Agenda item

Richard Webb (Director of Community Safety and Enforcement) and Freddie Mohammed (Parking Representations and Appeals Manager) were in attendance to respond to Members’ queries in relation to the Draft Parking Annual Report.

Councillors sought to determine the percentage of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) that had been paid upfront and how many had proceeded to the collection stage. The response from officers indicated that the information was not immediately available but could be retrieved from the processing system and would be provided to the Committee after the meeting.

Members enquired whether road signs associated with moving traffic restrictions, such as waiting restrictions and entry prohibitions, were sufficiently visible, appropriately sized, and suitable for public comprehension. It was confirmed that parking enforcement was heavily legislated, and that signage complied with the Traffic Signs and General Directions regulations, ensuring uniformity across England and Wales.

A subsequent question from the Committee raised concerns about the misuse of disabled parking bays and the abuse faced by both legitimate blue badge holders and enforcement officers. Councillors questioned the frequency of visits to areas where such abuse occurred and whether there were sufficient staff to manage these issues. In response, it was explained that staffing and deployment were continually reviewed in collaboration with the contractor, and that a vehicle equipped with ANPR had been acquired to improve coverage. It was also noted that specific operations targeting blue badge fraud were conducted throughout the year.

Officers acknowledged the difficulty in enforcement due to invisible disabilities and explained that civil enforcement officers were limited in their authority, being able only to inspect badges. Members were informed that fraud investigations and prosecutions were handled by a dedicated team in collaboration with enforcement officers.

Members offered to provide a list of locations where blue badge misuse was prevalent and noted that they had never been asked to show their own badges, suggesting a lack of enforcement visibility.

Councillors asked whether PCNs could be broken down by those that had proceeded to court or entered debt recovery. They also queried how the Council monitored the deployment of enforcement officers to ensure they were present during peak times and that resources were used effectively. The response provided an overview of the enforcement process, from initial challenge to adjudication and potential court involvement. It was confirmed that data on PCNs was tracked by the finance team and that deployment was monitored through a tracking system, monthly meetings, and a hotline that allowed for rapid response to reported issues.

Members raised concerns regarding a recent visit during which parking enforcement officers had been observed being assaulted, including having their handheld device taken. Councillors questioned why, after a “code red” alert had been issued, the officer had received a phone call asking whether police assistance was needed, rather than immediate action being taken. Concerns were expressed that the control room was not actively monitoring the situation despite the presence of 3,000 live cameras in the Borough. Members further questioned why the contractor staff were not based in the control room and emphasised the vulnerability of officers, suggesting that the current system did not adequately protect them. Councillors felt a review of officer protection was essential.

Officers acknowledged the seriousness of the incident and confirmed that footage had been reviewed. It was explained that a “code red” alert triggered a response from nearby Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs), who arrived quickly. The benefit of multiple body-worn cameras was noted, and it was stated that such incidents were reviewed monthly and reported to the police when appropriate. It was also noted that prosecutions had occurred in some cases, depending on the evidence and the willingness of the CEO to proceed.

Members reiterated that although three officers had been present, the assaulted officer had been alone at the time of the incident. The Committee questioned why the contractor had not been integrated into the control room and suggested that even a radio link could allow the control room to activate nearby cameras in response to a code red. Councillors stressed that response times of even three minutes could be too long in such situations. Officers acknowledged the concern and committed to investigating the feasibility of integration with the control room.

Councillors raised further questions about the hotline used to report illegally parked vehicles. They asked whether Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were in place for the hotline, noting that residents had experienced long wait times and inconsistent responses. The Committee questioned whether the hotline’s performance was being monitored and whether improvements were needed.

In response, it was confirmed that KPIs existed for the hotline, including call volumes and response times. However, it was clarified that the hotline did not operate with full call centre functionality, and therefore metrics such as dropped or missed calls were not available. The hotline was staffed by a single person, which could lead to delays during busy periods. It was confirmed that the hotline was managed by the contractor under the terms of the parking contract.

In reply to requests for further clarification, it was confirmed that PCNs were issued based on contraventions rather than location, therefore the system did not automatically categorise them by zone or ward. However, it was possible to extract that data through additional processing.

Members enquired whether the current level of enforcement was sufficient, citing a neighbouring borough that had issued more than twice as many PCNs.

The response stated that comparing headline figures between boroughs was not straightforward due to differences in policy, geography, and enforcement practices. It was emphasised that the Council aimed to achieve compliance rather than maximise PCN issuance. Factors such as the number of restrictions, use of cameras, and policy decisions (e.g., leniency for first-time offenders with blue badges) all influenced the figures. It was noted that the Council’s approach prioritised fairness and customer service, including discretionary cancellations for certain groups.

The Committee Members commented on the lack of comparative data in the report, stating that the figures presented did not allow for meaningful year-on-year analysis. They asked what was being done to address the issue of “ghost plates” and other methods used to obscure vehicle registration.

The response clarified that ghost plates were more commonly associated with speeding offences rather than parking violations. It was explained that if a vehicle was reported as cloned, the Council required a crime reference number from the police prior to cancelling the PCN. While such cases were not extremely common, they had been increasing. It was noted that enforcement officers had not reported encountering ghost plates with stickers, and that such tactics were more often used to evade speed cameras.

Councillors sought further clarification as to what procedures were in place for dealing with parking infringements that occurred outside of the contracted enforcement hours, which ended at 10:00pm. The response confirmed that there was no enforcement service outside of those hours, but that if a significant number of complaints were received, the situation would be reviewed.

Councillors noted that some questions raised in previous meetings had not received responses and that requests for trend data and safety-related issues had been previously submitted but were not reflected in the current report.

Officers acknowledged the omission and explained that the parking annual report was governed by legislative requirements but could be expanded to include additional data if requested. It was confirmed that trend data would be included in future reports.

Councillors asked whether financial compensation was sought from third-party contractors when parking bays were suspended due to prolonged roadworks or other disruptions. It was clarified that, while no penalty fees were charged for overruns, contractors were charged a daily rate for each day of suspension, which generated income for the Council.

Further concerns were raised about the tracking of enforcement officers and Members enquired whether tracking could be applied to the officers themselves rather than just the devices. It was explained that the handheld devices were linked to a geolocation system which allowed tracking of the device’s location. Officers were not permitted to leave their devices unattended, and any breach of this protocol would trigger a disciplinary investigation.

In response to further questions from the Committee, it was noted that the accuracy of the tracking system was not known but could be investigated. Regarding the effectiveness of the parking enforcement strategy, it was stated that despite increased enforcement efforts and a higher number of PCNs issued, contravention rates had not declined.

Noting that although there were 3,000 CCTV cameras in the Borough, these were not monitored 24/7, Councillors suggested a review of the staffing and operational hours of the control room.  It was confirmed that the control room did not have sufficient staff to maintain continuous monitoring.

Councillors asked whether enforcement officers had the authority to take action against vehicles that were legally parked but causing damage to roads or pavements, particularly in light of increased development and heavy vehicle use. It was confirmed that since 1974, parking on pavements or verges had been prohibited unless explicitly permitted by the Council. Officers could issue PCNs for such violations, and a specific contravention code existed for larger vehicles. Officers added that cloned vehicle cases were handled by requiring a crime reference number from the police before cancelling the PCN. It was confirmed that, as set out on page 32 of the report, over 11,000 PCNs had been issued for vehicles parked on footpaths or areas other than the carriageway.

That the Residents’ Services Select Committee noted the contents of the draft annual parking report and commented on matters requiring clarification or for consideration of inclusion in the report.