Parking: policy

Standard Note: SN/BT/2235

Last updated: 12 July 2010
Author: Louise Butcher
Section Business and Transport

This Note summarises parking policy in England; including civil parking enforcement; traffic
regulation orders and parking on private land or private roads.

Information on other parking-related matters, such as traffic wardens, pavement parking,

disabled parking and wheel clamping can be found on the Roads Topical Page of the
Parliament website.

Contents

1  Decriminalised parking enforcement, 1991-2008 2 

1.1  Road Traffic Act 1991 and DPE 2 
1.2  Parking in London 5 
1.3  Enforcement 6 
1.4  Finances 7 
1.5  Criticisms 7 

2  Civil parking enforcement, 2008- 9 

2.1  Traffic Management Act 2004 9 
2.2  Implementing regulations 11 
2.3  Subsequent developments 13 

3  Appeals 13 

4  Traffic regulation orders 14 

5  Private land 14 

6  Private roads 15 

This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties

and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual. It
should not be relied upon as being up to date; the law or policies may have changed since it
was last updated; and it should not be relied upon as legal or professional advice or as a
substitute for it. A suitably qualified professional should be consulted if specific advice or
information is required.

This information is provided subject to our general terms and conditions which are available
online or may be provided on request in hard copy. Authors are available to discuss the
content of this briefing with Members and their staff, but not with the general public.
1 Decriminalised parking enforcement, 1991-2008
1.1 Road Traffic Act 1991 and DPE
In the late 1980s the Conservative Government was considering ways to alleviate congestion
on London’s roads. One of the central proposals was the creation of a ‘priority route network’
for buses, which would require an improved system of parking controls and enforcement. 1
The government took the view that stopping, loading and unloading controls would need to
be strictly enforced and a police or traffic warden presence on the streets would be the most
effective deterrent against illegal parking. 2 A Department of Transport study suggested that
improved compliance with parking controls over the whole of London could produce
economic benefits of between £100 million and £200 million per year with a ten per cent
improvement in journey times in the central area. 3 Another study suggested that a 25 per
cent reduction in the number of illegally parked cars at the kerbside could lead to average
speeds increasing by around ten per cent. 4

A Working Party on Parking Enforcement was set up in November 1987 to examine the
operation of parking enforcement. The Working Party reported in March 1989. It concluded
that police resources should not be diverted from other work to parking enforcement. Further,
while there was a certain value in requiring offenders to contribute towards enforcement
costs, the pursuit of revenue to cover costs must not be allowed to interfere with the main
objective of securing compliance with parking restrictions and thereby reducing traffic
congestion. The Working Party also agreed that there was scope for local authorities to
provide some of the additional resources required for effective parking enforcement through
an extension of their then limited enforcement role. 5

There was, however, a difference of view as to the extent to which the local authority role
should be expanded. The police were not convinced that the problem was so severe that
radical changes were necessary, but they accepted that the level of illegal parking in London
exceeded the capacity of the police to prevent it. Local authorities proposed that primary
responsibility for parking enforcement, both in controlled parking places and on yellow lines,
should pass to them. The Working Party agreed that local authorities should assume
responsibility for enforcement of all non-endorsable parking. 6 On that basis all parking
offences other than the most serious would be decriminalised and enforced by civil charges.
There would be a new administrative structure and a new enforcement body to replace the
existing police and court structures. Revenues from the new parking charges would finance
enforcement. The government rejected this proposal on the grounds that it ought not to be
possible to mitigate an unlawful act and, further, that local authorities should not be able to
use the income generated by fines and penalties to enforce permitted parking controls. 7

The government did accept, however, that the existing arrangements needed improving:
local authorities would assume greater responsibilities for permitted parking, retaining more

1
information on the priority route network, also known as the London ‘Red Routes’, can be found in HC Library
standard note SN/BT/32
2
Department of Transport, Traffic in London, December 1989, para 7.5
3
Home Office, Report of Parking enforcement working party, March 1989, Annex E [HC DEP 5007]
4
unpublished work by the Transport Research Laboratory, 1988
5
op cit., Report of Parking enforcement working party
6
‘endorsable offences’ are those which incur penalty points on the driving licence, called ‘endorsements’
7
op cit., Traffic in London, para 7.17

2
of the revenue, which could be used to finance enforcement and contribute to better parking
facilities. 8 The proposals were described in a July 1990 consultation paper as follows:

Legislation will establish a new system of permitted parking in London and it will be for
the local authorities to enforce the regulations themselves. It is envisaged that the new
system will be self-financing and include a more commercial system of charging, with
payments related more closely to demand and graduated according to length of stay.
These proposals will enable police traffic wardens to concentrate their efforts on
enforcing illegal parking controls on the priority routes and elsewhere in London. It will
also mean doing away with the present system of initial charges and Excess Charge
Notices (ECNs) at meters and abandoning the use of the Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN)
system for breaches of permitted parking regulations. It is proposed that the PCNs
and FPNs be replaced by a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).

It is also proposed that local authority parking attendants’ enforcement efforts will be
enhanced by powers to wheel clamp and remove vehicles which have committed a
breach of the permitted parking regulations, for example, if vehicles have been parked
without payment, are still parked after a period of, say, 15 minutes from the expiry of
the period paid for, or have been parked without proper authorisation in residents’
bays. In these circumstances, the local authority attendant would issue a PCN and
authorise the vehicle to be wheel clamped or removed as appropriate. The vehicle
would only be released from the wheel clamp or from storage once all the charges due
(the Penalty Charge, wheel clamping/removal storage charges) have been paid.

There is a need to provide a protection for drivers/owners who feel aggrieved at the
local authorities’ enforcement action. It is proposed that they will be able to contest the
payment of any of the charges in the first instance with the local authority concerned.
It is expected that it will be possible to deal with the majority of grievances in this way.
But there will need to be an independent safeguard as a last resort. Legislation will
provide for the local authorities to appoint a parking adjudicator, or adjudicators, who
will follow quick, simple and inexpensive procedures and have the power to award
costs, with orders for repayments and costs registerable at the County Courts. (…)

The police traffic warden service will continue to enforce all illegal parking controls.
They will be able to provide a consistent service across the network. Providing local
authorities with the power to wheel clamp or remove vehicles which break permitted
parking restrictions will necessitate the extension of wheel clamping to all parking
offences across London. Otherwise drivers would be tempted to park illegally.
Legislation will provide that all traffic wardens be given the power to authorise wheel
clamping and removal of vehicles. This power would be activated only in London
initially, but its application could be extended to other areas by Order. Traffic wardens
will also be able to enforce certain other statutory offences, including some endorsable
offences, e.g. where vehicles are parked on the approaches to pedestrian crossings.
Consultation on Traffic in London showed there is general support for these proposals.
It is the Government’s intention to provide enhanced powers for traffic wardens so they
can enforce fixed penalty offences involving obligatory endorsement in relation to
stationary vehicles i.e. leaving vehicles in a dangerous position and stopping on
pedestrian crossings. This power would apply to all traffic wardens, not just those in
9
London.

8
ibid., para 7.18
9
DoT, Traffic in London: further development of the “Traffic in London” initiatives, July 1990, paras 3.2, 3.3 and
3.7

3
At Second Reading of the Road Traffic Bill 1990-91 the then Secretary of State for Transport,
Malcolm Rifkind, indicated that the aim of the legislation was to reduce traffic congestion and
bring environmental benefits, no mention was made of maximising income:

Part II of the Bill contains a major package to deal with traffic in London. Demand for
travel in London is forecast to grow. It reflects and reinforces the prosperity of the
capital, the benefits of which flow to the whole country. The increase in commuting to
central London has been carried entirely by public transport. Since 1983, the number
of people commuting by rail has increased by 22 per cent. and we have a massive
investment programme in London Underground and Network South East to cater for
them. By contrast, the numbers commuting by car has fallen by more than 10 per
cent. But other traffic in London has been increasing—for instance, the number of
vans coming into central London has risen by more than half—and major new
developments are bound to generate some extra traffic, so it is not realistic to set limits
on traffic growth in London. Our aims are to cater for growth in London's economy and
to relieve the worst congestion where this can be done without unacceptable
environmental and social costs

[…]

Along with red routes, the Bill will also provide for the establishment of a new and more
rational system of permitted parking, mainly at meter and residents' bays, to be
administered and enforced by local authorities. This will release significant numbers of
police traffic wardens to enforce legal parking controls on red routes and elsewhere.
At the same time, we are providing traffic wardens with wider powers to clamp and
impound vehicles. The potential benefits are enormous. More than 200,000 parking
offences are committed in the capital each day. Some estimates suggest that the
economic cost in central London alone is about £140 million a year. The initiative is
the first of its type for more than 20 years, and the widest ever. It is part of the
Government's aim to make the best use of existing roads throughout London and
forms part of our broad strategic approach to the development of London's transport
10
system.

Initially this part of the Bill only applied to London. During Committee Stage in the House of
Lords the government agreed to consider the legal and policy issues involved in extending
the provisions to areas elsewhere. On Report, Lord Brabazon of Tara introduced an
amendment that referred to county councils and metropolitan councils in England and county
councils and district councils in Wales. 11 At Third Reading, he extended the provisions for the
new local authority parking regime to local authorities in Scotland. 12

The Road Traffic Act 1991 helped local authorities who wished to control parking in their
areas more effectively by:

• introducing decriminalised parking offences;

• allowing local authorities to take on the enforcement of yellow lines;

• enabling enforcement action to be better tailored to the nature of the offence (e.g.
removal of vehicles which are causing obstruction and clamping for failure to pay);
and

10
HC Deb 10 December 1990, c689 and c691
11
HL Deb 10 June 1991, cc 978-980GC
12
HL Deb 24 June 1991, cc 454-456

4
 • allowing income from enforcement action to accrue to the local authority and not to
the Exchequer.

Formerly, local authority parking attendants could only deal with collecting parking meter
charges and issuing excess charge notices: all other permitted parking offences come into
the area of criminal law so had to be administered by the police and their traffic wardens. By
removing all permitted parking from the criminal law and making it a civil matter, it was
possible to allow local authority parking attendants to administer it.

Where local authorities assumed responsibility for on-street parking under the 1991 Act,
penalty charge notices (PCNs) were issued by local authority-employed parking attendants
and the income was retained by the authority. Local authorities were able to keep the fees
from parking meters, charges associated with wheel clamping and vehicle removal, and the
money from any PCNs. Penalty charges are ultimately enforceable through the civil courts as
civil debt.

When the 1991 Act was passed, the Conservative Government did not consider that it would
be appropriate to give local authorities responsibility for ‘prohibited’ parking. Thus endorsable
offences and those relating to obstruction, which were still subject to criminal sanctions,
continued to be the responsibility of the police. The powers of the police-appointed traffic
wardens were extended so they could take responsibility for enforcing the law on endorsable
offences. The money from penalties associated with this group of offences would continue to
go to central government.

In May 1995 it was announced that local authorities outside London could start to apply to
take over parking enforcement from the police. 13 Despite the introduction of the
decriminalised parking enforcement (DPE) schemes in London being regarded as a success,
the initial take up of the new powers outside London was low. The Labour Government took
steps to encourage better take-up, including:

• a £100,000 allocation in September 1998 towards the cost of setting up a new

permanent adjudication service for areas outside London; 14 and

• raising of the upper limit of the penalty charge notices to £60 in 2001.

Local authorities who wished to establish DPE in their areas had to apply to the Secretary of
State for Transport. They were expected to meet the minimum requirements laid down in the
Guidance on Decriminalised Parking Enforcement outside London. 15

1.2 Parking in London

The 1991 Act set up a Parking Committee for London to co-ordinate the introduction of the
new DPE scheme; the Committee consisted of one councillor from each London Borough.
Its functions were to set the level of fines that local councils could charge, operate the
adjudication service, ensure consistent treatment of motorists across London and maintain
‘persistent evader’ records in order that London's most inconsiderate parkers could be

13
DoT press notice, “Decriminalised parking enforcement to be extended outside London”, 11 May 1995 [PN
95/143]
14
for more information see section 3, below
15
DoT, Guidance on decriminalised parking enforcement outside London (local authority circular 1/95), 1995

5
targeted by all councils. An independent adjudicator was appointed by the Committee to
consider appeals from motorists not satisfied with a local authority's actions. 16

The new system began in July 1993 when the London Borough of Wandsworth became the
first London local authority to take on the new parking enforcement powers. Although all
London Boroughs had to take responsibility for parking regulation at meters and in bays in
their areas by 4 July 1994, they had the choice as to whether or not to apply to the Secretary
of State to enforce non-endorseable yellow line offences. 17

The scope of civil enforcement of traffic offences was extended by the London Local
Authorities Act 1996 which gave London authorities the power to issue penalty charges in
respect of vehicles driven illegally in bus lanes. These powers were first exercised in 1999.
Powers in the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 enable civil
enforcement of certain moving traffic regulations, such as use of box junctions.

In London, the money raised from parking enforcement tends to help fund the Freedom
Pass, providing free travel to the elderly and disabled people; contributes to the London
Taxicard Scheme; and, in some boroughs, has helped fund the London Cycle Network.

1.3 Enforcement
Enforcement of parking regulations is a matter for the police, their traffic wardens, the local
authorities 18 and their parking attendants (called ‘civil enforcement officers’ from 31 March
2008, see section 2, below). The degree to which each is responsible for enforcing the
regulations will depend on the area and on whether the local authority has taken
responsibility for all the non-endorsable parking in its area.

Where local authorities assumed responsibility for on-street parking under the 1991 Act,
penalty charge notices (PCNs) were issued by local authority-employed parking attendants
and the income was retained by the authority. The offence was no longer a criminal offence
but a civil one. Penalty charges are ultimately enforceable through the civil courts as civil
debt. In the first instance, a driver disputing a PCN should object to the local council who
issued it. If he is not happy with the result, he can go to the independent Traffic Penalty
Tribunal (see section 3, below).

Some parking offences are endorsable, such as where parked vehicles cause safety
hazards, or are parked in the approach to a zebra crossing. These are subject to the fixed
penalty notice system (FPN). The police are responsible for enforcing the criminal law and
only police officers and traffic wardens can enforce criminal offences. The level of FPNs is
set by the Home Secretary and the fines are paid into court. The recipient must pay the
penalty to the court within 28 days or request a court hearing if the issue of the notice is
disputed. The procedure for issuing fixed penalty notices is contained in the Road Traffic
Offenders Act 1988, as amended. In England such notices can be given on the spot when
the driver is present (section 54); attached to the car in the absence of the driver (section
62); or a conditional offer of a fixed penalty may be sent to the alleged offender for offences
such as those caught by speed cameras where a policeman is not personally involved
(section 75).

