Agenda item

PARKING APPEALS POLICY

Minutes:

Report ES15080

 

Approval was sought for two amendments to the current parking appeal guidance: 

 

(i) in cases where a motorist claims not to have received a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) on the windscreen, and

 

(ii) in cases where a motorist receives a PCN having parked outside their property on a restriction designed to prevent commuter parking.

 

The current appeal guidance was agreed in April 2012, proving to be a robust document allowing the Parking Service to resolve all appeals as quickly, consistently, and as early in the process as possible, whilst remaining fair and reasonable at all times. 

 

For (i) above, Parking Services currently reoffered a discounted amount when mitigating circumstances could be reasonably demonstrated. However, if mitigating circumstances could not be reasonably demonstrated, a motorist would have to pay the full amount. Occasionally, a motorist could also claim not to have received a PCN, causing a high level of dissatisfaction and a feeling of unfair treatment, leading to complaints or further appeals to the adjudicator. There was a cost to the Council for any cases reaching the adjudicator stage and re-offering the discount would positively impact on the reputation of the parking service. Other London boroughs also reset the discount period in these circumstances.

 

For (ii) above, it was recommended that a resident parking on a restriction outside of their property, which is only to prevent commuter parking, might have one ticket written off in any rolling 12 month period. This would only impact a small number of residents. Such appeal types were usually in situations where the resident had taken a day’s leave and had forgotten it was a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) day rather than a weekend. In many cases the resident had already purchased a resident parking permit at a minimum cost of £40 per year, but had parked on the yellow line after returning home from work after the yellow line restriction had finished; if the resident was unable to move their car for any reason, a resident would have to pay the penalty as well. The policy change for (ii) would have little financial impact on the service and would help to mitigate a strong sense of resident frustration which was often felt. The recommendation was intended to only apply to CPZs and not all single yellow lines and in cases where the vehicle concerned was registered to a keeper residing at a property in the area. The Chairman added that its purpose was to control parking rather than prevent commuter parking. 

 

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder be recommended to:

 

(1) agree the proposed amendment allowing a motorist to pay at the discounted amount in cases where a motorist states that they had not received a PCN on the windscreen;

 

(2) agree that a PCN be written off on the first occasion where a motorist receives a PCN having parked outside of his/her property on a restriction designed to prevent commuter parking (this being intended to only apply to CPZs and in cases where the vehicle concerned is registered to a keeper residing at a property in the area); and

 

(3) delegate to the Executive Director and Portfolio Holder for the Environment, authority to make policy guidance amendments in the future that have minor financial and/or service implications.

 

Supporting documents: