Local authority parking attendants and London Congestion Charge administration

Executive summary
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Local authority parking attendants
Chapter 3: Suggested improvements to decriminalised parking enforcement
Chapter 4: London Congestion Charge administration
Chapter 5: Suggested improvements to the administration of the London Congestion Charge
Chapter 6: Other Issues

This document has also been made available in Adobe Acrobat format for downloading. The Adobe® Acrobat Reader® can be freely downloaded. Viewers with visual difficulties may find it useful to investigate services provided to improve the accessibility of Acrobat documents - http://access.adobe.com Local authority parking attendants and London Congestion Charge administration (Adobe Acrobat - 172kb)

Executive summary

The alleged excesses of local authority parking attendants in enforcing parking restrictions is an issue that continues to generate much publicity in the media and correspondence in motoring organisations' mailbags.

This report considers whether those criticisms are valid and suggests ways in which the enforcement regime could be improved.

We have not attempted to carry out an in-depth review of the whole issue - this has been done elsewhere - and our work has also been carried out against the background of the Department for Transport's impending issue for consultation of its Statutory Guidance to Local Authorities on the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions. Our focus has been on coming forward with a number of practical recommendations designed to improve the system of parking enforcement.

Our report recognises the value of decriminalised parking enforcement but also highlights a number of areas where we feel improvements are necessary to current procedures. These proposals include authorities being encouraged to adopt a more reasonable approach in drawing up parking strategies, the appointment of "trouble-shooters" in each authority to address concerns when it was felt a representation was not being properly considered and publication of greater details concerning the appeals and representations made to authorities.

A number of our proposals will be picked up on in the DfT's new Guidance. We very much welcome this new Guidance but we remain concerned that with no incentives for local authorities to comply with the Guidance, nor sanctions against authorities that do not comply, some authorities will feel able to make a narrow, subjective interpretation of the regulations.

Our other main proposal is that redress should be available to motorists in cases where an independent adjudicator has found that his or her vehicle has been wrongly ticketed or where a local authority fails to defend their decision to refuse an initial appeal. We consider that this is an issue that now deserves full consideration by Government.

Our report has also looked at the administration of the congestion charge scheme in London. It also makes a number of recommendations to improve the system, including a new detection system that is compatible with other systems and the appointment of trouble-shooters. We also recommend that TfL ensure that their systems are fully able to respond to the demands that will be placed on it when the scheme is extended westwards in 2007.

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 The enforcement of parking regulations by local authority parking attendants is an issue that continues to generate much discussion in the media. It is also one on which motoring organisations who are represented on the Motorists' Forum continue to receive a full postbag.

1.2 In the light of the on-going complaints, the Motorists' Forum set up a working group to examine whether the criticisms that are made are valid and also to look at ways in which the whole enforcement regime could be improved.

1.3 As a corollary to this investigation, the working group also decided to look at the administration of the congestion charge scheme in London, where again a number of allegations about improper administration have been made in the media and received by motoring organisations.

1.4 The Forum's working group comprised of the following members:

Paul Watters (Chairman) - AA Motoring Trust
Kevin Delaney / Sheila Ranger - RAC Foundation
Jay Parmar - British Vehicle and Rental Leasing Association
Jim Rawlings - Mobilise Organisation
Minakshi Roy - Confederation of British Industry
Chris Welsh / Gordon Telling - Freight Transport Association

Secretariat support was provided by:

David Prescott - Motorists' Forum Secretary
Joe Carey - Motorists' Forum Secretariat

1.5 The group's Terms of Reference were twofold. It was charged firstly to investigate the enforcement of parking regulations by local authority parking attendants by considering:

• the basis for which parking restrictions are implemented and the role that the restrictions play in a local authority's transport strategy;
• whether local authorities are carrying out enforcement reasonably, fairly and accountably, with particular emphasis given to the number of penalty charge notices issued, numbers of vehicles clamped and removed and directions given to parking attendants;
• the conditions of appointment of private companies undertaking decriminalised parking enforcement, with particular emphasis on whether they should be allowed to offer incentives to their parking attendants to issue penalty charge notices;
• the procedures adopted by local authorities for dealing with challenges to and appeals against penalty charge notices;
• how often the existing powers of redress available to the independent adjudicators are used, and to what effect;
• whether redress should be more readily available to successful applicants, and if so, the circumstances in which that redress should be available; and
• the consequences and implications that would arise from a greater award of redress.

1.6 Secondly, it was charged with investigating the administration of the London congestion charging scheme by considering:

• whether the systems for paying the charge are fit for purpose and are sufficiently customer focused and friendly;
• whether the systems for appealing against a penalty are sufficiently customer focused and friendly and what improvements could be made to those systems if such a need is identified; and
• whether redress should be available to motorists whose vehicles have been wrongly charged or subject to a false claim that their vehicle was in the congestion charge area.

1.7 Both issues have been the subject of a number of recent investigations and the Forum has drawn heavily on these works rather than conducting its own in-depth research. However, as well as drawing on these reports, the Forum has also taken into account the experience and expertise of its members and the evidence presented to the working group by expert witnesses. Taken all these factors into account, the aim of the group has been to highlight areas where we feel action is necessary to improve the enforcement of parking regulations and the administration of the congestion charge scheme.

1.8 This report has also been compiled at the same time that the Department for Transport has been finalising its Statutory Guidance to Local Authorities on the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions. We welcome this document which provides a reasonable blend of guidance on issues of policy and practice without becoming too involved in the minutiae.

1.9 However, we are concerned that there are no incentives for local authorities to comply with the Guidance, nor sanctions against authorities which do not comply. We are nervous, therefore, that some authorities will feel able to make a narrow, subjective interpretation of the Guidance.

1.10 We recognise that terminology employed in the Traffic Management Act 2004 replaces references to Decriminalised Parking Enforcement with Civil Parking Enforcement and references to Parking Attendant with Civil Enforcement Officer. For the purposes of this report, we have retained the original references to Decriminalised Parking Enforcement and Parking Attendants.

Chapter 2: Local Authority Parking Attendants

2.1 There are currently over 32 million registered vehicles. Numbers have risen consistently in recent years (there has been a 7 million increase in numbers since 1995) and this increase has taken place against a background of the imposition of greater parking controls and a tightening of planning procedures leading to fewer parking spaces being provided in new developments.

2.2 The 1991 Road Traffic Act decriminalised parking enforcement in London (and gave authorities outside London the option to take the powers) and passed responsibility for this from the Metropolitan and City police forces to the London Boroughs. The Act paved the way for a widespread change in the approach to parking enforcement as Local Authority Parking Attendants were created and empowered to issue penalty charge notices and to authorise vehicles to be clamped or removed.

2.3 Generally, there is public support for parking enforcement. And there are several major benefits brought about by the introduction of DPE, including:

• improved traffic flow through lack of obstructions, therefore saving time and fuel;
• parking places are easier to find due to a higher turnover in parked vehicles as a result of no illegal all-day parkers. This means less driving to find an empty parking space, saving fuel again;
• pollution is reduced, due to fewer cars circulating to find an empty parking space and fewer traffic queues caused by illegal parking obstruction;
• safer streets for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers due to fewer circulating cars and fewer agitated drivers; and
• improved access for emergency vehicles and public transport due to a lack of illegal parking obstruction.

2.4 However, this transition, from a benign police enforcement regime to a much more concentrated enforcement system carried out by or on behalf of local authorities has been controversial, and even confrontational. Motoring organisations have received complaints from members who consider they have been treated unfairly by local authority parking attendants, and continue to do so. This concern is also reinforced by the number of cases which continue to be reported in the media, both on TV and in the press, about disregard of the rules and bad practice adopted by local authority parking attendants. The outcome is a growing body of opinion that the current system is too harsh and that the incentives offered to some local authority parking attendants to issue Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) eg points on stores' loyalty cards can lead to improperly issued PCNs.

2.5 There is also a very real perception amongst motorists that enforcement regimes are designed more to raise revenue than be an effective traffic management tool. The most recent figures are for 2003/04 and show that the total income in England from all parking activities was £1,094,464,000 and total expenditure was £655,339,000. An overall surplus was therefore generated of £439,125,000.

