Agenda item

Parking and Bus Lane Enforcement Service Options

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.

 

Minutes:

The Chair invited Cllr Graham Lawman, Executive Member for Highways, Travel and Assets to introduce a report that sought approval of an operational model for a North Northamptonshire Council Civil Parking and Bus Lane Enforcement service following the decision by the Shared Services Joint Committee to disaggregate the Highways and Transport service.

 

Cllr Lawman stated that parking and other traffic enforcement was currently delivered in North Northamptonshire (with the exception of the Kettering area) by the Highways and Transport Service on contract to West Northamptonshire Council, which hosted the service. This contract was due to end in March 2024; however, an earlier end had been negotiated for the North to March 2023.

 

As a result the Council would be required to arrange its own enforcement, including the back-office services needed to process any penalty charges and appeals. This would require a budget as well as a recruitment and procurement process to be undertaken.

 

It was recommended to run the enforcement service in-house, aligning it with the Kettering wardens, with the back-office functions requiring specialist skills and knowledge put out to external contract, at least initially, to ensure processing of penalty notices was in place on time and to provide resilience.

 

It was anticipated that having in-house enforcement officers would enable the Council to direct resources to where they were needed most. It was acknowledged that there would be some initial start-up costs as staff were recruited and trained, but it was expected that the service would become cost neutral at least, with any surplus directed to lawful highway improvements.

 

Cllr Helen Howell spoke to welcome the report, noting the positivity of taking control of enforcement in the Council area, with the ability to target specific areas and to be in full control of the service.

 

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.

 

Supporting documents: