Issue - meetings

The Sub-Committee received a presentation on current operational service issues within their remit.  During the presentation, it was explained that there were strict legislation and governance surrounding civil parking enforcement.

During discussion, concern was expressed that there were instances of unreasonableness when issuing penalty charge notices and it was explained that individuals had the right of appeal. 

Havering was the sixth lowest issuing authority within London in 2016/17, and despite an increase in the number of enforcement officers over the past few years, the borough continued to be lower in comparison with others.  This may be due to not having enough officers on patrol, however the avoidance of saturation of the borough with enforcement officers was a consideration. 

During discussion of Moving Traffic Contraventions (MTCs), it was explained that with the exception of bus lane cameras, cameras were deployable based on evidence of non-compliance at a site.  Transport for London had reported that since the introduction of bus lane cameras in the borough, there had been a reduction in journey times and an increase in bus reliability. 

The main reasons for issuance of a penalty charge notice were parking on a single yellow line; parking on a footway when prohibited to do so; parking in a residents bay without a valid permit; parking in a loading place; and parking on a double yellow line/loading restriction.  The Sub-Committee requested that a comparison of these reasons be provided.  Members raised concern regarding overweight vehicles parking in residential areas around the borough.  This had been managed by the London scheme, and although the Council had since opted out of the scheme, this could be reviewed.

A member raised concern regarding the parking in marked bays by enforcement cars, as it was considered to be detrimental to residents.  Enforcement officers were advised to park in a safe place and where possible, to park in an unrestricted place. 

Further concern was expressed that penalty charge notices were being received by individuals when parking machines were out of order.  If a parking machine was non-operational, this would be alerted to the backup facility and officers informed of the time the machine is out of order so that penalty charge notices are not enforced during this time and when the issue had been rectified.   In-house operations have the capability to resolve minor issues with the parking machines, however external support from the supplier is sought to fix other issues as soon as possible.  It was noted that the Council were not enforcing the Pay by Phone facility.  

The Sub-Committee reviewed, and noted the information presented.