FTA PCN SURVEY 2011 LONDON

Transcription

1 FTA PCN SURVEY LONDON

2 CONTENT 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2. RESEARCH BACKGROUND INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH RESEARCH AIM RESEARCH OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY 4 3. PENALTY CHARGE NOTICES PARKING ENFORCEMENT IN LONDON ISSUING AUTHORITIES CONTRAVENTION CODES PAYMENTS AND APPEALS FTA POLICY 9 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION SURVEY PARTICIPANTS ISSUING AUTHORITIES PCN HOTSPOTS CONTRAVENTION CODES APPEALS COSTS CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDICES 36 A LIST OF LONDON ISSUING AUTHORITIES WITH PCN PREFIX 37 B CONTRAVENTION CODES 38 C TABLES 40 D INDIVIDUAL COMPANY REPORTS 44 i

3 LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 PCN data template 4 Table 4.1 PCNs issued, percentage and amount paid by participating companies (2001-) 10 Table 4.2 Top 10 Issuing Authorities (by number of PCNs issued): 11 Table 4.3 Movement in Top 10 Issuing Authorities (by number of PCNs issued): 11 Table 4.4 London Councils: Movement in Top 10 Issuing Authorities 2008/ / 12 Table 4.5 Top 10 hotspots for the London Borough of Westminster (by number of PCNs issued) by year 14 Table 4.6 Top 10 hotspots for Transport for London (by number of PCNs issued) by year 15 Table 4.7 Top 10 hotspots for London Borough of Camden (by number of PCNs issued) by year 16 Table 4.8 Top 10 hotspots for City of London (by number of PCNs issued) by year 17 Table 4.9 Top 10 hotspots for London Borough of Lambeth (by number of PCNs issued) by year 18 Table 4.10 Top 10 hotspots for London Borough of Newham (by number of PCNs issued) by year 19 Table 4.11 Top 10 hotspots for London Borough of Wandsworth (by number of PCNs issued) by year 20 Table 4.12 Top 10 hotspots for London Borough of Islington (by number of PCNs issued) by year 21 Table 4.13 Top 10 hotspots for London Borough of Bromley (by number of PCNs issued) by year 22 Table 4.14 Top 10 hotspots for London Borough of Waltham Forest (by number of PCNs issued) by year 23 Table 4.15 Top 10 contravention codes for FTA members: 24 Table 4.16 Annual trends in PCN appeals won, percentage appealed, success rate 26 Table 417 Appeal success rate by Issuing Authority for 26 companies ( - ) 28 Table 4.18 Appeal success rate for Top 10 Issuing Authorities for 26 companies ( -) 28 Table 4.19 London Councils: Appeal success rate by PCNs issued 29 Table 420 London Councils; Appeal success rate by Issuing Authority 29 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1 Map of London Boroughs 7 Figure 4.1 Comparison of quarterly trends in PCNs issued, appealed and paid 25 Figure 4.2 Comparison of quarterly trends in appeal and success rates 27 Figure 4.3 Quarterly trends in PCN costs across all companies 30 Figure 4.4 average cost for a PCN per company 31 ii

4 Chapter 1: Executive Summary Delivering in London poses a significant challenge for FTA members especially finding somewhere to unload without attracting Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs). This report presents the findings from the PCN Survey commissioned by Freight Transport Association to explore trends in PCNs in relation to five key areas: Issuing Authorities, PCN hotspots (street/location), contravention codes, appeals and costs. The outcome of the research may be used to assist members in managing their PCNs and inform FTA policy. Issuing Authorities Twenty-six FTA member companies which deliver in London participated in the survey. PCN data were collected from to. The data were analysed for the whole sample and individual reports were provided for each participant company. Findings from the data revealed that nearly all PCNs were issued by only 30 per cent of London Boroughs (and Transport for London) with London Borough of Westminster, London Borough of Camden, City of London and Transport for London more likely to issue to PCNs to FTA members than other London Boroughs. There was a rise in the number of PCNs issued to FTA member companies over the two and a half year period covered by the survey. However data from London Councils (around the same period) reported that the number of PCNs issued had fallen. Since London Councils data includes cars and as the current sample was commercial vehicles then commercial vehicles were more likely to receive PCNs than cars. One explanation may be that cars are less likely to be parked in Central London than delivery vehicles. However this finding needs further exploration. PCN Hotspots PCN hotspots for each Issuing Authority (33 London Boroughs and Transport for London) remained fairly consistent. Despite the number of streets within each London Borough, there were clearly identified locations where FTA members were more likely to receive PCNs. This provides valuable 1

5 information for FTA and FTA members, where members may note areas in which to be vigilant for parking restrictions. Hotspot identification can also assist participant companies in their understanding of driver behaviour and particular parking restrictions. Contravention Codes Unsurprisingly, contravention code 02 Parked or loading/unloading in a restricted street where waiting and loading/unloading restrictions are in force, was the top issue for FTA members. Appeals Overall rates of appeal declined but it was beneficial to appeal since over half of all appeals were successful and there was an overall proportional rise in success rates. It is thought that companies are becoming more experienced with the appeals process and therefore only challenge those PCNs with a high chance of success. Appeal success rates were calculated for Issuing Authorities and it may be concluded that in general Authorities which do not have the greatest number of PCNs issued have a better success rate for members who appeal. Costs The 26 companies paid 3.86 million in PCN fines form to. A rise in costs was reported which was directly related to the increase in the number of PCNs issued. The average cost for each PCN was relatively low compared to the full cost of a PCN. Most companies paid or appealed PCNs within the reduced rate time period leading to significant savings Recommendations Several recommendations were made including: FTA to explore disparity between PCNs issued to commercial vehicles and the general trends in the number of PCNs issued and lobby Authorities regarding hotspots. FTA members are encouraged to provide administrator and driver training to increase successful appeals and reduce administration burden 2

6 Chapter 2: Research Background 2.1 Introduction to the research The mission of the Freight Transport Association (FTA) is to represent the views and interests of over 14,000 members from large multinationals and household names to small and medium businesses. The Association s interests are multi-modal and in addition freight carried by rail, sea and air, its members operate in excess of 200,000 goods vehicles, approximately 40 per cent of the UK fleet of commercial vehicles. Delivering in London poses a significant challenge for FTA members. In particular, a real problem is finding somewhere to unload without attracting Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs). A Penalty Charge Notice is a legal document issued either directly to the vehicle / driver or through the post notifying that the vehicle has been observed contravening a parking or traffic restriction. RepGraph Ltd was invited by Freight Transport Association to conduct an analysis of PCN data from FTA members delivering in London. 2.2 Research aim The overall aim of this research was to explore trends in PCNs in relation to five key areas: Issuing Authorities, hotspots (street/location), contravention codes, appeals and costs. The outcome of the research may be used to assist members in managing their PCNs and inform FTA policy. 2.3 Research Objectives The objectives of this research were to: Establish the top Issuing Authorities, hotspots and contravention codes Explore appeal success rates Assist members in understanding and managing PCNs by establishing quarterly trends Gain insight into PCN costs Inform FTA policy in relation to PCNs 3

7 2.4 Methodology Members who deliver in London were invited to send their PCN data covering Quarter 1 to Quarter 2 (inclusive), to FTA. The data were gathered in July and August. Several key data were requested and an Excel spread sheet was sent to interested companies (see table 2.1). As the survey was retrospective, it was considered burdensome for participants to transfer data to a template, and therefore most companies sent PCN data in their own formats. FTA received responses from 26 members and over 80,000 PCNs were submitted. Table 2.1 PCN data template PCN Data Example Date Issued 03/05/ Notice Number CL Charge 110 Issuing Authority City of London Street/ location Counting House Issue Reason 02 Paid or appealed Appealed Amount paid 55 Appeal Decision Lost As much of the data did not conform to this format, the data were cleansed as follows: All data were transferred to a common template One template per company covering ten quarterly returns ( to ). Parameters: o Parking PCNs (moving traffic contraventions, speeding fines, Fixed Penalty Notices, congestion charge fines, LEZ fines were removed) o Issued by London boroughs and Transport for London (all fines issued by local authorities outside of London, private enforcement companies and the Metropolitan Police were removed) An MS Access database was developed to store and manipulate the PCN records o Duplicate records were removed o Only data within the date range specified were used The data applied principally to HGVs and vans but there may be a small number of PCNs issued to cars and it was not be possible to identify these within the analysis. 4

8 Chapter 3: Penalty Charge Notices 3.1 Parking Enforcement in London The Road Traffic Act 1991 allowed that parking contraventions implemented by local authorities were brought within the civil enforcement system. The provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1991 were first applied by the 33 London Boroughs during 1993/1994 and later, local authorities outside London also assumed responsibility for enforcement powers. On March 31, 2008, the Road Traffic Act 1991 and the London Local Authorities Act 2000 were replaced by the Traffic Management Act Part 6 included powers which provided a single regulatory framework for civil enforcement by local authorities of parking and waiting restrictions, bus lanes and some moving traffic offences. These regulations replaced existing powers in National and London local legislation. The broad changes to the Road Traffic Act were 1 : Parking Attendants (PAs) became known as Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs) Differential rates of penalty charges for serious and less serious contraventions Discounted payment period for parking PCNs issued via CCTV and sent by post was now 21 days (it remained at 14 days for all other types of penalty charge) The initial notification (i.e. the PCN) posted for penalty charges issued via CCTV also serves as the Notice to Owner. This means only one notice sent out prior to the Charge Certificate CEOs and the Local Authority given the power to issue a PCN by post if a vehicle is driven away before the PCN is attached to the vehicle or handed to the driver The Local Authority must respond to all formal representations within a maximum period of 56 days from the date they receive them The Local Authority to publish policies about their use of discretion when cancelling penalty charges based on mitigating circumstances There were increased powers for adjudicators at the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service when dealing with parking appeals A new definition of loading and unloading which explains that it includes activities away from the vehicle and making an observation period necessary. FTA played a key role in the revised definition: 1 5

9 Loading and unloading must be continuous while the vehicle is parked in restricted areas. It is therefore important to clarify to CEOs that loading or unloading includes taking foods to where the recipient may reasonably be taken to require them in the premises, waiting for them to be checked, getting delivery or collection documents signed and returning to the vehicle. Delivery staff are expected to secure their vehicle when they are not with it and a vehicle can legitimately be locked during some of these stages. Once the delivery process is complete, however, the driver must move the vehicle even if it is within the maximum period allowed for loading or unloading 2 2 London: Loading and Unloading Code of Practice Available: 6

