Agenda item

Richard Webb, Director of Community Safety and Enforcement presented the report which provided general background on the Council’s parking enforcement approach and outlined key data. It explained that enforcement operations were delivered through a partnership with APCOA, whose contract had commenced in 2022 and was due to end the following year, with options available for extension. The contract scope, as described in the report, included the provision of Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs) – also referred to as parking wardens – parking and moving?traffic enforcement cameras, and ancillary services such as cash collection.

Members heard that the Civil Enforcement Officers were deployed to monitor car parks to ensure that parking payments were made, to patrol on?street parking bays, and to enforce parking restrictions, including yellow lines and all permit zones. The contract contained a range of key performance indicators, particularly related to deployment levels, contracted service hours, acceptable error rates in Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issuing, and responsiveness to the public enforcement line.

It was confirmed that the Council’s parking team engaged with APCOA frequently, with daily operational contact and monthly performance meetings to review deployment patterns, emerging issues, and operational data. Formal annual reviews were also undertaken. Deployment decisions were jointly agreed and informed by a broad evidence base, including patterns of non?compliance, school pick?up and drop?off priorities, resident and elected member feedback, and other data identifying areas of highest need.

The challenges posed by the Borough’s large and diverse geography were noted, which required CEOs to cover wide areas. To address this, Members were informed that the Council had recently leased a vehicle equipped with Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology to support more efficient monitoring of extensive areas. The Council was evaluating the effectiveness of this approach and actively reviewing CEO deployment models to improve coverage and better respond to resident priorities.

Kenny McCamlie (Contract Manager) and Kedar Maharjan of APCOA were also in attendance. The Contract Manager addressed Members of the Select Committee thanking them for the opportunity to attend and noting APCOA’s long?standing relationship with the Borough. He explained that APCOA’s head office was located in Uxbridge and that its European headquarters had relocated there in the final quarter of the previous year. He also emphasised the company’s strong commitment to Hillingdon and Uxbridge, noting that the organisation also managed a major contract at Heathrow and employed over 500 people within the Borough.

In relation to parking enforcement, Members heard that the organisation employed approximately 60 staff and maintained a flexible employment model that enabled 20–30% of the workforce to operate flexibly. The Contract Manager highlighted the challenging nature of the Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) role, noting that officers worked in all weather conditions and often faced hostility despite performing a vital public service. It was confirmed that the organisation worked closely with the local police sergeant in Uxbridge to improve staff safety, develop methods for officers to protect themselves, and pursue prosecutions where necessary. He reported having achieved successful prosecutions, including two in the past year, and noted additional incidents of lower?level but often malicious abuse.

The Contract Manager expressed appreciation for any recognition the Committee could give to frontline officers and described the collaborative working relationship with the Council’s team. He stated that both parties worked hard to ensure that the service provided to the Borough was efficient and cost?effective. The introduction of the new ANPR vehicle was being used as an opportunity to reassess service delivery, strengthen data?led deployment, and ensure that officers were sent to areas of known non?compliance. It was noted that year?on?year increases in Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) numbers were one indicator that deployments were targeting appropriate locations, although PCN volumes could not be treated as a target.

Councillors noted that Members of the Committee had previously undertaken frontline observations of Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs). They enquired whether the CCTV control room had been equipped with colour monitors or a radio link to receive code red alerts, noting that under?reporting of such incidents had been previously identified. It was asked whether this option had been explored, and if so, why it had not been implemented. In response, officers advised that APCOA staff were not based in the Council’s CCTV control room, which remained a secure, supervised?access environment and was not staffed 24/7. Redeploying the officer who ordinarily handled CEO radio communications into the control room had not been considered viable.

Members suggested that, although placing staff permanently in the control room might be impractical, providing a live radio link would allow CCTV staff to hear code red calls and activate cameras to support CEO safety. An incident witnessed by Councillors was cited, in which a CEO’s device had been taken from them during a distress call. Officers explained that previous reviews had identified significant operational complications. When a code red was triggered, APCOA’s dedicated control room was already fully engaged in supporting the CEO and, where necessary, contacting the police. CCTV staff simultaneously received multiple other inputs and could not guarantee priority handling. It was emphasised that CEO body?worn cameras were active at all times and pressing the code red button often deterred aggressors. Training had been developed with the police to encourage CEOs to move away from danger rather than remain in proximity until officers arrived. Over?involvement by multiple parties during emergencies had also been identified as unhelpful.

The Committee asked whether CEOs had access to “people?safe” technology, GPS connectivity, or devices enabling communication once code red was triggered. APCOA confirmed that activating the red button opened a live microphone, alerted nearby CEOs, and automatically transmitted the officer’s location to APCOA’s control room. GPS information on handheld devices also enabled emergency services to be directed to the officer’s location if they were unable to speak.

Members queried 420 recorded verbal abuse incidents and 31 code red incidents, asking whether under?reporting might be linked to the diverse ethnic backgrounds of CEOs. Questions were raised regarding whistleblowing channels, reporting confidence, and how APCOA ensured staff safety in a challenging environment where abuse could relate both to role and ethnicity. APCOA responded that CEOs were strongly encouraged to report incidents, including “code blues”—lower?level but potentially harmful incidents, often racist in nature. Although such behaviour generally originated from passers?by and could not easily be prevented, reporting enabled pattern?spotting, dual deployment and targeted policing support. A confidential reporting line was available, although management actively fostered direct reporting relationships. CEOs were reminded that under?reporting prevented the organisation from building an accurate picture of risks.

Councillors sought clarifications as to whether racist incidents were logged as hate crimes and formally passed to the police. It was explained that staff were encouraged to do so and that an online reporting template had been jointly developed with the local Police Sergeant. Misconceptions—such as the belief that prosecutions might restrict international travel—were actively addressed. APCOA reported higher prosecution success than many boroughs but acknowledged that further improvements were welcome.

Councillors raised concerns about CEOs frequently being observed in groups of four to six in high?footfall areas, which appeared to reduce enforcement efficiency. It was asked whether this was common and how CEOs were being deployed effectively. In response, APCOA confirmed that CEOs were remote workers, and several operational reasons could explain groupings, including shift changes and deployment patterns. However, it was acknowledged that improvements were needed. GPS and live mapping were used to monitor CEO locations, and Council officers also had access. Human instinct to gather in groups existed, and management actively countered it through performance monitoring and training. Councillors were encouraged to report instances for review.

Members then asked how the Council’s parking enforcement hotline data was logged—specifically whether it was recorded at road level—and how APCOA used that information to identify hotspots. APCOA confirmed that all hotline reports entered its system and were used to identify persistent problem areas, alongside complaints received by Council officers and Members. Data recorded during each visit—such as whether a vehicle was moved on or a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) was issued—supported proactive deployment.

In response to Members’ questions regarding the CCTV enforcement vehicle, its benefits, and its role in CEO and public safety, it was explained that the vehicle employed automatic number plate recognition to scan permit zones efficiently—something impossible on foot. Although officers still had to exit the vehicle to issue certain PCNs, use of the vehicle enabled redeployment of foot patrols to high?non?compliance areas.

A further question concerned repeated pavement parking near schools and what actions were taken to address high?risk areas. APCOA stated that significant resources were dedicated to school patrols, although enforcement could be challenging. Parents’ responses varied, and statutory observation periods limited immediate action. Councillors were encouraged to submit specific locations for review.

Councillors asked about the three CEOs assigned as quality monitors, including their deployment and how data captured through their cameras had been used. It was explained that these officers were deployed daily, with data uploaded to the Council’s digital system. Council officers would need to provide details on how the data was analysed, and APCOA committed to arranging this.

Questions were then raised about how required hours and PCN issue rates compared with other London boroughs and how enforcement officers were trained. APCOA outlined its training programme: online modules, British Parking Association?regulated exams, supervised local instruction, pairing with senior CEOs, and a strict sign?off process. Differences in observation times (e.g., instant for school zig?zags, 5 minutes for permit bays) were explained, and APCOA acknowledged that inconsistent answers given to residents should not have occurred.

Further questions were raised regarding enforcement of motorcycle parking, particularly relating to delivery drivers. APCOA explained that motorcycles were generally exempt from displaying pay?and?display tickets unless traffic orders specified otherwise. Restrictions had been updated in some areas (e.g., Ruislip) following Cabinet approval. In relation to complaints about deployment at Ruislip Lido, APCOA noted that winter and summer deployment patterns existed but could be reviewed.

Councillors asked whether CEOs worked to targets. It was confirmed that no PCN?issuing targets existed; however, issue rates per hour were analysed to identify anomalies, training needs, or deployment inefficiencies.

The Committee sought further clarification regarding a reduction in PCNs issued by CCTV cameras, noting that camera numbers had decreased from 120 to 75. It was asked whether the reduction in PCNs had resulted from fewer cameras rather than improved compliance. APCOA explained that compliance had improved particularly at new yellow?box junction enforcement sites. Older cameras with extremely low detection rates had been removed because replacement costs were unjustifiable.

The Chair concluded by thanking APCOA representatives for their comprehensive answers and invited APCOA to provide written information on wider enforcement services. A site visit for Members was also suggested.

RESOLVED: That the Select Committee:

Noted the contents of the report which provided background information to support the scheduled question and answer session on parking enforcement in the Borough, and in particular the ongoing work with APCOA through which they had brought forward initiatives to improve facilities for motorists whilst generating an income for the Council.