That the Select Committee noted the content of the report and the Council’s obligations under the governing legislation.