16
for more information see section 3, below
17
the relevant guidance is: DoT, Traffic management and parking guidance for London (local authority circular
5/92), August 1992, as amended in 1998

6
Under section 54(1), a police constable may issue an FPN in England and Wales, subject to
certain conditions – if the constable "has reason to believe that a person he finds is
committing or has on that occasion committed a fixed penalty offence". The conditions are
that the person produces and surrenders his licence, and that the offence would not render
the person liable to disqualification. An FPN is, in effect, a temporary stay of prosecution and
allows an individual to agree to a fixed penalty and subsequent immunity from prosecution
for the offence. You have 21 days grace to decide. A person may choose to elect for a
hearing during this period, in which case proceedings would be brought against them in due
course. At the court hearing they will be convicted or acquitted as in any other criminal case.

1.4 Finances
Local authorities are allowed to retain the proceeds from any penalty charges and use it to
finance the enforcement and adjudication systems. Any surpluses must be used for other
local transport purposes, as set out in section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as
amended. These include providing and maintaining off-street parking; public passenger
transport services; highway or road improvement projects; and environmental improvements.

There are no restrictions on the use of surplus income from off-street parking facilities.

The Guidance on decriminalised parking enforcement outside London, issued in 1995, set
out the financial objectives of decriminalised parking as follows:

Each local authority operating the new system of decriminalised parking enforcement
should ensure that it is run efficiently and economically. Each authority should also
aim to make the new system overall at least self-financing as soon as practicable. In
assessing its performance against this objective, a local authority may take into
account costs and revenues from its off-street parking operations. However, the
attainment of this objective should not be at the expense of safety and traffic
management objectives of decriminalised parking enforcement, or be achieved by
19
setting unreasonable levels of penalty and other charges.

In the past, local councils have been required to develop strategies to tackle congestion as
part of their Local Transport Plans (LTPs); this usually involved the introduction and
enforcement of parking restrictions as part of a wider ‘parking strategy’. 20

1.5 Criticisms
In June 2006 the Transport Select Committee published a report on parking policy and
enforcement. The Committee called for a ‘fairer and more coherent approach’ to parking
across England and Wales. In summary, the report made the following points:

Failure to comply with parking restrictions disrupts traffic, increases road congestion,
heightens levels of danger, results in injuries, and delays public transport schedules.

Fifty million estimated illegal parking acts take place each year in London with a cost of
£270 million a year in additional delays and accidents. The scale and cost of illegal
parking throughout Britain is not known but is clearly significant. The police have failed

18
‘local authorities’ is taken here to mean unitary authorities, county councils, metropolitan district councils and
London Boroughs; although in practice some of these may have an agency agreement with city or district
councils to act on their behalf on traffic matters
19
op cit., Guidance on decriminalised parking enforcement outside London, para 4.1
20
DfT, Full guidance on local transport plans: second edition, 26 January 2006, paras 102-118; more information
on LTPs can be found in HC Library standard note SN/BT/4351

7
to enforce parking regulations in Britain properly for decades as other policing priorities
have taken precedence. The result is that illegal parking is widespread.

It is fifteen years since local authorities were given the power to take over control of
parking enforcement from the police. Transferring responsibility for parking
enforcement to local government has succeeded in raising the levels of enforcement
and compliance. In 2003, local authority parking attendants issued 7,123,000 Penalty
Charge Notices in the then 75 local authorities and 33 London boroughs where
decriminalised parking enforcement powers were in operation. By contrast, the police
issued 1,043,000 Fixed Penalty Notices in the remaining 313 authorities.

To retain two parallel parking systems is irrational, and it is high time to move to a
single country-wide system of decriminalised parking enforcement. There must be one
system of parking, not two.

Despite its success, serious flaws remain in the decriminalised parking system. For
example, 20 per cent of the 7.1 million Penalty Charge Notices issued in England in
2003 were cancelled; local authorities do not always make the process for challenging
Penalty Charge Notices clear; and local authorities’ duty to use discretion in
considering challenges is not always properly discharged. This poor local authority
administration causes frustration and anger, wastes resources, and brings the
decriminalised parking regime into disrepute. These problems need to be put right by a
cooperative effort lead by the Government.

In addition to the main task of introducing a unified system of parking enforcement in

Britain, we have found that the following action is required:

• Clear performance standards in applying parking restrictions must be

established

• It must be made clearer to drivers what regulations are in force and how
compliance is to be achieved

• Appropriate recruitment, remuneration and training is needed to ensure a

professional parking service throughout the country

• The process for challenging penalty charge notices must be made much more
transparent

• The impact of the parking adjudication service must be increased and its profile
heightened

• Scrutiny of local authority parking departments is woefully inadequate and

needs to be strengthened

• Local authorities must develop parking strategies which meet local objectives
fully, focusing particularly on congestion, road safety and accessibility.

The Department for Transport intends to publish draft revised statutory guidance on
decriminalised parking enforcement. This is long overdue. The last national guidance
document on this subject was issued in 1995. It is essential that, as a first step to
making sensible improvements, the guidance addresses the key shortcomings of the
system in detail. Generalised guidance will not do.

The Department has failed however to undertake a systematic, nation wide evaluation
of decriminalised parking. This is a pity as it will lessen the authority of any draft

8
 guidance issued now. The Department needs to consider how to remedy any
deficiency in its research before issuing guidance.

Guidance is of course only a first step. Using the forthcoming guidance as a basis, we
expect the Department for Transport to encourage vigorously improved standards in all
local authorities. Follow-through action will be essential if the guidance is not merely to
gather dust. 21

There were also various reports about the inconsistency of enforcement across the country,
including the high success rate of those who took their tickets to appeal. There was a story in
The Times in May 2007 which followed a reporter as he sat in on a day of parking appeals –
all five of which were upheld. 22 A further report in October 2007 highlighted a ‘postcode
lottery’ in appeals:

A huge number of parking fines are being quashed because councils present poor
evidence or no proof at all when challenged by drivers. More than half of appeals
against fines go uncontested in some areas, raising serious doubts about the fairness
of millions of tickets. Motorists in some parts of the country are almost three times
more likely to appeal successfully against a fine than elsewhere (…)

Parking charges and fines reached an estimated £1 billion across Britain last year,
involving around eight million Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued for parking
infringements, with councils making an estimated £500 million profit. However, while in
some areas more than eight out of 10 fines are overturned on appeal by the
23
Independent Parking Adjudicator, in others only a third are quashed.

A further report in March 2008 stated that more than 60 per cent of appeals against parking
tickets heard by the appeals body were successful, but fewer than one per cent of drivers
who received them appealed. 24

2 Civil parking enforcement, 2008-

Complete information on the civil parking regime in force in England and Wales from 31
March 2008 and the applicable guidance is available on the Department for Transport’s
website.

As at 12 April 2010, the Department for Transport stated that 326 local authorities in England
(including London) had taken the power to enforce parking restrictions. 25 In 2008-09 local
authorities in England raised around £490 million in revenue from parking charges and fines
in real terms, up from £315 million a decade earlier. 26

2.1 Traffic Management Act 2004

The Traffic Management Act 2004 (TMA) extended and rationalised the civil enforcement
powers of local authorities for driving and parking contraventions. It provided a single body of
primary legislation enabling civil enforcement of parking, bus lanes, specified moving traffic

21
Transport Committee, Parking Policy and Enforcement (seventh report of session 2005-06), HC 748, 14 June
2006, pp3-4
22
“Aggrieved motorists 5, Meter readers 0”, The Times, 8 May 2007
23
“Postcode lottery as up to eight in ten parking fines overturned on appeal”, The Sunday Telegraph, 28 October
2007
24
“Drivers given more help to fight councils over parking tickets”, The Times, 31 March 2008
25
DfT, List of local authorities with Civil Parking Enforcement (CPE), 12 April 2010
26
HC Deb 20 January 2010, cc388-89W; in November 2009 the Tax Payers’ Alliance published a research note
on parking fines and revenue

9
regulations and the London lorry ban. Part VI of the Act and regulations made under it have,
for the most part, replaced the provisions in previous legislation, particularly the 1991 Act.

The Labour Government consulted on decriminalising additional parking offences outside

London in December 2002. 27 Consequently, one of the main intentions of what became the
TMA was to give authorities outside London the additional powers that had already been
conferred on London authorities by various local London Acts, including:

• postal service of a penalty charge notice (PCN) where a parking attendant is

prevented from fixing it to a vehicle or handing it to the driver;

• issue of a PCN on the basis of information provided by a camera;

• issue of a PCN for parking within the area of a pedestrian crossing;

• creation of a contravention to deal with double parking; and

• placing a 6-month time limit on the issue of a notice to an owner aimed at securing
payment of a penalty charge if it has not been paid within 28 days of issue of the
PCN.

A power was also sought to give the relevant national authority a reserve power to direct a
local authority outside London to apply for civil parking enforcement (CPE) powers. The main
reason for this was the low priority accorded to parking enforcement by the police service. In
some cases police forces had simply decided to pull out of parking enforcement. Parking
enforcement was one of a package of ancillary tasks which the Policing Bureaucracy
Taskforce chaired by Sir David O'Dowd identified as suitable for transfer to local authorities,
thereby allowing the police to concentrate on their core activities. 28

The TMA also allows the Secretary of State (and the Welsh Assembly) to designate a special
enforcement area (SEA). In these areas the following will be prohibited:

• parking a vehicle such that no part of it is within 50 centimetres of the edge of the
carriageway; and

• parking at dropped footways.

During Committee stage of the Bill the Conservatives attempted to introduce an amendment
to create a broad ‘defence’ against parking penalties that “a penalty charge shall not be
imposed in respect of any description or conduct in which there is a reasonable excuse
having regard to the circumstances at the time”. It was defeated on division 10 votes to 6. 29
The Conservatives also moved an amendment to change the power of the Secretary of State
to require authorities to apply for civil enforcement powers to one where they may invite
authorities to apply for such powers; this was defeated 8 votes to 5. 30 The other parking-
related matter on which the Conservatives put the matter to a vote was in relation to
restricting those areas on which surplus income from parking could be spent. It was defeated

27
DfT, Road Traffic Act 1991: Decriminalised parking enforcement, Proposals for Decriminalisation of Additional
Parking Offences outside London, 6 December 2002
28
Home Office, Policing Bureaucracy Taskforce: Change Proposals to Increase the Presence of Police in
Communities, July 2002, p11
29
SC (A) Deb 5 February 2004, cc249-273
30
ibid., cc291-292

10
9 votes to 3. 31 The Bill was wide-ranging and covered a number of issues in addition to
parking; but taken together the Conservatives voted against the Bill, as a whole, on Third
Reading. 32 The Act received Royal Assent on 22 July 2004.

2.2 Implementing regulations

Consultation on the draft regulations for Part VI of the TMA took place between July and
September 2006. 33 The consultation on the draft guidance took place between August and
October 2007. 34 A summary of responses to the 2006 consultation was published in July
2007. The main conclusions of the 2006 consultation were as follows:

• in areas where parking enforcement has been decriminalised, the police would not
have the power to enforce as well;

• differential penalty charging should be introduced – the principle of differential

charging is that there would be a different level of penalty charge depending on the
contravention (e.g. £X for overstaying where parking is permitted but £1½ X for
parking where it is never permitted);

• local authorities would be asked to produce well-publicised discretionary policies, for

on-street enforcement officers, as to situations where they may not wish to issue a
PCN, however discretion should rest in the back office to prevent potential abuse of
or by civil enforcement officers;

• a ‘persistent evader’ would be defined as having three or more outstanding and

unchallenged PCNs; and

• government would ask the London Councils to make their persistent evader database
available to local authorities that wish to use it. 35

Changes to appeals are given in section 3, below.

The draft Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and

Appeals Regulations 2007 were debated in Delegated Legislation Committee on 19
November 2007. 36 These were only one of the raft of regulations which brought the new civil
enforcement regime into force on 31 March 2008 and were the only regulations in that
package that were subject to the affirmative procedure. 37 In full, the implementing regulations
are as follows:

• Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals

Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/3482);

• Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 (SI

2007/3483);

31
ibid., cc311-315
32
the Bill was approved by 333 votes to 136; the Conservatives reasons were given by their then Transport
Spokesman John Redwood in his summing up speech, see: HC Deb 16 March 2004, cc257-260
33
DfT, Consultation on Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act (TMA) 2004, 12 July 2006
34
DfT, Better parking - keeping traffic moving, operational guidance draft consultation, 8 August 2007
35
DfT, Better parking – keeping traffic moving: report on public consultation, 24 July 2007
36
DL Deb 19 November 2007
37
the requirement to debate them was only added at the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and
Regulatory Reform Committee; inserted into the Bill at a late stage by a government amendment in the House
of Lords, see: HL Deb 4 May 2004, c215GC

11
 • Removal And Disposal of Vehicles (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2007 (SI
2007/3484);

• Civil Enforcement Officers (Wearing of Uniforms) (England) Regulations 2007 (SI

2007/3485);

• Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (Approved Devices) (England) Order

2007 (SI 2007/3486); and

• Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (Guidelines on Levels of Charges)

(England) Order 2007 (SI 2007/3487)

All of these regulations came into force on 31 March 2008.

In addition, the relevant statutory guidance to local authorities is available on the Department
for Transport’s website. 38

The Department published a press notice in February 2008 detailing how the new system
would work:

The new framework - which comes into force at the end of March - makes it clear that
councils should not use parking enforcement as a tool for raising revenue, and should
not set targets for the number of tickets issued. Councils are also encouraged to allow
officers to use more discretion over when a ticket is issued - including using verbal
warnings for minor contraventions - and are strongly advised to only use wheel-
clamping against those who persistently evade their penalty charges.

From 31 March councils outside London will also be able to issue lower penalties for
less serious parking offences and all local authorities will have to include details of
procedures for appeals on tickets. Independent parking adjudicators will also get more
power, including the right to ask local authorities to reconsider penalty charges where
motorists have mitigating circumstances (…)

The new framework also makes it clear that Local Authorities should:

• Publish and promote their parking enforcement policies, including penalty

charge levels, openly and clearly.

• Regularly appraise their parking policies and consult drivers and businesses to
ensure the system is working.

• Ensure that parking attendants have clear evidence that vehicle was parked in
contravention before issuing a penalty charge notice.

• Make sure parking attendants and back office staff have the proper skills,
training and resources to give the public a fair, consistent and professional
service.

• Only use CCTV to enforce parking rules - which will be allowed for the first
time outside London from 31 March - where it is impractical or dangerous for a
parking attendant to operate. 39

38
DfT, Traffic Management Act 2004: The Secretary of State’s statutory guidance to local authorities on the civil
enforcement of parking contraventions, 28 February 2008
39
DfT press notice, “Councils told to make parking fairer, clearer and more open”, 28 February 2008

12
2.3 Subsequent developments
In July 2008 the government published a further consultation on sections 85 and 86 of the
TMA – which give local authorities the power to issue penalty charge notices (PCNs) to
motorists who park alongside dropped kerbs, or more than 50 cm from the kerb, respectively
– without the use of traffic signs and road markings. 40 In May 2009 the then labour
Government confirmed its intention to proceed with these powers for local authorities. 41 It
was brought into force by the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and
Wales) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2009 (SI 2009/1116) from 1 June 2009.

3 Appeals
When parking offences became a civil rather than a criminal offence, an appeals procedure
was set up to deal with them. In the first instance, individuals receive a penalty charge notice
(PCN) from the local authority, followed by a ‘Notice to Owner’ (NtO) form from the council
explaining their liability for payment of the PCN. If an individual chooses to challenge the NtO
and their representation is rejected they then receive a letter known formally as a ‘Notice of
Rejection of Representations’. At this point they have a right to appeal to the independent
Traffic Penalty Tribunal for England and Wales (TPT) or the Parking and Traffic Appeals
Service for London. The rest of this section applies to the procedure outside London.

With their Notice of Rejection of Representations the council must send a TPT ‘Notice of
Appeal’ form. One may either pay the charge or use this form to make an appeal within 28
days. If it is later than 28 days there must be an explanation why. There are two legal
grounds of appeal, either:

• the PCN was issued incorrectly (i.e. the alleged parking contravention did not
occur; the penalty charge exceeded the relevant amount; the Traffic Regulation Order
was invalid; or there was procedural impropriety on the part of the council); or

• the appellant is not liable to pay the penalty (for one of the following reasons: he
did not own the vehicle when the alleged contravention occurred; the owner is a
vehicle hire firm (only in certain circumstances); the vehicle was taken without the
owner's consent; or the penalty has already been paid).

Changes were made to the appeals process under the new system that came into effect in
2008, but they did not affect the adjudication process. There were two major changes in the
Representations and Appeals Regulations (see above) compared to the pre-2008 legislation:

1. “procedural impropriety”, that is to say a failure by the enforcement authority to

observe any of the detailed statutory requirements for imposing a penalty charge, was
made a ground for representations and for appealing to an adjudicator; and

2. an adjudicator may refer a case back to the enforcement authority for reconsideration,
where the finding is that none of the grounds of appeal apply but that there are
compelling reasons for remitting a charge.

There are however many differences of detail between the Representations and Appeals
Regulations and the prior legislation. Questions 10 to 17 of the consultation on the draft
Regulations (see above) dealt with representations and appeals; the report on the

40
DfT, Consultation on prohibition of double parking and parking at dropped footways, 29 July 2008
41
DfT press notice, “Making it easier to tackle inconsiderate and dangerous parking”, 5 May 2009

13
consultation included responses and the government’s decisions. There were significant
majorities amongst consultees in favour of:

• Government specifying time limits for formal representations;

• Those time limits being: a 14-day national response limit for informal representations
and 90 per cent of formal representations being decided within 21 days;

• Government specifying that a Penalty Charge Notice be sent by post within 14 days
of a contravention;

• The 50 per cent discount being made available for 21 days where a postal PCN is
issued;

• Local authorities being forced to re-offer a discount period after a failed informal
challenge; and

• That a vehicle can be removed or clamped after 30 minutes. 42

These measures were all included in the regulations.

4 Traffic regulation orders

Sections 1 and 6 of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984, as amended, empower a
highway authority to make traffic regulation orders (TROs) prescribing among other things,
waiting and loading restrictions. It is an offence under sections 5 and 8 of the Act to breach
these restrictions.

Part IV of the 1984 Act empowers local authorities to provide or designate parking places
(e.g. meter bays, residents' bays etc.) on and off the highway, with or without payment.
Charges can be set and varied under sections 45 and 46. Section 46A empowers local
authorities to vary by notice the charges payable at parking places; contravention of, or non-
compliance with, a provision of a parking place order is an offence under section 47.

The procedure to be adopted by a local authority for making orders is set out in the Local
Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (SI
1996/2489); and the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations
1999 (SI 1999/614), as amended

5 Private land
Very generally, what you can do on any private land depends on the extent of your right to be
there. Normally the owner of the land gives you permission to be there for certain purposes
(for example, in order to use a shop, surgery etc.); you then agree to come on the land only
for those purposes and subject to any other conditions that you may have agreed.

With regard to the imposition and collection of fines, one would expect that signs would be
displayed alerting the motorist to the potential consequences of his/her actions when parking
the vehicle. It should be clear that parking is not allowed or restricted and that enforcement

42
op cit., Better parking – keeping traffic moving: report on public consultation, pp11-14

14
action will be taken in respect of any subsequent contravention. 43 Any fines levied should
also be reasonably proportionate and demanding money with menaces is an offence.

If one chooses not to pay the fine, the company will pursue the ticket through the courts as
civil debt. One should seek legal advice when deciding whether or not to pay such a fine. 44

The British Parking Association has published a Code of Conduct for companies operating
parking enforcement on private land but this is not statutory, it is only guidance. 45 The rules
for the release of data to private enforcement companies were tightened up from 1 October
2007 to limit the release of vehicle owner information by the DVLA to members of an
Accredited Trade Association. 46 However, this only covered electronic requests for
information, In August 2009 the government announced that the requirement to be a member
of an ATA would be extended to companies making manual, paper-based requests. 47

6 Private roads
This issue of parking on private roads is a tricky area because there are different definitions
of a ‘private road’ and the extent to which one can enforce sanctions on a road will depend
on what type of road it is. Constituents facing parking problems on private roads should
consult a legal professional. 48

By statutory definition a private or unadopted street is a road not maintainable at public

expense. 49 However, a private road is not necessarily a road to which the public does not
have access. Nor is it a road exempt from the law. There is no statutory definition of a
highway, only a common law one. That definition is quite clear: a "highway is a way over
which all members of the public have the right to pass and repass. Their use of the way must
be as of right, not on sufferance or by licence". 50 Some private roads are highways, but not
all, and the position is not always easy to determine.

Most of the offences committed under the Highways Act 1980, as amended, are designed to
punish those who endanger or interfere with users of a ‘highway’ or who damage or obstruct
a ‘highway’. A few offences go further in that they apply not just to highways but to all
‘streets’ as defined in the Act. Interfering with a right of way is a civil wrong, namely a
nuisance. A person whose land has the benefit of a right of way may take action against any
person interfering with his right, whether the owner of the road or a person who also enjoys a
right of way, or someone unconnected with the road. For example, a right to take action
might arise if the parking of cars in a narrow private road persistently interfered with the
exercise of a right of way, such as in the case of Horne and Horne v. Ball [1995] CLY 1841 in
which the court had to deal with deliberate obstruction, accompanied by verbal abuse over a
long period. 51

In terms of parking, there is no general right to park in a private road except for the owner of
the road. In practice parking may be permitted or tolerated by the owner (in which case there

43
see, e.g.: HC Deb 10 February 2005, c1706W
44
information on sources of legal assistance can be found in HC Library standard note SN/HA/3207
45
BPA press notice, “BPA initiative to end rogue ticketing”, 18 April 2007; see also the full Code available on the
BPA website
46
DVLA press notice, “New Code of Practice issued by Accredited Trade Associations”, 1 October 2007
47
DfT press notice, “Government crack down on cowboy parking companies”, 27 August 2009
48
information on sources of legal assistance can be found in HC Library standard note SN/HA/3207
49
for more information on unadopted roads, see HC Library standard note SN/BT/402
50
Sweet & Maxwell, Encyclopaedia of Highway Law and Practice, March 2002, para 2-335
51
A.W & C. Barsby, Private Roads: The Legal Framework (4th ed.), 2007, para 4.47

15
is a licence to park) and in some cases a legal right may have been granted by the owner.
Parking in a private road without permission or a legal right to do so is trespassing, and is a
civil wrong for which redress can be obtained. The wrong is done to the owner of the road.
He can bring legal proceedings to obtain compensation, though the amount of harm done
would typically be small and the compensation therefore very modest. The owner is also
entitled to insist that trespassing ceases, and could if need be obtain an injunction against
the person concerned.

Whether or not someone is trespassing by parking in a private road, if they obstruct the road
and so interfere with its use by those with private rights of way, a different civil wrong
(nuisance) is committed. In this case, the civil wrong would be against the person whose land
has the benefit of the right of way, probably the owners of the properties. The same would
also be true if a parked car obstructed access to a private road. In a case of nuisance the
civil courts may grant compensation and other remedies, such as an injunction.

In some particular circumstances a criminal offence may be committed. Under section 34 of

the Road Traffic Act 1988, as amended, it is an offence to drive a motor vehicle without
authority on land which is not a road (i.e. a road that is not a highway, or to which the public
has access) save where a person goes no further than 15 yards from a public road, and does
so in order to park. On a private road to which the public does not have access, drivers who
come onto the road without authority are committing an offence unless they do so in order to
park and go no further than 15 yards from a public road. If they park within 15 yards of a
public road, they will merely be trespassing, not committing an offence.

16