Decision details

Parking and Bus Lane Enforcement Service Options

Decision status: Recommendations Approved

Is Key decision?: Yes

Is subject to call in?: Yes

Decision:

RESOLVED

 

KEY DECISION

 

That the Executive:

 

a)  Approved the Parking enforcement service model, as per Option 2: Delivery of enforcement services via an in-house enforcement team with external processing of penalty notices

 

b)  Approved the amendment of budgets for 2022/23 and 2023/24, per the business case, to establish a net nil budget for the Parking Enforcement service, noting that in year start-up costs will create a pressure.

 

c)    Delegated Authority to the Executive Member Highways, Travel & Assets, in consultation with the Assistant Director Assets & Environment, to enter into the contractual arrangements for the back-office processing of Parking Charge Notices.

 

 

Reasons for Recommendations:

 

The recommended course of action is considered the lowest risk and the most cost-effective, within the disaggregation deadline provided, for the following reasons:

 

·         A detailed financial modelling exercise has been undertaken demonstrating that Option 2 (Delivery of enforcement services via an in-house enforcement team with external processing of penalty notices) is the most cost-effective option for delivery of the parking and bus lane enforcement system.  It carries start-up costs that are estimated to be £42,000 lower than Option 1 because it requires the induction and training of the fewest staff.

 

·         It is also estimated that the service can be provided under Option 2 on a cost neutral basis, with the ongoing revenue costs funded from the income generated largely by Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs), which, as detailed in the finance section of this report is income that can only be used in accordance with section 55 (as amended) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Option 1 is estimated to cost around £14,000 a year more to operate than Option 2.

 

·         Option 2 minimises recruitment risks:  Based on the experiences of WNC, there are likely to be challenges to recruiting and training the back-office staff required for processing PCNs, who require specialist training to operate specialist systems in a complex area of law, often subject to challenge. In addition, the job market is currently challenging across all sectors, especially in specialist areas such as this.

 

·         Option 2 enables the council to have full control over the Civil Enforcement Officers, directing them to areas of need, both with regards to enforcement, but also to other duties in the event of unforeseen emergencies.

 

 

Alternative Options Considered:

 

·         Option 1 - Establishing an in-house Penalty Charge Notices (PCN) processing team was considered and rejected on the grounds that it is expected to carry both higher start-up cost and higher annual operation costs. This option also carries significant risk of failing to recruit sufficient qualified back-office staff for processing PCNs. The use of a specialist contractor for this function provides better value for money and minimises the staff recruitment, training, and retention risks.

 

·         The option of a fully outsourced model (for both enforcement and processing) was considered but rejected on the grounds of that it could not be delivered within the required deadline and on the basis that it did not give the Council direct control over targeting enforcement.

 

Publication date: 13/10/2022

Date of decision: 13/10/2022

Decided at meeting: 13/10/2022 - Executive

Effective from: 21/10/2022

Accompanying Documents: