Sie sind auf Seite 1von 15



Parking Services
Urban Vision Partnership Limited

September 2009

Section 1 ………………. Introduction

Section 2 ………………. Objectives of CPE

Section 3 ………………. Financial considerations

Section 4 ………………. Bus lane and other enforcement

Section 5 ………………. Enforcement arrangements

Section 6 ……………….. Appeal arrangements

Section 7 ……………….. Relationships with other agencies

Section 8 ……………….. Local/National liaison

Section 9 ……………….. Performance

Section 10 ……………… Environmental Considerations

Section 11 ……………… Further information


Appendix A …………….. Enforcement Policy

Appendix B …………….. Financial Report

Appendix C …………….. Statistical Report

Civil Parking Enforcement in Salford – Annual Report for the
period 31 March 2008 to 31 March 2009.

1. Introduction

1.1 The city of Salford covers some 37 square miles and includes the five
districts or townships of Salford, Eccles, Worsley, Irlam & Cadishead, and
Swinton & Pendlebury, home to some 220,000 people.

1.2 Waiting restrictions on the city’s roads are introduced after much
consideration and are intended amongst other things primarily to improve
road safety, maintain traffic flows which in turn reduces pollution by
preventing vehicles from idling and to effectively manage kerb space.

1.3 The restrictions are made by way of Traffic Regulation Orders formulated by
the Council and in Salford, there are some 3,500 covering the city’s roads.

1.4 Some car parks are also covered by regulations and these are operated as
Pay and Display facilities.

1.5 The implementation of Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act, 2004 on the
31st March, 2008 introduced many changes to Local Authority parking
enforcement operations. Decriminalised Parking Enforcement, introduced in
Salford in 2001, became known as Civil Parking Enforcement (CPE) and
Parking Attendants became Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs).

1.6 Together with the introduction of new Operational and Statutory Guidance,
the legislation provided for significant changes to be made to the scheme
including the introduction of differential charging bands for Penalty Charge
Notices. Also included were variable charges relating to the type of parking
contravention and the future ability for Local Authorities to enforce some
moving traffic offences.

1.7 In addition to bus lane enforcement, these include banned turns, misuse of
box junctions and the opportunity to enforce parking contraventions from
photographic evidence. Additionally, the powers to enforce double parking
(i.e. one vehicle parking alongside another) and obstruction of dropped
crossings were recently introduced.

1.8 All restricted roads in the city and Pay and Display car parks are regularly
patrolled by CEOs.

2 Objectives of CPE

2.1 Statutory Guidance on CPE sets out the objectives for such schemes in the
following terms:

2.2 Policy objectives

2.3 CPE should contribute to the authority’s transport objectives. A good CPE
regime is one that uses quality-based standards that the public understands
and which are enforced fairly, accurately and expeditiously.
2.4 Enforcement authorities should aim to increase compliance with parking
regulations through clear, well designed, legal and enforced parking
controls. CPE provides a means by which an authority can effectively
deliver wider transport strategies and objectives. Enforcement authorities
should not view CPE in isolation or as a way of raising revenue

2.5 Enforcement authorities should design their parking policies with particular
regard to:
• managing the traffic network to ensure expeditious movement of traffic,
(including pedestrians and cyclists), as required under the TMA Network
Management Duty;
• improving road safety;
• improving the local environment;
• improving the quality and accessibility of public transport;
• meeting the needs of people with disabilities, some of whom will be
unable to use public transport and are dependant entirely on the use of a
car; and
• managing and reconciling the competing demands for kerb space.

2.6 We strive to achieve the above objectives in our operation of CPE in Salford
particularly through our close involvement with the Council’s Traffic
Management Unit and liaison with the Police and Fire Services together
with other agencies such as GMPTE and the Disabled Drivers Association.

2.7 CPE financial objectives

2.8 For good governance, enforcement authorities need to forecast revenue in

advance. But raising revenue should not be an objective of CPE, nor should
authorities set targets for revenue or the number of Penalty Charge Notices
(PCNs) they issue.

2.9 Enforcement authorities should run their CPE operations (both on and off-
street) efficiently, effectively and economically. The purpose of penalty
charges is to dissuade motorists from breaking parking regulations. The
objective of CPE should be for 100% compliance, with no penalty charges.
Parking and penalty charges should be proportionate, so authorities should
not set them at unreasonable levels. When authorities receive penalty
charge payments they must use them in accordance with section 55 (as
amended) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

2.10 Previous guidance stated that new local authority parking enforcement
schemes should be self-financing as soon as practicable after
implementation. The new guidance states that this is still a sensible aim but
compliant applications for CPE would be granted without the scheme being
self-financing. However, the guidance continues, ‘authorities will need to
bear in mind that if their scheme is not self-financing, then they need to be
certain that they can afford to pay for it from within existing funding. The
Secretary of State will not expect either national or local taxpayers to meet
any deficit’. This guidance also applies to existing schemes.
2.11 Parking Enforcement in Salford has never been viewed as a means to
raising revenue and during eight years of operation, has not achieved any
great surplus of revenue but the scheme has generally paid for itself.

2.12 Whilst the aim is to encourage 100% compliance, despite robust but fair
enforcement, PCN issue levels remain consistent.

2.13 The implication of this is that some motorists, although aware of the
consequences of unlawful parking are nevertheless, still willing to risk the
possibility of receiving a penalty rather than take a little effort to park

3 Financial Considerations

3.1 Whilst the statutory guidance is quite clear that CPE schemes are not
required to be self-financing, it also states that that the Secretary of State
does not expect either local or national taxpayers to meet any deficit.

3.2 It is the Department for Transport’s view that off street parking charges
should make up any shortfall in parking penalty receipts to finance such

3.3 Whilst this is easier to achieve in large cities with numerous fee paying
car parks, it is not necessarily the case in areas such as Salford where
there are not many such car parks and fees are traditionally low.

3.4 As previously alluded to, the new legislation empowered Local Authorities
to introduce differing charging bands within their areas.

3.5 Variable charges were also introduced relative to the type of

contravention, which were determined by Central Government.

3.6 The following table provides details of the variable levels of charges under
the two charging bands:

1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Band Higher Lower Higher Lower Higher level Lower level
level level level level penalty penalty
penalty penalty penalty penalty charge paid charge paid
charge charge charge charge after service after service
paid early paid early of charge of charge
certificate certificate
1. £60 £40 £30 £20 £90 £60
2. £70 £50 £35 £25 £105 £75

3.7 To briefly explain the table, column 1 refers to the two charging band
levels which can be introduced for a PCN at the discretion of the Council,
band 2 being the higher band. Salford elected to introduce the higher
charging level.
3.8 Parking contraventions are now classed as higher or lower level
dependant upon the severity, determined by Central Government
legislation. Columns 2 and 3 refer to the new penalties at the respective

3.9 Penalties paid within 14 days of issue (or 21 days if issued via remote
camera enforcement) attract a 50% discount for early payment as
illustrated in columns 4 and 5.

3.10 Penalties remaining unpaid and unchallenged result in a charge certificate

being issued a minimum of 60 days following the issue of a PCN which
increases the penalty by 50% as illustrated in columns 6 and 7.

3.11 32,186 PCNs were issued to motorists in Salford during the year and
information relating to their disposal is included at Appendix C.

3.12 A total of £877,022 was paid in penalties and a breakdown of income is

included at Appendix B.

4. Bus Lane and other enforcement.

4.1 The Traffic Management Act empowers Local Authorities to enforce

some moving traffic contraventions. Being in a bus lane is one of these
and others not yet implemented outside London, include banned turn
manoeuvres and stopping in box junctions.

4.2 Whilst the Act provides for Local Authorities to enforce these additional
contraventions, CEOs are not empowered to stop motorists. Moving
traffic contraventions need to be enforced by photographic technology
either by cameras placed at fixed sites or by the use of motor vehicle
mounted systems. PCNs for these contraventions are then issued by

4.3 Although under consideration, bus lane enforcement has not yet been
introduced in Salford.

5 Enforcement Arrangements.

5.1 On and off-street enforcement in Salford is undertaken by our contracted

service provider, NSL Services Group who employ Civil Enforcement
Officers to patrol the streets and car parks under direction from the

5.2 The CEOs are able to issue PCNs for parking contraventions and in
Salford, they are additionally empowered by the Local Authority under the
provisions of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act, 2005, to
issue FPNs for offences of dog fouling, littering, fly posting and graffiti.

5.3 Whilst parking enforcement is still their primary function, the CEOs have
made a valuable contribution to reducing this kind of anti-social behaviour
in the city.
5.4 PCN processing, including dealing with correspondence, payments and
appeal file preparation is dealt with by Council Officers seconded to
Urban Vision Partnership Limited.

5.5 Our Enforcement Policy is included in this report at Appendix A.

6. Appeal arrangements.

6.1 Motorists who have been issued with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and
who wish to contest it have various opportunities open to them to do so.

6.2 In the first instance, a motorist may make a written challenge to the
Council either by letter or e-mail. Should this be rejected and the PCN
remain unpaid, a Notice to Owner is sent to the vehicle keeper who then
may make representations, again to the Council.

6.3 If such representations are rejected, motorists may then formally appeal
to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, (formerly the National Parking Adjudication
Service) where an independent adjudicator will hear the case.

6.4 Appeals can be heard in person, by post and now by telephone which
assists in speeding up the process, providing more convenience to the

6.5 In all cases, the Adjudicator’s decision is final and binding on all parties.

7. Relationships with other agencies.

7.1 As illustrated previously in this report in respect of the enviro-crime

enforcement activities undertaken by our CEOs, it is recognised that
parking enforcement should not be a stand-alone function.

7.2 The enforcement contractors are encouraged to develop close working

relationships with the police and indeed have actively taken part in a
number of policing initiatives throughout the city together with other

7.3 This co-operation extends to everyday activities resulting recently in

CEOs finding a vehicle wanted in connection with a serious crime. The
value of this was acknowledged by the police in correspondence to the
Contract Manager in the following terms; ‘…due to the helpfulness and
efficiency of you and your staff in tracing the motor vehicle, and indeed…
who was wanted for murder in… this year, it would seem that by
contacting you with vehicle details, it made our enquiries much easier.’

7.4 To further develop this relationship, NSL have proposed that the authority,
police and themselves enter into a joint agreement called ‘Partnership
Plus’ to formalise closer working relationships. This has been done in a
number of other areas and is currently under consideration by the police
and Salford City Council.
7.5 To further illustrate the diversity of functions, another service provided by
the CEOs is to provide details of untaxed motor vehicles seen by them to
the DVLA who may then clamp and/or remove them enabling duty to be
recovered. If this is not paid, the vehicles may be sold or destroyed.

8. Local/National Liaison

8.1 Civil Parking Enforcement is now undertaken in a large number of areas

including all the city’s neighbouring authorities.

8.2 Whilst most, if not all operate independently, statutory and operational
guidance must be followed but there can still be a great deal of difference
in the way each area runs their particular schemes.

8.3 To avoid causing confusion to the motorist who does not always
appreciate that he/she is driving through a different administrative area
and ensure that there are levels of consistency of approach, regular
liaison meetings between partaking authorities at both local and national
level take place at which Salford City Council is usually represented.

8.4 We are also members of the British Parking Association (BPA), a

Government recognised organisation dedicated to formulate and further
the highest standards of its members in all parking matters.

8.5 We attend regular meetings and seminars organised by the BPA where
matters of best practice are discussed.

8.6 The BPA also manage the Safer Parking Scheme which is an initiative of
the Association of Chief Police Officers aimed at reducing crime and the
fear of crime in parking facilities.

8.7 Safer parking status, Park Mark®, is awarded to parking facilities that
have met the requirements of a risk assessment conducted by the Police.

8.8 These requirements mean the parking operator has put in place
measures that help to deter criminal activity and anti-social behaviour,
thereby doing everything they can to prevent crime and reduce the fear of
crime in their parking facility.

8.9 For customers, using a Park Mark® Safer Parking facility means that the
area has been vetted by the Police and has measures in place to create a
safe environment.

8.10 We currently hold the awards for six of our car parks.

9. Performance

9.1 Contrary to popular belief, there are no targets for PCN issue and neither
are CEOs paid a bonus for the number they issue.

9.2 However work rates are monitored and CEOs are expected to issue
PCNs when they see a contravention.
9.3 Enforcement authorities may exercise discretion at any time during the
PCN processing stage but it is the Government’s view that the exercise of
discretion should, in the main, rest with back office staff as part of the
process involved when considering challenges against PCNs and
representations against a Notice to Owner.

9.4 There may be occasions in the case of minor contraventions when a CEO
could advise motorists who are still with or returning to their vehicle, about
their parking but this would only be expected before a PCN has been
served as they are not permitted to withdraw an issued Notice.

9.5 We aim to deal with all correspondence and telephone calls in a

professional, courteous and expeditious manner.

9.6 There are time limits for dealing with statutory notices, such as NtOs and
Charge Certificates and in this respect, we achieve 100% compliance.

9.7 Informal challenges, whether received by letter or e-mail, do not have a

statutory response time but it is expected that they are dealt with promptly
and the Secretary of State has suggested this should be within 14 days of
receiving the challenge.

9.8 We endeavour to deal with challenges as soon as they are received,

mostly the same day but this depends on the level of investigation
required. However, most are dealt with within five working days and all
responses are returned by second class post.

9.9 Our notice processing team also deal with telephone enquiries but do not
deal with challenges or representations in this manner as they must be in
written form for auditing purposes.

9.10 Salford City Council aim to answer telephone calls from members of the
public within 30 seconds and it is pleasing to report that in this respect,
the team have achieved a success rate of 99.22% of calls to the parking
services public enquiry line being answered within this time frame.

10 Environmental Considerations

10.1 One of the aims of effective parking control is to help reduce air pollution
by keeping traffic moving.

10.2 Exhaust emissions from vehicles held up in standing traffic create pollution
and so the objective is to prevent congestion as much as possible,
particularly on major routes, by introducing and enforcing waiting
restrictions thereby reducing the potential for obstruction.

10.3 To take this one stage further and to encourage use of cleaner burning
vehicles, we now offer a discount of 25% off annual contract parking
charges on our Pay and Display car parks for vehicles officially classified
as producing low emissions.
11 Further Information

11.1 Whilst Parking Enforcement may not be the most popular of functions
undertaken by any Authority, it is nevertheless essential to effectively
manage traffic, especially on today’s increasingly crowded roads.

11.2 We believe that our scheme although robust, is operated in a fair and
proportionate manner and that we exercise discretion appropriately when

11.3 Further information concerning CPE and parking in Salford may be

obtained from the following web addresses;
or by telephone - 0161 779 4987.
Appendix A

Enforcement Policy.

Waiting restrictions are introduced following a procedure involving consultation with

interested parties such as residents, business holders, the emergency services, the
passenger transport executive and finally, approval by elected members of the

The reasons for their introduction are manifold but are usually for the purposes of
minimising traffic congestion, which can in turn, reduce pollution from idling vehicles.
They may also be introduced to aid road safety by improving site lines at junctions,
for example.

Some restrictions are introduced for limited periods of the day and may include times
when loading operations are not permitted, for example during peak periods, again to
aid traffic flows.

Other restrictions apply at all times but usually permit drivers to undertake such
functions as loading/unloading or allowing passengers to board or alight or take part
in other activities where the use of a vehicle is necessary.

The benefits of these restrictions are not always appreciated by some motorists who
do not comply with them and their actions sometimes result in the issue of a Penalty
Charge Notice by a Civil Enforcement Officer, (CEO).

It is normal procedure in Salford for contraventions of the regulations to be enforced

when observed but it is accepted that there may be good reasons why a vehicle was
parked on a restriction, which may not have been apparent to the CEO at the time.

It is for this reason that there are avenues of appeal. If you feel the Penalty Charge
Notice has been wrongly issued you can appeal - or what' s called 'make a challenge'
- against the charge using our online challenge form at

If you prefer you can make a challenge in writing to Salford City Council at the
address shown on the notice.

Should this challenge be rejected and the penalty remain unpaid, a Notice to Owner
(NtO) form will be issued that will provide a further opportunity to make
representations to the council. Should these representations be rejected, an appeal
may then be made to an independent body, the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. Further
information can found at

Representations should be made not later than the last day of the period of 28 days
beginning with the date on which the NtO is served and any representations which
are made outside that period may be disregarded. However, should late
representations be made, although not obliged to, the Council may consider them if
there are good reasons for their late submission.
The matters considered by Council Officers before any decision is made in relation to
a challenge or representations are as follows.

• Does it appear that a contravention has been committed?

• Has the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) been issued correctly? (i.e. handed to
the person appearing to be the driver or affixed to the vehicle or in some
cases sent by post)

• Has the PCN been completed correctly (i.e. correct contravention code used,
vehicle details etc.)

• Is the Traffic Regulation Order valid? (this is the legal instrument for
introducing the restriction)

• Is the signing and lining correct on the road? (Are the yellow lines of sufficient
quality? Are there any signs missing? Please note, there is now no
requirement for signs where double yellow lines are present.)

• Was the vehicle exempt from the restriction (i.e. loading/unloading taking
place where permitted; used for building operations, removals etc)

• Was the vehicle exempt in respect of the Blue Badge scheme? (Disabled

• Was the vehicle broken down or made immobile due to unforeseen


• Are there any mitigating circumstances or compassionate grounds to justify

cancellation of the PCN?

This list is not exhaustive and there can be many reasons to take into account when
considering challenges or representations.

Each case is different and is considered individually, the Council always having the
option to exercise discretion as to whether or not cancellation of a PCN is
appropriate, taking into account the severity of the contravention, fairness and

However, it has to be stated that where there is evidence that a contravention has
been committed and there do not appear to be grounds to cancel a PCN, the Council
will require payment of the relevant penalty and if necessary present a case to any
subsequent appeal hearing.

Subsequent non-payment of enforceable penalties may ultimately result in the issue

of warrants, which are referred to independent bailiff companies for execution and
recovery of payment or seizure of goods.

This is of course a last resort and such action can result in bailiff charges escalating
costs considerably. It is obviously not in the best interests of the motorist to allow
matters to progress to that stage but it is quite often the case that warrants are
issued because no action has been taken following receipt of a PCN and subsequent
letters or notices have been ignored.
To avoid this situation, it is necessary to take some form of action following the
receipt of a PCN, which would be;

• pay the penalty, or if you believe you have grounds,

• challenge it supplying supportive evidence as appropriate or,
• respond to a Notice to Owner and any subsequent correspondence

but it is not an option to ignore it, the problem will not go away and the Council will
pursue outstanding penalties.

To avoid receiving a PCN, it is advisable to always comply with road markings/traffic

signs and relevant conditions for use of car parks.

Further advice may be found within the Highway Code.

Appendix B

Financial Report for 2008/09

Total income in the parking account …… ……………………. 1,530,448.00

Total expenditure ………………………………………………… 1,583,325.00

Net deficit ………………………………………………………… 52,877.00

The deficit forms part of Salford City Council’s overall financial position which is
managed by the City Treasurer.

Income breakdown

Off street Pay and Display ……………………………………….. 363,164.00

On street Pay and Display ……………………………………….. 121,468.00

Off street contract …………………………………………………. 168,794.00

PCN income ……………………………………………………….. 877,022.00

Total …………………………………………………………………. 1,530,448.00

Appendix C

Statistical Report for 2008/09

• Number of higher level PCNs issued………………………………………… 21,370

• Number of lower level PCNs issued…………………………………………. 10,816
• Number of PCNs paid…………………………………………………………. 22,532
• Number of PCNs paid at discount rate………………………………………. 19,022
• Number of PCNs against which an informal or formal
representation was made ……………………………………………………… 9,818
• Number of PCNs cancelled as a result of an informal or a formal
representation being successful …………………………………………….. 7,466
• Number of PCNs written off for other reasons (e.g. CEO error or driver
untraceable) ……………………………………………………………………… 2,188

• Total Number of PCNs issued ……………………………………………… 32,186

Appeals to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal – April 08 to March 09.

Appeals PCNs Rate of Not Contested Allowed by Total allowed Refused by Awaiting
issued Appeal per by Council Adjudicator inc. no contests Adjudicator Decision

94 32,186 0.29% 27 28 55 29 10
29% 30% 59% 31% 11%