10 3.2 Issuing Authorities There are 34 Issuing Authorities covering Greater London consisting of 33 boroughs and Transport for London. A list of the Issuing Authorities and their associated PCN prefixes can be found in Appendix A. Figure 3.1 Map of London Boroughs Source: London Councils 3.2 Contravention Codes A Penalty Charge Notice is issued when a vehicle has allegedly contravened a parking or traffic restriction. A parking contravention for which a civil penalty charge is payable is not a criminal offence. Councils use a standard system of two-digit codes to refer to parking contraventions. The code appears on the PCN, together with a description of the contravention. PCN contraventions cover both On Street Parking Contravention Codes and Off Street Parking Contravention Codes, for all vehicles including cars, motorcycles and commercial vehicles. The latest version for the contravention codes was implemented in April and is available in Appendix B. 7

11 As loading and unloading in London is a significant issue for commercial vehicles, contravention code 02 Parked or loading/unloading in a restricted street where waiting and loading/unloading restrictions are in force is a salient code for FTA members. 3.3 PCN payments and appeals The charges for PCNs are not set by individual councils, but by a London-wide body called London Councils. There are three types of contravention and the cost varies for each type. The current levels of Penalty Charge Notices in London are set out below 3. These are valid from 15 April. Parking Issued by a Civil Enforcement Officer this type of contravention results in a penalty charge of 130 for a serious contravention and 80 for a less serious contravention (reduced to 65 and 40 if paid within 14 days) Issued by a camera operator (CCTV) this type of contravention results in a penalty charge of 130 for a serious contravention and 80 for a less serious contravention (reduced to 65 and 40 if paid within 21 days) Bus Lane Issued by a camera operator this type of contravention results in a penalty charge of 130 (reduced to 65 if paid within 14 days) Moving Traffic Issued by a camera operator this type of contravention results in a penalty charge of 130 (reduced to 65 if paid within 14 days 3 8

12 Appeals The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) was established by The Road Traffic Act 1991 to provide the administrative support to the Parking and Traffic Adjudicators. The service continues to provide this support under the Traffic Management Act 2004 and, since 2003, to the Road User Charging Adjudicators. The adjudicators consider appeals against Penalty Charge Notices issued by the London local authorities. The number of PCNs appealed is quite low (just over one per cent of the total of the PCNs issued) and the reasons for appealing vary from one Borough to another. Higher level penalties apply to contraventions which are considered more serious, such as parking on yellow lines or where an obstruction is caused. Lower level penalties apply generally where parking is permitted but the regulations are contravened, such as overstaying on a pay and display bay. 3.4 FTA Policy FTA is committed to lobbying local Government and enforcement agencies on behalf of members who deliver in London. FTA members unfairly pay millions of pounds in parking fines every year. A real problem for those trying to deliver in London is finding somewhere to unload without attracting Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs). Often PCNs are issued incorrectly because the Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs) require additional training. It is essential that CEOs understand that loading/unloading includes activities away from the vehicle (such as getting delivery notes signed) and just because the vehicle is locked does not mean that there is no loading activity occurring. Driver education is also a key priority to ensure they understand the rules and restrictions which are more complex in London than anywhere else in the country. FTA is working hard in this area. FTA has, for example, produced a driver information card showing the various signs and road markings to try to make it easier for drivers and parking authorities alike. Nevertheless, there remain some delivery locations where additional provision is required, or where changes to the restricted hours need to be reconsidered. FTA is campaigning for additional loading and unloading capacity, and is working with Transport for London, as part of the London Freight Plan, to create properly defined guidance 9

13 Chapter 4: Survey Results and Discussion The results from the PCN survey were analysed and discussed under five key areas: Issuing Authorities, PCN hotspots (street/location), contravention codes, appeals and costs. In addition, general information regarding survey participants was described. 4.1 Survey Participants Twenty-six companies participated in the survey. Individual companies are not identified and are simply referred to as Company 1, Company 2 etc. Table 4.1 provides a description of each company in relation to the number of PCNs issued, the percentage of PCNs issued to that company as a proportion of all PCNs issued and the amount paid on PCNs during the period covered by the survey. Over 80,000 PCNs were issued to the 26 companies. Three companies account for 73 per cent of all PCNs issued and collectively paid 2.7 million in fines which is almost 70 per cent of total costs. Table 4.1 PCNs issued, percentage and amount paid by participating companies ( ) Company No of PCNs Percentage Total amount paid Company ,612 Company ,185 Company ,270 Company 4 22, ,326 Company 5 1, ,040 Company ,760 Company ,490 Company ,787 Company ,850 Company 10 2, ,315 Company 11 2, ,895 Company ,825 Company 13 19, ,845 Company ,490 Company ,380 Company ,560 Company 17 1, ,739 Company ,350 Company ,337 Company ,842 Company Company 22 16, ,795 Company ,570 Company ,840 Company 25 3, ,795 Company 26 4, ,885 Total 80,308 3,857,078 Source: FTA FTA PCN Survey 10

14 4.2 Issuing Authorities There are 34 Issuing Authorities covering Greater London consisting of 33 boroughs and Transport for London. Ten of the 34 Issuing Authorities accounted for 80 per cent of all PCNs issued to the survey participants; with London Borough of Westminster holding the top spot having the most PCNs issued between and. The top 10 Issuing Authorities for the time period are shown in Table 4.2. An annual breakdown of for each year, and the first half of is available in Table C.1 Appendix C. Table 4.3 illustrates the changes to the number one spot for top 10 Issuing Authorities from. Table 4.2 Top 10 Issuing Authorities (by number of PCNs issued): Issuing Authority PCNs issued Proportion of all PCNs issued (%) 1. Westminster 14, Transport for London 13, Camden 11, City of London 9, Lambeth 3, Newham 2, Wandsworth 2, Islington 2, Bromley 1, Waltham Forest 1, Total 63, Source: FTA PCN Survey Table 4.3 Movement in Top 10 Issuing Authorities (by number of PCNs issued): 1 Westminster TfL from 3 Westminster from 2 2 Camden Westminster from 1 TfL from 1 3 TfL City of London from 4 City of London 4 City of London Camden from 2 Camden 5 Lambeth Lambeth Newham from 6 6 Wandsworth Newham from 7 Lambeth from 5 7 Newham Wandsworth from 6 Bromley from 9 8 Hounslow Islington from 7 Wandsworth from 7 9 Southwark Bromley New Entry Islington from 8 10 Islington Waltham Forest New Entry Waltham Forest Source: FTA PCN Survey * incorporates and only 11

15 In addition, data regarding PCNs issued were obtained from London Councils. London Councils provides annual data from 01 April to 31 March. The data were not available in a quarterly format therefore direct comparisons could not be made to the current sample. However there are some observations to be made (see Table 4.4), and the trends were deemed equivalent. In / Transport for London occupied first place and London Borough of Westminster was second, which is similar to the findings from FTA participants. In 2008/ and /, London Borough of Wandsworth was in the top spot with London Borough of Westminster coming second and third, respectively. Unlike the current sample dataset, London Councils top 10 does not include City of London. This is probably due to the nature of London Councils data which includes PCNs issued to cars. These noncommercial vehicles are more likely to be ticketed in residential areas rather than in the City of London. However it is interesting to note that Camden, Lambeth and Newham also feature in this top 10 from London Councils Table 4.4 London Councils: Movement in Top 10 Issuing Authorities 2008/ / 2008/ / / 1 Wandsworth Wandsworth TfL New Entry 2 Westminster Camden from 3 Westminster from 3 3 Camden Westminster from 2 Camden from 2 4 Ealing Lambeth from 6 Newham from 6 5 Islington Islington Islington 6 Lambeth Newham from 8 Ealing from 8 7 Kensington Kensington Lambeth from 4 8 Newham Ealing from 4 Hammersmith from 10 9 Waltham Forest Haringey from 10 Haringey 10 Haringey Hammersmith New Entry Wandsworth from 1 Source: London Councils 12

16 4.3 PCN Hotspots The identification of PCN hotspots those locations where the most number of PCNs are issued, provides useful information to FTA members in respect of areas in which to be vigilant for parking restrictions. Furthermore, particular hotspots may point to a lack of clarity in restrictions and form a lobbying point for FTA members. Hotspots were identified for the top 10 Issuing Authorities (overall from ) and are outlined in Table Table 4.14 in the following pages. Please note: The number of hotspots and proportion for each hotspot per Issuing Authority was calculated for only those PCNs where a street/location was identified. For this calculation PCNs issued refers to this type of data only. Additionally, the top 10 hotspots were identified for each company and are listed in Appendix D under the company number. This information may be beneficial to participant companies in their understanding of driver behaviour and particular parking restrictions. Hotspots account for an average of 44 per cent of the PCNs issued by the top four Issuing Authorities. Transport for London had a lower pinpoint rate as it covers a wider area. The accuracy increases to over 90 per cent as one moves down the top 10. This is due to the sample size decreasing and therefore a higher proportion is concentrated on fewer hotspots. Since, PCNs do not explicitly state the exact location where the contravention occurred, it is often difficult to pinpoint exact locations. The Greater London Area covers 1,572 km 2 (607 sq mi) and the precise number of streets covered by the 33 Boroughs is unknown. Within a six mile radius of Charing Cross there are some 25,000 streets. Taking this into account, the average rate of over 40 per cent is good indicator for hotspots. 13

17 Table 4.5 Top 10 hotspots for the London Borough of Westminster (by number of PCNs issued) by year Proportion of all PCNs issued % Proportion of all PCNs issued % Proportion of all PCNs issued % Hotspot PCNs Issued Hotspot PCNs Issued Hotspot PCNs Issued 1. Regent St Baker St Charing Cross Rd Baker St Shaftesbury Ave Baker Street Strand Charing Cross Rd St Martins Lane St Martins Lane St Martins Lane Regent St Shaftesbury Ave Great Marlborough St Shaftesbury Ave Charing Cross Rd Regent St Great Marlborough St Wardour St Strand Whitehall Queensway Westbourne Grove Henrietta St Soho Square Glasshouse St Strand Oxford St Wardour St Oxford St Total 1, , , Source: FTA PCN Survey * incorporates and only 14

18 Table 4.6 Top 10 hotspots for Transport for London (by number of PCNs issued) by year Proportion of all PCNs issued % Proportion of all PCNs issued % Proportion of all PCNs issued % Hotspot PCNs Issued Hotspot PCNs Issued Hotspot PCNs Issued 1. Upper St Victoria St Upper St Upper Richmond Rd Upper St Victoria St Edgware Rd Edgware Rd Cromwell Road Bishopsgate Clapham High St Edgware Rd Victoria St Gracechurch St Whitechapel Rd Borough High St Borough High St Brixton Rd Clapham High St Upper Richmond Rd Buckingham Palace Rd Bridge Place Bishopsgate Mile End Road Gracechurch St Buckingham Palace Rd Upper Richmond Rd Baker St Mile End Rd Rushey Green , , Source: FTA PCN Survey * incorporates and only 15

19 Table 4.7 Top 10 hotspots for London Borough of Camden (by number of PCNs issued) by year Proportion of all PCNs issued % Proportion of all PCNs issued % Proportion of all PCNs issued % Hotspot PCNs Issued Hotspot PCNs Issued Hotspot PCNs Issued 1. Tottenham Court Rd Tottenham Court RD Tottenham Court Rd Kentish Town Rd Kentish Town Rd Kentish Town Rd Kingsway Kingsway Wc West End Lane Kilburn High Rd Kilburn High Rd Haverstock Hill Hampstead High St High Holborn High Holborn Southampton Row West End Lane Kilburn High Rd West End Lane Eversholt St Hampstead High Street Haverstock Hill Haverstock Hill Kingsway High Holborn Southampton Row Pancras Rd Woburn Place Theobalds Road Wc Eversholt Street Total 2, , , Source: FTA PCN Survey * incorporates and only 16

20 Table 4.8 Top 10 hotspots for City of London (by number of PCNs issued) by year Proportion of all PCNs issued % Proportion of all PCNs issued % Proportion of all PCNs issued % Hotspot PCNs Issued Hotspot PCNs Issued Hotspot PCNs Issued 1. Old Broad St Old Broad St Old Broad Street Lime St Queen St Queen St Queen St Fleet St Aldgate High Street Old Bailey Lime St Fleet St Cornhill Aldgate High St Cornhill Aldgate High St Liverpool St Fenchurch St St Pauls Churchyard Old Bailey Old Bailey Fleet St St Pauls Churchyard Aldersgate St Liverpool St Cornhill St Botolph Street Fenchurch St Fenchurch St Moorgate Total 1, Source: FTA PCN Survey * incorporates and only 17

21 Table 4.9 Top 10 hotspots for London Borough of Lambeth (by number of PCNs issued) by year Proportion of all PCNs issued % Proportion of all PCNs issued % Proportion of all PCNs issued % Hotspot PCNs Issued Hotspot PCNs Issued Hotspot PCNs Issued 1. Waterloo Rd Chestnut Rd Rectory Grove Greyhound Lane Upper Ground Kennington Rd Chestnut Rd Rectory Grove Upper Ground Rectory Grove Kennington Rd Westminster Bridge Rd Upper Ground Westminster Bridge Rd Chestnut Rd Wandsworth Rd Belvedere Rd Rattray Rd Kennington Road Acre Lane Wandsworth Rd Clapham Manor St Waterloo Rd Coldharbour Lane Belvedere Rd Norwood Rd Greyhound Lane Westminster Bridge Rd Coldharbour Lane Atlantic Rd Total Source: FTA PCN Survey * incorporates and only 18

22 Table 4.10 Top 10 hotspots for London Borough of Newham (by number of PCNs issued) by year Proportion of all PCNs issued % Proportion of all PCNs issued % Proportion of all PCNs issued % Hotspot PCNs Issued Hotspot PCNs Issued Hotspot PCNs Issued 1. Barking Rd Barking Rd High St North Broadway High St North Green St High St North Broadway Broadway Green St Green St Barking Rd Romford Rd Service Route No Romford Rd Kempton Rd Romford Rd Ron Leighton Way Service Route No Kings Rd Kings Rd Barking St Ron Leighton Way Neville Rd Ron Leighton Way The Grove Woodgrange Rd Kings Rd Woodgrange Rd Service Route No Total , Source: FTA PCN Survey * incorporates and only 19

23 Table 4.11 Top 10 hotspots for London Borough of Wandsworth (by number of PCNs issued) by year Proportion of all PCNs issued % Proportion of all PCNs issued % Proportion of all PCNs issued % Hotspot PCNs Issued Hotspot PCNs Issued Hotspot PCNs Issued 1. Mitcham Rd Mitcham Rd Mitcham Rd Smugglers Way Putney High St Smugglers Way Putney High St Lavender Hill Putney High St Lavender Hill Werter Rd Lavender Hill Northcote Rd Garratt Lane St Johns Hill Garratt Lane Bellevue Rd Bellevue Rd Lacy Rd St Johns Hill Garratt Lane Bellevue Rd Putney Bridge Rd Werter Rd St Johns Hill Smugglers Way Replingham Rd Queenstown Rd Lacy Rd Disraeli Rd Total Source: FTA PCN Survey * incorporates and only 20

24 Table 4.12 Top 10 hotspots for London Borough of Islington (by number of PCNs issued) by year Proportion of all PCNs issued % Proportion of all PCNs issued % Proportion of all PCNs issued % Hotspot PCNs Issued Hotspot PCNs Issued Hotspot PCNs Issued 1. Islington Green City Rd City Rd City Rd Islington Green Dominion St Essex Rd Mildmay Park Islington Green Mildmay Park Tysoe St Liverpool Rd Englefield Rd Finsbury Square Mildmay Park Old St Essex Rd Essex Rd Dominion St Old St Lackington St Lackington St St John St Old St Clerkenwell Rd Green Lanes Finsbury Square Tysoe St Dominion St Englefield Rd Total Source: FTA PCN Survey * incorporates and only 21

25 Table 4.13 Top 10 hotspots for London Borough of Bromley (by number of PCNs issued) by year Proportion of all PCNs issued % Proportion of all PCNs issued % Proportion of all PCNs issued % Hotspot PCNs Issued Hotspot PCNs Issued Hotspot PCNs Issued 1. Elmfield Rd Elmfield Rd High St Bromley High St High St Bromley Elmfield Rd High St Beckenham Market Sq High St Beckenham Market Sq High St Beckenham Market Square, Bromley Church Rd Bromley Church Rd Bromley Church Rd High St Penge High St Penge East St Ethelbert Rd High St Orpington Marion Crescent Bromley Rd Bromley Rd Homefield Rise Marion Crescent East St Widmore Rd Station Approach Marion Crescent High St Penge Total Source: FTA PCN Survey * incorporates and only 22

26 Table 4.14 Top 10 hotspots for London Borough of Waltham Forest (by number of PCNs issued) by year Proportion of all PCNs issued % Proportion of all PCNs issued % Proportion of all PCNs issued % Hotspot PCNs Issued Hotspot PCNs Issued Hotspot PCNs Issued 1. High Rd Leyton Lea Bridge Rd High Rd Leyton Chingford Mount Rd High Rd Leyton Chingford Mount Rd Lea Bridge Rd Old Church Rd Old Church Rd Old Church Rd Hoe St Lea Bridge Rd High St Chingford Mount Rd Hoe St Hoe St High St High St Station Rd Hoe St Forest Rd Forest Rd Forest Rd Station Rd Selborne Rd Billet Rd Church Lane Church Lane Selborne Rd Billet Rd l Total Source: FTA PCN Survey * incorporates and only 23

27 4.4 Contravention Codes The top 10 contravention codes by number of PCN issued was ascertained for the sample along with the proportion of PCNs issued under each contravention (see Table 4.15). Unsurprisingly contravention code 02 Parked or loading/unloading in a restricted street where waiting and loading/unloading restrictions are in force, was the number one issue for FTA members (40 per cent) and was 25 per cent ahead of the next issue which code 46 Stopped where prohibited (on a red route or clearway). Table 4.15 Top 10 contravention codes for FTA members: Contravention Code Proportion of all PCNs (%) 24 Explanation Parked or loading/unloading in a restricted street where waiting and loading/unloading restrictions are in force Stopped where prohibited (on a red route or clearway) Parked on a restricted bus stop/stand Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a Rd other than a carriageway Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours Parked without clearly displaying a valid pay &display ticket or voucher A heavy commercial vehicle wholly or partly parked on a footway, verge or land between two carriageways Stopped on a pedestrian crossing and/or crossing area marked by zig-zags Parked in a special enforcement area more than 50 cm from the edge of the carriageway and not within a designated parking place Parked in a residents or shared use parking place zone without either clearly displaying a valid permit or voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place, or without payment of the parking charge Source: FTA PCN Survey Loading and unloading is an exemption to the restricted street regulations. It is permitted on single and double yellow lines for a maximum of 40 minutes, as long as the loading and unloading is undertaken as a continuous procedure. If loading and unloading is not seen to be taking place a parking ticket may be issued.

28 Often PCNs are issued incorrectly because the Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs) require additional training. It is essential that CEOs understand that loading/unloading includes activities away from the vehicle (such as getting delivery notes signed) and just because the vehicle is locked does not mean that there is no loading activity occurring. An annual breakdown of for each year, and the first half of is available in Table C.2 in Appendix C. 4.5 Appeals Overall, 80,308 PCNs were analysed, for 26 companies between and. Of these 35 per cent were appealed, 59 per cent were paid (not appealed) and six per cent is unknown. Three indices were created using as baseline: Issued index, Appeals index and Paid index. The indices allow comparison of trends in PCNs issued, appealed and paid over time. Table C.3 in Appendix C provides a detailed breakdown of PCN appeals. Figure 4.1 Comparison of quarterly trends in PCNs issued, appealed and paid = Source: FTA PCN Survey ISSUED INDEX APPEALS INDEX PAID INDEX 25

29 There was a rise in the number of PCNs issued by all authorities since. The rate increased by 11 per cent in and by 9 per cent in compared to. There was a drop of nine per cent in which may have been due to the snow. By the number of appeals had dropped by 28 per cent. A possible reason for this is discussed later with successful appeals (after Figure 4.2). The number of those paid (not appealed) has increased by five per cent since. However, showed an increase of 27 per cent - this corresponds to the overall drop in appeals in the second quarter of (i.e. if they are not appealed they are paid ) An overall appeal rate and an overall success rate were calculated from the data (see Table 4.16). Some companies only listed successful appeals and did not indicate where a lost appeal had been paid which may have skewed the data slightly. The Appeal rate was calculated as the number of appeals as a proportion of all PCNs issued The Success rate was the number of appeals won as a proportion of those appealed. Further detail for quarterly trends is reported in Table C.4 in Appendix C Table 4.16 Annual trends in PCN appeals won, percentage appealed, success rate PCNs issued 31,726 30,457 18,125 Appeal rate 43.04% 33.73% 21.44% Success rate 54.89% 41.46% 51.88% Source: FTA PCN Survey * incorporates and only 26

30 Figure 4.2 Comparison of quarterly trends in appeal and success rates RATE (%) APPEAL RATE SUCCESS RATE Source: FTA PCN Survey A likely reason for the different trajectories since is that companies appealed less but were more experienced with the appeals process and therefore only challenged those PCNs with a high chance of success. In addition, appeal success rates were calculated for Issuing Authorities and the top 10 for successful appeal rates are reported in Table Appeal success rates were also ascertained for the top 10 Issuing Authorities (Table 4.18). It may be concluded that in general, Authorities which do not have the greatest number of PCNs issued have a better success rate for members who appeal. Approximately half of all appeals across all 34 Issuing Authorities, made by survey participants, were successful. More detail on successful appeals by year is available in Table C.5 in Appendix C. 27

31 Table 4 17 Appeal success rate by Issuing Authority for 26 companies ( - ) Issuing Authority Appeal Success rate 1. Hillingdon 87.43% 2. Lambeth 76.03% 3. Brent 71.70% 4. Havering 69.23% 5. Barking and Dagenham 69.09% 6. Tower Hamlets 67.37% 7. Hounslow 64.80% 8. Ealing 63.21% 9. Southwark 62.70% 10. Islington 62.24% Source: FTA PCN Survey Table 4.18 Appeal success rate for Top 10 Issuing Authorities for 26 companies ( - ) Issuing Authority Appeal Success rate 1. Westminster 56.06% 2. Transport for London 42.38% 3. Camden 50.47% 4. City of London 31.36% 5. Lambeth 76.03% 6. Newham 55.25% 7. Wandsworth 46.00% 8. Islington 62.24% 9. Bromley 35.24% 10. Waltham Forest 55.91% Source: FTA PCN Survey London Councils were also able to provide statistics on appeal rates and an overall success rate was calculated from that data (see Table 4.19). Furthermore, appeal success rates were calculated for Issuing Authorities and the top 10 for successful appeal rates are reported in Table Further information for successful appeals by year for London Councils is available in Table C.6 in Appendix C. 28

32 Table 4.19 London Councils: Appeal success rate by PCNs issued 2008/ / / PCNs issued 5,440,229 4,851,968 4,810,561 Appeal rate 1.30% 1.26% 1.44% Success rate 71.89% 63.50% 50.32% % change in PCNs issued (year-on-year) % -0.85% Source: London Councils Although the average appeal rate was very low - for those who appeal the success rate was very high. Table 4 20 London Councils; Appeal success rate by Issuing Authority Issuing Authority Appeal Success rate 1. Southwark 83.31% 2. Islington 80.79% 3. Lambeth 79.84% 4. City of London 78.80% 5. Westminster 78.54% 6. Barking 78.38% 7. Transport for London 74.47% 8. Hackney 64.28% 9. Hillingdon 62.08% 10. Haringey 58.96% Source: London Councils According to the data from London Councils the number of PCNs issued fell this is converse to the trend in the current sample trend. A possible reason may be that London Councils data includes cars and as the current sample was commercial vehicles (though there may be a few cars) it may be that commercial vehicles are more likely to receive a PCN than cars. A possible reason is linked to the results discussed under section 4.2 of this report. It was reported that cars were more likely to be ticketed in residential areas rather than in the City of London and therefore it is likely that commercial vehicles delivering to non-residential areas were more apt to receive PCNs in Central London. 29

33 4.6 Costs The overall amount paid by the 26 companies was 3.86 million The average was 148,349 The median was 36,158 The maximum was 957,845 The minimum was 295 Cost index shows changes in overall amounts paid for of PCNs by quarter (please note there was a general price increase from 15 April ) Figure 4.3 Quarterly trends in PCN costs across all companies = COST INDEX Source: FTA PCN Survey The rise in PCN costs was directly related to the increase in the number of PCNs issued across the sample Further detail on quarterly trends in amounts paid and cost index for PCNs issued is available in Table C.7 in Appendix C. 30

34 Figure 4.4 Average cost for a PCN per company AVERAGE COST C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C8 C7 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 COMPANY NUMBER C16 C17 C18 C19 C20 C21 C23 C22 C24 C25 Average cost across sample C26 Source: FTA PCN Survey The average cost for a PCN in the current sample was for all PCNs not appealed or appealed and lost and excludes PCNs appealed and won and where no cost was provided. The results indicate that overall most PCNs were paid at the reduced rate with 60 per cent of companies paying below the average price Company number 21 only submitted 3 PCNs all at full price therefore the average was high as the sample was very small and company number 3 had only provided a few costs although had over 200 PCNs which tended to be full price again the sample for costs was small. Further detail on each of the 26 companies is provided in Appendix D. 31

35 Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations Main conclusions are outlined for each key area of the report: Issuing Authorities, hotspots (street/location), contravention codes, appeals and costs. Finally a summary of recommendations is provided. 5.1 Conclusions Nearly one third of the 34 Issuing Authorities accounted for 80 per cent of all PCNs issued. It is concluded that parking in the areas where enforcement is covered by these London Boroughs was more likely to result in a PCN than parking in the remaining two-thirds of the London Boroughs. London Borough of Westminster, London Borough of Camden, City of London and Transport for London were more likely to issue to PCNs to FTA member than other London Boroughs. For the 26 companies in the sample, data showed a rise in the number of PCNs issued over the two and a half years covered by the survey. Conversely, according to data from London Councils (covering an equivalent period), the number of PCNs issued fell. It may be inferred that, as London Councils data includes cars and as the current sample was commercial vehicles, it may be that commercial vehicles were more likely to receive a PCN than cars, as commercial vehicles were more apt to be delivering in non-residential areas where there were fewer cars. PCN hotspots for each Issuing Authority remained fairly consistent over the two and a half years covered by the survey. For the top four Issuing Authorities, the hotspots accounted for around 40 per cent of PCNs issued (where a location was indicated), as one moves further down the list this percentage increases. It may be concluded therefore, that despite the number of streets within each London Borough, there were clearly identified locations where FTA members were more likely to receive PCNs. This provides valuable information for FTA and FTA members, where members in respect of areas in which to be vigilant for parking restrictions. Furthermore, particular hotspots may point to a lack of clarity in restrictions. In addition, the hotspot information reported for each company may be beneficial to participant companies in their understanding of driver behaviour and particular parking restrictions. 32

36 Contravention Code 02 Parked or loading/unloading in a restricted street where waiting and loading/unloading restrictions are in force, was the top issue for FTA members. This finding is consistent with the nature of FTA members work and therefore remains the greatest challenge to members delivering in London. Although overall rates of appeal declined it was beneficial to appeal since over half of all appeals were successful and there was an overall proportional rise in success rates. It is thought that companies appealed less but were more experienced with the appeals process and therefore only challenged those PCNs with a high chance of success. Participants in the survey had a better understanding about grounds for appeal in than in previous years. Appeal success rates were calculated for Issuing Authorities and it may be concluded that in general Authorities which did not have the greatest number of PCNs issued had a better success rate in appeal. However, approximately half of all appeals across all 34 Issuing Authorities, made by survey participants, were successful. The rate of appeal for data for London Councils was extremely low. However the success rate of those which were appealed was very high. It is concluded that it is beneficial to appeal, however the appeals should try to rule out driver error in both contravention type and hotspot and ensure there are grounds for appeal. The 26 companies paid 3.86 million in PCN fines and a rise in costs was reported which was directly related to the increase in the number of PCNs issued. The average cost for each PCN was relatively low compared to the full cost of a PCN. Most companies paid or appealed PCNs within the reduced rate time period leading to significant savings. The report provides individual company data which will allow companies to benchmark themselves against peers and investigate reasons for PCN hotspots. Most companies could benefit from this exercise and it will help to establish Best Practice across FTA members. 33

37 5.2 Recommendations FTA explore the higher rate of PCNs issued in current sample compared to London Councils with the Issuing Authorities and impress the anomaly between PCNs issued to commercial vehicles and the general trends in the number of PCNs issued. FTA and FTA member note the areas in which to be vigilant for parking restrictions. FTA may use the information to highlight particular hotspots where there may be a lack of clarity in restrictions. Participant companies use hotspot information pertaining to their own company to aid their understanding of driver behaviour and particular parking restrictions. It is recommended that FTA members monitor parking contraventions to explore any reasons attributable to driver behaviour (e.g. not understanding the restrictions). It is also recommended that FTA investigates whether Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs) require additional training and understand the importance of the observation period. This would lead to less PCNs issued and reduce the administration burden on the Borough and FTA members. FTA members continue to train staff in PCN administration and target only those PCNs for appeal which are likely to result in a successful outcome. This will ease administration burden in the long-term. Administrator and driver training are suggested to increase successful appeals and reduce administration burden. This will allow companies to rule out driver error in both contravention type and hotspot and to ensure that there are grounds for appeal. FTA may lobby individual Authorities which have high appeal success rates to find reasons for the high success rate. This will also be beneficial to the Authority as it will reduce their administrative burden in the long-term. Companies ensure that their PCN administration systems allow for ALL PCNs to be allocated to either pay or appeal within the reduced rate time period, thus saving half the cost or 34

38 paying nothing as a result of a successful appeal. It is not recommended that a PCN is paid without first checking grounds for appeal. A recommendation related to the survey data -as this was a retrospective study, the data were not in a standardised format. For example: the charge should refer to the full price of the PCN (not reduced paid price) and contravention codes should simply be the standard code. It is recommend that FTA members complete a standardised form on a continuous basis to allow comparisons and to establish Best Practice across FTA members A standard procedure for identifying locations/streets on PCNs e.g. use full postcode FTA provide standard Excel Format Conduct the survey in future with a larger sample 35