2.6 There is no doubt that the issue is also a controversial one locally. It has even been suggested that poor policies, alleged over zealous enforcement and sometimes inept administration carried out in certain boroughs influenced the results in the recent local elections.

2.7 Local councillors can come under pressure from their constituents on parking related issues - on the one hand from those demanding greater parking restrictions in their own locality, particularly resident parking schemes, and on the other, from those who feel enforcement is over-zealously carried out. So decisions can be taken for reasons other than the establishment of effective traffic management regimes.

2.8 This pressure, and the resulting different parking restrictions that can sometimes be imposed even in relatively localised areas, can itself lead to difficulties. Motorists can become confused by the plethora of different parking restrictions and incur parking penalties because they genuinely do not understand the rules that apply.

2.9 Concern has also been expressed that once an authority sets its parking policies, those policies are never reviewed. Towns and cities are vibrant areas that are constantly evolving and as such, authorities need to ensure that their parking policies reflect these changes. A greater understanding of why an authority has adopted the parking policies that it has can only help authorities secure greater levels of public understanding.

2.10 Many local authorities are now making an effort to improve public support and understanding of their parking policies and enforcement regimes. Such regimes, particularly where they are operated fairly and equitably, can play a valuable role in managing the road network, improving road safety and the local environment. But there are still too many examples of bad practice. These examples continue to undermine the whole DPE process and make life harder for the genuinely good authorities, many of which do now exist.

Chapter 3: Suggested Improvements to Decriminalised Parking Enforcement

3.1 As referred to in paragraph 1.8, we welcome the issue for consultation of DfT's Statutory Guidance to Local Authorities on the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions. Some of the proposals that we make in this report are already covered by the Guidance and we hope that the document will go a long way towards solving the difficulties that currently apply.

3.2 Statutory Guidance requires that for those proposals not covered by law, local authorities "must have regard" for them. This is an important sanction and we recognise the strength of it. However, we remain concerned that authorities can only be obliged to carry out functions if they are statutorily obliged to do so and whilst we do not doubt authorities' good intentions in these areas, local pressures and financial constraints may well be influential in deciding which measures are actually enacted. If authorities do decide to act outside the Guidance in those cases where there is no statutory obligation on them to follow the Guidance, the consistency we all wish to see in parking enforcement will be lacking.

3.3 We believe that the Parking Adjudicators provide an excellent service. The comments by the Leggatt Review of Tribunals 2001 - PATAS practices show a concern for users unmatched elsewhere in the justice system - are a testimony to their efforts. However, it is unrealistic, and legally impossible, to expect the adjudicators to deal entirely with poor councils - they do not make the rules and only hear about 1% of cases in which PCNs have been issued. This therefore makes it even more important that the DfT's proposed Guidance has teeth and we therefore recommend strongly that Government should explore making all the recommendations in its Guidance for authorities compulsory.

3.4 The taking of DPE powers is generally to an authority's advantage, not least because even though DPE regimes should not be used as a substitute for, or additional from of, local taxation or as a way of raising substantial revenue, taking control of enforcement activity can raise substantial sums of money where drivers do not obey the rules. For example, the parking account figures for London, which only include DPE, suggest a total income of about £297m, with expenditure of about £185m and a surplus of about £112m.

3.5 With these powers should come a responsibility to ensure that parking enforcement is carried out reasonably and drivers treated fairly. Although we believe that many authorities do take their powers seriously, the fact remains that there are still too many cases reported where bad practices are taking place. In such circumstances, the Government should have the power to appoint a Parking Director who would oversee the exercise of DPE powers in a recalcitrant authority that is considered to be a "failing" parking authority. Although we appreciate this would not be without difficulty, we believe it would go a long way to re-establish public confidence.

3.6 We note that under the Traffic Management Act 2004, the police can also carry out parking enforcement activity where appropriate. We are concerned that this could lead to confusion and adverse publicity in the media should such confusion arise. Clear guidance needs to be given on the liaison that authorities should undertake with the police to ensure there are clear lines of responsibility.

3.7 The Motorists' Forum agrees with the general proposition that the exercise of discretion is best carried out by back office staff as part of the representations procedure rather than by parking attendants themselves - as this latter approach could lead to suggestions of favouritism and inconsistency. However, this does not mean that authorities should not adopt reasonable policies in drawing up their parking strategies.

3.8 For example, Manchester found itself in a vicious circle of over-zealous parking regulation enforcement and much angry public reaction to it. A large number of successful appeals against PCNs and adverse press comment persuaded the authorities to look again at their approach and Manchester subsequently agreed a policy of reasonableness and proportionality in its approach to parking enforcement.

3.9 Manchester's stated objective is a compliance based enforcement regime with a contract that places a high priority on compliance. Enforcement obviously continues but now has an emphasis on proportionality. Increased observation times before a PCN is issued, the discontinuance of wheel-clamping and altered removal criteria to reflect the gravity of the parking irregularity all contribute to a less confrontational approach on the street.

3.10 There is much to be applauded in this approach and indeed we understand that a number of other authorities have changed their policies to reflect a more reasonable approach in drawing up parking strategies. All authorities should be required to adopt this approach.

3.11 Once an authority has drawn up its parking policy, it should ensure this is widely publicised. The greater the understanding by the public of an authority's policy, the more likely there will be public acceptability and understanding for it.

3.12 We have looked at a selection of local authorities' websites to see what information was published in the above regard. The councils:

• all had a page or pages devoted to parking;
• these pages described the parking facilities that existed, the location, opening times and cost;
• they also detailed the penalties for incorrect parking, how payment should be made and how complaints could be initiated if the imposition of a PCN was felt to be unfair;
• where applicable, information about CPZ was given and information about how to obtain resident and non-resident permits; and
• disabled parking was given prominence and in some instances there were links to the Blue Badge Scheme.
• In some instances councils went further and provided:
• information about private parking areas that were usable by the public;
• rules applying to loading and unloading; and
• clamping and car removal conditions.

3.13 There were 2 councils that had a downloadable booklet that provided comprehensive details about the parking facilities.

3.14 We suggest that DfT, in conjunction with local authority associations, should undertake a more detailed look at the information provided and agree on the elements that should be published on an authority's site. This must include a summary of an authority's parking strategy.

3.15 We also believe that an authority should publish financial information about the revenues they are raising from DPE parking. Here again we have carried out a brief trawl of authorities' websites to see if the local councils were publishing their accounts. The information provided was much more limited. Accordingly, we recommend that authorities should be required to publish details of their income, expenditure and surpluses arising from DPE.

3.16 Local Traffic Authorities must produce an annual report on their enforcement activities within 6 months of the end of each financial year. The report has to be published and cover a range of financial, statistical and other data. We welcome this requirement but would urge Government to go further.

3.17 We believe authorities should be obliged to publish records of the number of "informal" challenges and complaints they have received from drivers who say their fines were improperly issued. Authorities should be encouraged to use the data gathered from "informal" challenges to help the public or their parking operations eg the identification of common mistakes or problem areas.

3.18 The information should include:

• the total number of PCNs issued;
• the number of "informal" challenges and appeals following the issue of Notice to Owners, and how many of these were dismissed or allowed; and
• the number of appeals made to the Parking Adjudicators, and how many of these were not contested by the authority and allowed or rejected by the Adjudicators.

3.19 We hope that DfT will use the information to glean which authorities seem to be operating outside the norm. Action should be taken to ensure that any authorities that are identified are brought back into line.

3.20 To ensure that motorists' do not inadvertently fall foul of parking restrictions, authorities should ensure that restrictions applying to all locations are clearly signed in accordance with The Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002 and the DfT's Traffic Signs Manual. It is right that signing that does not conform or is not properly maintained should be a defence against a penalty charge.

3.21 Whilst parking strategies vary substantially between authorities - understandably reflecting different local situations - enforcement practices should be consistent and harmonised across the country in order that motorists can know that they will be treated fairly and equitably. Consideration should be given to having a standard observation time for loading/unloading. (Some local authorities allow 20 minutes, some allow 5 minutes and some have none). Any standardisation of the observation period should be at the upper limits of current practice, thus giving ample time for the task to be completed. Disabled people would find a common approach to the rules/concessions applied to Blue Badge holders in the London boroughs outside the national scheme helpful.

3.22 We noted during our work that government is considering variable parking penalties. This is something we support in principle as we do not believe that motorists, for example, who overstay a time limit in a legitimate parking bay for only a short time should be fined the same penalty as those who park in a dangerous or obstructive manner.

3.23 We understand that some local authorities are already supplying their parking attendants with digital cameras so photographic evidence of parking contraventions can be recorded. We understand this has proved very effective in settling contested claims about the validity of the parking charge issued. We believe that authorities should be required to adopt this practice. In addition, authorities should make the evidence readily available either through the internet, or by e-mailing images on request or by making them available to view at the authority's office.

3.24 We are concerned about the activities of persistent offenders i.e. those who contravene parking regulations deliberately and on a regular basis and fail to settle the debts involved. We support moves to wheel-clamp or remove the vehicles of persistent offenders as a matter of course. But we also recommend the setting up of a database detailing the total number of penalties outstanding across the board - so that parking attendants can be aware of all outstanding PCNs, rather than just those issued in their own authority.

3.25 One area of work that we consider is ripe for improvement concerns the consideration of "informal" challenges and the 14 day discount period.

3.26 At present, motorists have 14 days to pay the PCN at a reduced rate. After this period, the fine is payable without discount. We believe that this 14 day discount rate acts as a disincentive to motorists to "informally" challenge the PCN as they would be faced with paying a considerably higher penalty if authorities do not accept the appeal within that 14 day period.

3.27 We understand that some local authorities will extend the 14 day period for payment after the "informal" challenge has been determined. The London Borough of Haringey even refers to this arrangement on their PCN. But other local authorities stick rigidly to imposing the higher fine as soon as the 14 day period expires, thus penalising motorists who wish to make "informal" challenges against their PCN. Accordingly, we recommend that if a motorist makes an "informal" representation, the 14 day discount period should be re-offered by the local authority from the day on which it decides on the representation.

3.28 We are concerned by a number of recent reports that have highlighted differences in the number of cases in each authority where that authority fails to appear at an independent appeal hearing to defend their decision. This is giving rise to a concern over some boroughs appearing to reject automatically any initial plea of mitigating circumstances but then failing to appear to contest the appeal at an independent appeal hearing (possibly because it costs the authority more to contest the appeal than it would receive from the fine it collects).

3.29 A third of drivers who are forced to go to appeal find that councils, who could have dismissed the tickets at a much earlier stage and saved wasting everyone's time, fail to contest the appeal. Too many drivers who appeal against an unfair PCN have to suffer the ordeal of phone calls, letters, lost time and expense, lasting up to 56 days, only for local authorities to not contest them by doing nothing. Arguably, a "not contested" result is a good one, but why should innocent drivers have to go through weeks of worry when, perhaps, they were ticketed when the restrictions were not in force, ticket machines were faulty or road markings were incorrect?

The facts (based on 2004 figures): Outside London, there were 10,441 formal appeals against parking offences in 2004. Of these, 3,603 (34.5%) were not contested by councils. 88% of appeals were dealt within the National Parking Adjudication Service's target of 56 days, with 2,803 successful (excludes the 3,603 cases not contested by councils). 0.36% of all PCNs went to formal appeal. Drivers asked for costs in 0.3 per cent of the 10,441 formal appeals. One third of those (11 in total) were awarded costs. There are no figures for the average payment. Inside London, there were 54,526 formal appeals against parking offences in 2004/5. Of these, 16,963 (31.1%) were not contested by councils. (In 2003/4, there were 44,280 formal appeals against parking. Of these, 12,800 or 28.9% were not contested by councils). 34,236 of the 2004/5 appeals were successful (including the 16,963 cases not contested by councils). 0.85% of all PCNs went to formal appeal. Drivers asked for costs in 0.4 per cent of the 54,526 formal appeals. Costs were awarded in 41 per cent (92) of claims, averaging £75.

3.30 So we support strongly the recommendation in the new DfT Guidance that local authorities should respond to "informal" challenges carefully. However, we would go further and recommend that this consideration of "informal" appeals should become an important element of the appeals process. Cancelling PCNs at this stage that have clearly been issued incorrectly is advantageous to all parties.

3.31 We return to this matter in relation to the redress issue at paragraph 3.34.

3.32 There is evidence to suggest that once a PCN is issued, the formal procedures kick-in and it becomes difficult for a motorist to simply have his or her PCN cancelled. To help overcome this difficulty, we recommend the appointment of a "trouble-shooter". The "trouble-shooter's" contact details should be widely publicised and he or she should be easily contactable by aggrieved motorists. The "trouble shooter" would have the power to intervene personally in cases where it was felt proper care and attention was not being given to an appeal.

3.33 Many local authorities contract out their back office processing duties but The Road Traffic Act 1991 requires all representations must be considered by the local authority. The DfT should remind local authorities that whilst they may contract out the function, they cannot contract out their statutory responsibility in this respect.

3.34 The final issue that we raise in this section is the most contentious but is one that we consider must now be fully considered by Government viz that redress should be available to motorists in cases where an independent adjudicator has found that his or her vehicle has been wrongly ticketed or where a local authority fails to defend their decision to refuse an initial appeal.

3.35 There is even a case for requiring local authorities to make small compensation payments to people who successfully challenge the award of a PCN in cases that do not go to formal appeal.

3.36 At present, the independent adjudicators already do have the power to award costs against either party if they have acted frivolously, vexatiously or unreasonably. However, such instances are extremely rare and if costs are ever awarded, the sums involved are modest.

3.37 We recognise that moving away from this system to the one we have mooted would not be without difficulty. It could encourage vexatious appeals by motorists and there could be a number of consequences and implications for local authorities. We ourselves have not had the resources or time to look at these consequences in detail; it is, in any case, a job for DfT with the local authorities.

3.38 Against this, we believe that if a system of redress was in place it would help ensure that enforcement authorities are held to account for their actions. The enforcement system can only operate efficiently and effectively if there is a high degree of transparency and we therefore suggest that there is merit in having a penal system in place that is underpinned by a standard level of service the public can expect.

3.39 The issue of redress for poor service is one that is now widely established. The water, gas and electricity industries all provide compensation if, for example, they default in making and keeping appointments, responding to account queries and planned interruptions to supply, when insufficient notice is given. London Underground supply redress when their services are delayed by more than 15 minutes.

3.40 We should like Government to investigate this matter thoroughly and believe that with the issue of its Statutory Guidance, this is an opportune moment for such a review to be carried out.

Proposals Government should explore making all the recommendations in its Guidance compulsory for authorities. Government should have the power to appoint a Parking Director to oversee the exercise of DPE powers by local authorities who are a "failing" parking authority. clear guidance needs to be given on the liaison that local authorities should undertake with the police to ensure there are clear lines of responsibility in areas where the police can also carry out enforcement activity. all local authorities should keep their parking policies under review. all authorities should be encouraged to adopt a more reasonable approach in drawing up parking strategies. DfT and local authorities should agree on the elements of an authorities' parking strategy that should be published on an authority's website. Local authorities should be required to publish details of their income, expenditure and surpluses arising from DPE. Local authorities should be required to publish greater details concerning the appeals and "informal" challenges that they receive. DfT should analyse authorities' annual reports on enforcement activities and take action where necessary. parking restrictions applying to all locations should be clearly signed. enforcement practices should be consistent and harmonised across the country. Government should consider the introduction of variable parking fines. parking attendants should be supplied with digital cameras so photographic evidence of parking contraventions can be recorded. The evidence should be made readily available. the setting up of a database detailing the total number of penalties outstanding across the board - so that parking attendants can be aware of all outstanding PCNs, rather than just those issued in their own authority. the 14 day discount period for payment of a PCN should be re-offered by the local authority from the day on which it decides on an "informal" challenge. the appointment of a "trouble-shooter to intervene personally in cases where it was felt proper care and attention was not being given to an appeal. Government should ensure that consideration of "informal" challenges is carried out "in-house" by authorities. Government should consider redress for motorists where an independent adjudicator has found in their favour or where a local authority fails to defend their decision to refuse an initial appeal.

Chapter 4: London Congestion Charge Administration

4.1 Since 17 February 2003 drivers entering or driving within a cordon around the central area of London have incurred a charge. The effect has been to:

• reduce congestion inside the charging zone by 30%.
• reduce traffic levels by 18%.
• a 30% reduction in the number of cars and 65,000 fewer car movements.
• a 20% increase in movements by buses, coaches and taxis.

4.2 The charge can be paid in advance, on the day of travel or by midnight the following charging day. The charge is £8 if paid by midnight on the day of travel or £10 if paid by midnight the following charging day. Failure to pay by midnight on the following charging day incurs a penalty of £100 - reduced to £50 if paid within 14 days. A civil penalty system, like that for decriminalised parking, operates and un-paid penalties are pursued through civil courts, with ultimate recourse to bailiffs if no payment is made.

4.3 We have reservations as to the effectiveness of the original systems, as evidenced by the rising number of appeals received by the Road User Charging Adjudicators in the months after the implementation of the scheme. (The number of appeals reached a peak in March 2004 when 5,634 cases were received). However, we recognise that there has been a marked improvement in the service offered as time has progressed - appeals are now down to about 900 a month. And we particularly welcome the facility to pay the charge by web or telephone the day after travel that was introduced on 19 June 2006. This should be of considerable benefit to motorists who either forget to pay the charge in advance or inadvertently enter the zone.

4.4 However, we still believe there is room for improvement in the service offered by TfL. About 1 in 5 drivers remain dissatisfied with payment channels and it is a cause for concern that the latest Impacts Monitoring Report for 2005 shows that £70 million of the £190m raised by the scheme came from penalty charges.

4.5 In addition, there have been a number of concerns expressed about how the customer service channels operate and the inflexibility of the scheme. There appears to be no simple way in which charges that clearly have been issued incorrectly can be cancelled without going through the formal appeal procedure. Indeed, some particularly unpleasant incidents have been reported where motorists, who claim to have followed the correct procedures, and who have been the innocent victims of car cloning or false registration leading to inaccurate DVLA records have been referred to bailiffs.

Chapter 5: Suggested Improvements to the Administration of the London Congestion Charge

5.1 Despite the improvements that have been made to the scheme since its inception, the current system can still be unwieldy.

5.2 We are aware of the trials TfL are conducting into replacing the current congestion charge technology. (Trial vehicles have a credit card-sized "tag" (an electronic purse/smart readable card) fitted to their windscreen). If these trials prove successful, a "tag and beacon" vehicle detection system could replace the current payment systems when the city's congestion charge contract with Capita expires in 2009. (There would, of course, still be a need for a camera-based automatic number plate recognition enforcement system to track down vehicles that did not display a "tag").

5.3 We welcome this trial as we believe the system will be more accurate than the current system and could reduce errors and make congestion charging more "user friendly". An account-based charging system could also reduce the risk of drivers forgetting they are entering the congestion zone and incurring penalties.

5.4 However, it is important that any such systems are "inter-operable". There are a growing number of road charging schemes and tolls in Britain and many of them now offer pre-paid "tags" to regular users. As these schemes grow there will be an increasing consumer need to develop a single "clearing bank" approach, so that traveller's accounts can be debited in a seamless but transparent manner.

5.5 TfL have advised that the Congestion Charging website has been available over 99.9% of the time barring outages for scheduled maintenance and that frequently, customers reporting that the website is down are, in fact, experiencing problems with their own internet service provider. Nevertheless, motoring organisations continue to receive reports of downtime and system errors on the web channel and we should like TfL to publish details of all downtime, including that relating to outages for scheduled maintenance.

5.6 At present, appeals have to be received by TfL in a written format, through the post. The legislation surrounding this requirement should be looked at as soon as possible in order that appeals can be made in electronic form. We believe this would be considerably more user-friendly.

5.7 There are still cases reported in the media of instances where motorists receive a PCN, dispute the award of the notice and then become embroiled in a process that does not appear to be sufficiently flexible to respond to the nature of the appeal. Penalties can quickly escalate out of all proportion to the offence.

5.8 We acknowledge that the regulations governing the scheme require that when a representation is rejected, TfL must advise the customer of their right of appeal. But this does not mean that a case could not be resolved by TfL even though it is en route to an appeal.

5.9 We note that TfL advise that discretion can already occur at various levels of the organisation. We believe these arrangements could be strengthened by the appointment of a specific "trouble-shooter" who would be empowered to intervene personally in cases where it was felt proper care and attention was not being given to an appeal. The "trouble-shooter" could also ensure that such cases were not pursued through to the formal appeal stage unnecessarily.

Extract from current TfL website Question: I have received a response to my representation. Is there anyone that I can discuss this with? Answer: No, please follow the advice on the Notice of Rejection. If you have any further evidence that can be provided please submit this to Congestion Charging within 28 days of issue of the Notice of Rejection. If you do not have any further evidence but still disagree with the Penalty Charge Notice you have the right to submit an appeal to the Parking and Traffic Appeal Service (PATAS). Your only other option is to pay the amount outstanding..

5.10 At present the charge can be paid for more than one day at a time by, for example, paying for a week, for a month or even for a whole year in one transaction. However, the scheme does not provide the flexibility that part-time users need (eg paying for use on 10 days out of the next 30). We understand there are technological reasons why such a system cannot be put in place before 2009 but we hope TfL will look to overcome these difficulties at the earliest possible opportunity.

5.11 Finally, the Congestion Charging scheme is to be extended westwards to cover most of Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster from February 2007. It seems to us that unfamiliarity with the system is likely to lead to an increase in problems and an increase in the number of PCNs issued. It is crucial that the difficulties with the PCN/appeal system that occurred when the original scheme was introduced do not re-occur and it is important that TfL's systems are sufficiently resourced to ensure that motorists receive the level of service they are entitled to during this period. We hope that TfL are considering now whether there are any improvements they need to make to their systems.

Proposals TfL should move to a new detection system that is compatible with other systems. TfL should publish statistics detailing the amount of downtime on their web channel including that relating to outages for scheduled maintenance. TfL should move to introducing an electronic appeal system as soon as possible. TfL should appoint "trouble-shooters" to intervene personally in cases where it was felt proper care and attention was not being given to an appeal. TfL should look to overcome the technological reasons at the earliest opportunity to provide the flexibility required by part-time users. TfL should consider now whether there are any improvements they need to make to their systems to deal with the extension of the scheme.

Chapter 6: Other Issues

6.1 Our work has highlighted a number of other points that we consider are worthy of wider consideration by Government.

Lack of consistency within the different enforcement regimes

6.2 We were surprised to note during our investigations that different rules apply in the various enforcement regimes (owner liability applies for parking offences; registered keepers liability applies for congestion charge/bus lanes offences).

6.3 We consider it would be far better for the varying regimes to be harmonised and for there to be a single system in operation. This is something we consider Government should consider as a matter of urgency.

Accuracy of DVLA database

6.4 An assessment of accuracy of the DVLA databases conducted between May and September 2005 indicated that 97.4 per cent. of vehicle keepers could be traced from information supplied by DVLA. But that still means that 2 keepers out of every 100 cannot be traced.

6.5 This, together with the time that can take place in registering change of ownership, is a significant barrier to ensuring that PCNs are properly issued and enforced.

6.6 We recognise the considerable effort that DVLA is taking to improve the DVLA databases and recommend that efforts in this area should be continued.

Lack of compatible technology

6.7 We welcome efforts to tackle those persistent offenders who contravene parking regulations deliberately and on a regular basis and fail to settle the debts incurred.

6.8 We believe that efforts to tackle persistent offenders would be improved greatly if local authorities were able to access a database that showed the total number of penalties outstanding across the board. (At present each authority can only access details of outstanding penalties from its own records). We understand that that local authorities are already looking to establish such a database and hope that steps to introduce such a system will be speeded up.

Postage

6.9 One complaint that does arise is that some PCNs sent by post are not received by the recipient.

6.10 We do not suggest that all PCNs should initially be sent by recorded delivery - as this could in itself cause difficulties (as recipients might be at work when the letter arrived). However, we do believe that there is a case for ensuring that when motorists do not respond to the initial PCN, all subsequent correspondence should be sent by recorded delivery. This would help ensure that in those cases where disputes arise over whether letters have been received, factual evidence would be readily available to ascertain whether the claim is genuine or not.

Motorists' Forum
September 2006