Agenda item

The update on the Parking Services Contractor Performance Review was provided by the Interim Head of Parking Services. Kim Challis (Regional Managing Director of APCOA) attended to answer questions from Members.

The Interim Head of Parking Services outlined the main issues and concerns that had been highlighted in the report. These were:

·  Enforcement levels needed to improve

·  APCOA staff retention was a concern—attrition rates were high

·  A high number of CEO errors in the issuing of PCNs

·  The ANPR equipped moped had not proved as effective as had been hoped

·  Concerns had been raised regarding the reliability of the machines used in Council car parks

·  Revised beat sheets had been provided by APCOA, but these had not been able to be signed off by officers

·  The results from mystery shopping exercises had been disappointing and there were instances where PCNs should have been issued but were not

·  There were issues that needed resolving concerning the transport and deployment of CEOs

Ms Challis expressed the view that staff turnover was high in Bromley because of an increase in the level of verbal abuse suffered by CEOs. In some cases there had also been physical attacks, and these incidents had been reported to the police.

Ms Challis continued that the issue of pay levels for CEOs was also a significant factor that contributed to the high turnover of staff. APCOA were paying above the national living wage (NLW), but were not paying the London Living Wage (LLW). APCOA had asked LBB if they would like to pay the London Living Wage, but LBB had declined. Ms Challis said that in many cases (because the LLW was not being paid) staff had left to find alternative employment with higher rates of pay.

A Member responded that the rate of pay administered by APCOA to its staff was not the responsibility of the Council, and it was APCOA’s responsibility to recruit and retain suitable staff. The Chairman agreed with this, commenting that ultimately, the pay rates were set by APCOA and not the Council.

In response to this, Ms Challis stated that the rates of pay provided by APCOA would be determined by the rates that had been previously agreed in the contractual agreement between APCOA and the Council. LBB had not agreed in the terms of the contract to pay the LLW. The rates had been agreed with the authority during the tender process. The example was given of LB Southwark, where Southwark Council had agreed to pay the LLW during the tender process.

.

The Chairman disagreed with this, and maintained that the rates of pay provided by APCOA to its staff was their responsibility. Ms Challis informed the Committee that two pay awards had been provided recently and APCOA were doing what they could to improve pay rates subject to affordability limits.

A Member noted that a new Contracts Manager had been appointed since February, and she was interested to see if the new appointment would have any effect on reducing staff turnover.

It was confirmed that exit interviews were undertaken. A Member asked if any comparisons/differences had been identified in the exit interview data from two years ago and the last 6 months. Ms Challis responded that she had been focusing on the data over the last 6 months. If a comparison was required with the exit data taken two years ago, then she would be happy to source the data and feedback to the Committee.

A Member expressed concern that APCOA had tendered for the contract based on paying workers above the NLW, but not the LLW. She wondered why they had tendered on that basis if there was any doubt about their ability to fulfill the terms of the contract. Ms Challis responded that since the contract had been tendered, the LLW had expanded in terms of the number of additional boroughs that were now paying it. Redbridge and Hillingdon had originally been tendered on the basis of the NLW, but had since migrated to the LLW. This had improved the staff retention rate in these boroughs. 

Ms Challis stated that APCOA currently only had two vacancies, and that the organisation was meeting its target of deployed hours. Additionally, if APCOA’s staffing levels fell below 95% they were penalised. APCOA was looking at ways to stabilise the workforce.

Ms Challis advised the Committee that broken parking machines were fixed in line with the appropriate KPI’s. There had been a significant rise in the number of attacks on parking machines, and these had been reported to police. Cash collections had increased in an effort to deter such attacks. The Chairman expressed the view that APCOA was not doing enough to fix parking machines once and for all. Ms Challis informed the Committee that some of the machines were over ten years old and that they had invested in some spare machines.

A discussion was held regarding ANPR enforcement and a Member expressed concern that APCOA had not approached the Council sooner for more detailed mapping information. Ms Challis hoped that the Council would agree to continue with the ANPR pilot as it was anticipated that having the full mapping system loaded would improve enforcement.

A Member noted that the number of PCNs cancelled due to CEO errors over the last two months had risen and wondered why this was the case. Ms Challis was unsure of the reasons for this and promised to look into the matter and come back with an answer.

A Member raised the issue of parking problems that were occurring after 9.30pm in Beckenham High Street, between Thursday to Saturday inclusive. Ms Challis explained that there were only two CEOs allocated to late night duties over the Borough, and their shift finished at 10.00pm. If further resource was required, then a discussion would need to be had with the authority’s team. Notice would be required to change the roster.

Information was provided by the Assistant Director-Traffic and Parking, concerning mobile school CCTV cameras:

·  5 new school CCTV cameras would be operational soon

·  These would be in addition to the 5 already deployed

·  The cameras were mobile and so could be moved

·  The cameras would help in the correct issuing of PCNs

RESOLVED that:

1) The Committee notes the report and in particular the on-going work to ensure that adequate deployment and compliance is taking place around the Borough.

2) A similar Parking Services Contractor Review report is presented to the Environment PDS Committee in January 2020.

3) APCOA provide updated data concerning staff turnover from the date that the new Contracts Manager was employed.