DfT Minister warns councils not to use parking law designed for private land

[Web Admin]

Emphasis added.

----------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT

From the Parliamentary Under Secretary Of State Robert Goodwill MP

Great Minster House
33 Horseferry Road
London
SWl P 4DR
Tel: 020 7944 25SG
Fax: 020 7944 4309
E-Mail: robert.goodwill@dft.gsi.gov.uk

16 September 2014

All Parking Managers in England with Civil Parking Enforcement powers

I understand that some of you are intending to withdraw your off-street parking operations from the parking enforcement framework in the Traffic Management Act 2004 (TMA) so that enforcement is carried out through
contractual terms and conditions as if the car parks are privately owned. lt is also my understanding that a couple of you may already be operating your car parking operations through contract law - I would hope this is not the case.

Let me assert, that although you may think the land is "unregulated" by virtue of revoking the parking orders made under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (RTRA), I am of the view that the land remains regulated because under Section 32(1)(a) of the RTRA, a Council retains the status of a Local Authority providing off-street parking places.

Part 6 to the TMA was enacted in 2008 with the aim of improving local authority on-street and off-street parking enforcement arrangements by enabling local authorities to take effective enforcement action, but to protect the motorists when a mistake has been made by a local authority. Any intention to operate outside this statutory regime would clearly go against the will of Parliament, Government policy and the expectations of local electorates.

I should warn you that should you have any plans to submit an application to the DVLA for access to keeper data on the basis of recovering unpaid charges for enforcement through contract law, this will more than likely not be approved because the Council will not be operating as an enforcement authority under the TMA

The Department made a conscious decision to exempt local authorities from the provisions in Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedom Act which provides for an enforcement regime and appeals system for privately owned car parks. This clearly demonstrates the will of Government to separate local authority off-street  parking enforcement arrangements from the parking operations on private land.

As you know, local authorities are expected to comply with the relevant legislation and guidance, and are accountable to their electorates. I would hope that you would reconsider any plans to enforce your off-streets outside the parking framework in the TMA.

Yours sincerely

Robert Goodwill MP

[Web Admin]

Three weeks after the Parliamentary Under Secretary Of State delivered his letter, Councillor Claudia Webb (Islington council's Executive Member for Environment and Transport) wrote this (below).

Note the admission that hers is not the only authority that has acted "against the will of Parliament, Government policy and the expectations of local electorates". We have evidence that confirms Councillor Webb's admission.

Emphasis added.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7 October 2014

Dear Mr xxxxxxxxxx

Thank you for taking the time to get in touch with me to raise your various concerns. I have made enquiries within the Council and I can confirm that the council currently has an enforcement contract in place for the issuing of Parking Charge Notices on estate land. There is also a 3 stage appeals process in place, Stage 3 appeals are made to the independent appeals authority Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA).

There is no cost to the tax payer, or indeed the appellant, for the services of POPLA, in Islington or anywhere else, provided the issuing of Parking Charge Notice is contracted out. When an appeal is made to POPLA, the parking enforcement contractor who issued the Parking Charge Notice is required to pay POPLA a fee to cover POPLA's administrative costs. This is currently £27 per appeal. This fee is non- refundable or conditional. lt is retained by POPLA whether the appeal is upheld in the motorists favour or not.

As I understand it the British Parking Association (BPA) were required by the Home Oflice to oversee the role of POPLA, in connection with the introduction of tho Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) in 2012. This is the legislation that prompted many councils to introduce enforcement through the issuing of Parking Charge Notices. As far as I am aware all councils who adopted this approach refer appellants to POPLA. This is because Parking Charge Notices may only be issued by members of an accredited trade association and currently the BPA remains the only one. ln turn the BPA require its members who issue Parking Charge Notices to use the services of POPLA.

I have forwarded this and your additional concerns to London Councils' officers as I believe their views would be helpful. I hope that this is a satisfactory interim response and I will write again when I receive a reply from London Councils.

Councillor Claudia Webb
Executive Member for Environment and Transport

[The Bald Eagle]

Nickerless was not looking happy at the London Councils Transport Executive Committee meeting today (we have video ).

Ms Webb admitted she had not seen Robert Goodwill's letter, which is entirely apparent when you see her response to the Mob member's enquiry.

In fact all of the TEC members we asked said they had not seen Mr Goodwill's letter.

Is this plausible deniability, or do the parking managers (officers) not want those they advise on parking issues to know they may be in the $%*@? 

Someone somewhere advised that enforcement authorities could get away with this.

Wonder who? 

[The Bald Eagle]

From Robert Goodwill's letter:

"The Department made a conscious decision to exempt local authorities from the provisions in Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedom Act 2012..."

He was referring to the exemption contained in Schedule 4 of PoFA where it says at 3(1)(b)

3(1)In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than—

(a)a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);

(b)a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;

(c)any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.[/i]

What I don't understand is why enforcement authorities (some of which have issued thousands of tickets on housing estates since PoFA came in) needed to have this pointed out to them by the Under Secretary of State for Transport??? Didn't they run it past their legal departments and if they did, why was it not flagged up as being a big NO NO!?

[Ewan Hoosami]

Whoever encouraged LAs to participate in this act of mass buffoonery is probably not a 'recognised authority on parking'.   

[DastardlyDick]

Just a quick question - would this still apply if a Council were to sell off all their car parks to private operators like Westminster have?

If not, stand by for a selling frenzy!

[DastardlyDick]

[quote author=The Bald Eagle link=topic=4512.msg29220#msg29220 date=1413553639

What I don't understand is why enforcement authorities (some of which have issued thousands of tickets on housing estates since PoFA came in) needed to have this pointed out to them by the Under Secretary of State for Transport??? Didn't they run it past their legal departments and if they did, why was it not flagged up as being a big NO NO!?
[/quote]

A lot of Councils no longer own the Housing Estates in their area, having transferred them to Housing Associations etc. years ago. For example, in Hounslow, all the Council houses were handed over to (among others) Hounslow Homes, who used a PPC called Wing Security to enforce parking - it was especially unfortunate if you got your car towed as their pound was in Oxfordshire! As the Councils no longer own the Estates, I can't see any reason why anybody would "run it past their legal departments" as it has nothing to do with them anymore.

[The Bald Eagle]

A lot of Councils no longer own the Housing Estates in their area, having transferred them to Housing Associations etc. years ago. For example, in Hounslow, all the Council houses were handed over to (among others) Hounslow Homes, who used a PPC called Wing Security to enforce parking - it was especially unfortunate if you got your car towed as their pound was in Oxfordshire! As the Councils no longer own the Estates, I can't see any reason why anybody would "run it past their legal departments" as it has nothing to do with them anymore.

Hounslow Homes is what is known as an arms length management organisation (ALMO) and many councils have one. Guess who owns the ALMO and is providing the parking place in contravention of 3(1)(b) of PoFA 2012?

http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/index/housing/hounslow_homes.htm

The same thing happens in Haringey

http://www.homesforharingey.org/almo/leaseholders/the_home_ownership_team.htm

Westminster

https://www.westminster.gov.uk/contact-citywest-homes

Hackney

http://www.hackneyhomes.org.uk/document/hh_ltd_2011-12_signed_accounts.pdf

Need I go on?

[DastardlyDick]

Fair Enough - I was told they were a separate company.

[The Bald Eagle]

They ARE separate limited companies, registered at companies house and with their own boards of directors.

The councils' problems stem from the fact that they own the company and simply let others administer it.

Robert Goodwill was made aware of the situation with parking on housing estates, and given evidence of what was going on by some people who regularly hold LAs to account  and that is what prompted his letter.

We have it on good authority that many councils are now running round like headless chickens and getting their own legal opinions as to whether what they are doing is lawful.

I think they are going to be very disappointed with the advices they receive from their lawyers.

[Ewan Hoosami]

Not as disappointed as they were with the advice they got from the liars.

 

[Web Admin]

Why is BPA Ltd's Patrick Troy responding to a letter from a Government Minister that was sent to Local Government? The last time we looked the BPA Ltd is a private limited company and not, as they would like to be, part of Local or Central Government.

Mr Troy and the BPA Ltd have been found wanting in giving advice to Local and Central Government, evidence of which the NoToMob will shortly disclose.

-----------------------------------------------------

Robert Goodwill MP
Parliamentary Under Secretary for the
Department for Transport
Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London SW1 4DR
 
30th September 2014

Dear Minister

Local Authority Car Park Enforcement

A number of BPA members have passed to me a copy of your letter dated 16th September to them relating to the above.

As you know, the BPA has been referring to this issue for the past two years in conversations with yourself, your predecessor and, on a regular basis, your officials.  We have pointed out on numerous occasions concerns that we and local authorities have regarding the current state of parking legislation and the fact that it does not adequately provide for the emergence of new technologies and, specifically, the opportunity for local authorities to use automatic number plate recognition systems  in managing their car parks.

Your government legitimised the use of ANPR in car parks managed in the private parking sector through the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.  Consequently, ANPR is used on an increasingly regular basis in that sector, which benefits operators being able to deliver cost savings to their clients as well as provide services to users.  One simple example of how ANPR can benefit users is that disabled drivers can reserve spaces in car parks which operate ANPR in advance and the operator can ensure that, when the vehicle driven by the disabled driver enters the car park, their vehicle registration plate is recognised and they are authorised to park without paying or can used a space reserved for them.  It does seem to me that these opportunities should be afforded to the local authority sector. 

We are not just talking about enforcement here but improving customer service and ANPR provides significant opportunities for all car park operators, including local authorities, to better manage their car parks to the advantage of users, and also to reduce operating costs. I am sure your officials will have informed you that this is why many local authorities have been exploring ways of managing their car parks using alternative powers: namely they are keen to improve their offer and reduce their costs and yet the relationship between Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the TMA 2004 give rise to uncertainties. It might also explain the reluctance of the remaining non-CPE Councils to ‘switch’ because these can be more confident about using new technologies under the RTRA 1984.

I am not condoning any local authority that acts unlawfully in management of its car parking stock, and of course local authorities must comply with the law as it stands.  I would, though, ask your Department to consider implementing a simple change which could be effected through the Deregulation Bill currently passing through Parliament, to enable local authorities to use “approved devices” in car parks where there are clear customer service improvements such as improving access for disabled people; making it easier for motorists to park now and pay later; or to help operators to manage space better for their users.  This, I feel sure, will address the current difficulties that local authorities face in trying to manage their car parking stock more effectively and in the best interests of their customers. 

As always, I am very happy to explain the background to these issues with you or your officials, or indeed to arrange for them to be shown a car park using ANPR in action to appreciate its value.  I do believe, though, that car park operators have a social responsibility to ensure that their customers both understand this technology and support its use, and perhaps you might consider that if there is a case for amending legislation to enable the use of this new technology, that there is very clear guidance put in place to ensure that local authorities achieve these outcomes should they embrace them. The BPA would be pleased to help create that guidance, too.

Yours sincerely

Patrick Troy
Chief Executive

[The Bald Eagle]

In that case I think I might write a letter to the Minister asking him to amend the Deregulation Bill to ban all councils from using any CCTV whatsoever.

Does Patrick Troy's arrogance know no bounds? Cheeky *******. 

[Ewan Hoosami]

Here's a basic explanation as to why ANPR is fatally flawed,

http://www.parking-prankster.com/anpr-technology.html  (and link to a more detailed document at the bottom of that page)

and one of the numerous examples where ANPR shortcomings have led to BPA Ltd members incorrectly demanding payment from innocent motorists,

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/parkingeye-lose-at-popla-anpr.html

So there you have it then. A private company which is not fit for purpose is recommending a system which is not fit for purpose. The look of surprise on my face is, unsurprisingly, not fit for purpose. There's a theme emerging here.

Does Patrick Troy's arrogance know no bounds?

No, absofuckinglutely not!

Cheeky *******.

[DastardlyDick]

I wonder if Mr Troy can give any examples of where this actually happens:-

"One simple example of how ANPR can benefit users is that disabled drivers can reserve spaces in car parks which operate ANPR in advance and the operator can ensure that, when the vehicle driven by the disabled driver enters the car park, their vehicle registration plate is recognised and they are authorised to park without paying or can used a space reserved for them."

or which car park he'll take them to:-

"arrange for them to be shown a car park using ANPR in action to appreciate its value."

I'd be willing to bet it won't be an Aldi Car Park!