Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
Presently Decriminalised (Council) parking enforcement is covered by the RTA 1991. From 31 March 2008 there is a legal requirement to follow the parking enforcement framework contained within Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004.
Part 6 of The Traffic Management Act 2004, and the Regulations made under it will replace Part 11 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 and provide a single framework in England for the civil enforcement of parking.
The aim of the changes being made under the Traffic Management Act 2004 is to provide transparency in parking enforcement practices, provide clearer understanding to motorists, improve consistency and national standards.
Main Changes
In summary the main changes being made under the Traffic Management Act 2004 which effect the Council’s parking enforcement regime are:
Presentational
Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE) to be called Civil Parking Enforcement.
Parking Attendant’s to be called Civil Enforcement Officers (CEO)
Designated Parking/Permitted Parking Areas to be called Civil Enforcement Areas (CEA).
Changes to Regulations
(including new powers for authorities outside London currently only held by London authorities)
The introduction of differential parking penalties depending on the seriousness of the contravention.
The power to serve Penalty Charge Notices by post if an enforcement officer has started to issue it but the vehicle is driven away before it has been served and in instances of where a driver prevents an officer serving a notice by way of making threats.
The power to undertake enforcement by cameras (approved devices which have to be certified by the Secretary of State), and to send Penalty Charge Notices by post with such evidence.
The introduction of a 21 day discount period for Penalty Charge Notices sent by post where enforcement has been undertaken by an approved device.
The National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) given power to refer appeals back to the Authority for reconsideration (by the Chief Executives department) in cases where it is considered that suitable discretion was not originally exercised by the Authority in considering a parking appeal.
The power to enforce against parking across dropped kerbs.
The power to enforce against double parking (parking further than 50 centimetres from the edge of a carriageway).
Changes to Guidance
Authorities should publish parking policies.
In situations where a parking contravention has occurred but in mitigating circumstances authorities should make and publish guidelines on their use of discretion which should be used flexibly.
Stronger emphasis on staff training.
Authorities are encouraged to use photographic evidence as additional evidence that the parking contravention has occurred.
Where an informal challenge is made against a Penalty Charge Notice within the 14 day 50% discount period and is rejected, authorities are encouraged to re-offer the discount.
Authorities should annually report on and publish certain financial and statistical information (expenditure, income, number of notices issued, paid and cancelled).
Changeover Date
Until 2400 hours on Sunday 30 March 2008, enforcement action is taken using the powers in the Road Traffic Act 1991 and other legislation. From 00.00.01 hours on Monday 31 March 2008 enforcement action must be taken under the Traffic Management Act 2004 and its associated regulations.
All Penalty Charge Notice issued before 2400 hours on Sunday 30 March must be done so under the Road Traffic Act 1991 and any subsequent action (serving of notices and dealing with appeals etc) must continue under the 1991 Act.
Differential Penalty Charges
Currently all parking contraventions (outside London) are covered by the same penalty charge level. However under the Traffic Management Act 2004 authorities must issue two different levels of penalty charges depending on the severity of the contravention.
High and Low Level Contraventions
There is a single, Nationwide list of contraventions and associated code numbers, which is revised from time to time. However not all contraventions are necessarily applicable in every authority’s enforcement area.
Example Higher Level Contraventions
On-Street
Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours
Parked or loading /unloading in a restricted street where waiting and loading/unloading restrictions are in force
Parked in a residents parking space without clearly displaying a valid residents parking permit
Vehicle parked more than 50cm from the edge of the carriageway and not within a designated parking place (new contravention)
Parked adjacent to a dropped footway-kerb (new contravention)
Parked in a permit space without displaying a valid permit
Parked in a designated disabled person’s parking place without clearly displaying a valid disabled person’s badge
Parked on a taxi rank
Stopped on a restricted bus stop/stand
A heavy commercial vehicle wholly or partly parked on a footway, verge or land between two carriageways
Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriageway (footway parking)
Off-Street (Car Parks)
Parked in a restricted area in a car park
Parked in a permit bay without clearly displaying a valid permit
Parked in a disabled person’s parking space without clearly displaying a valid disabled person’s badge
Parked in a car park or area not designated for that class of vehicle
Parked causing an obstruction
Example Lower Level Contraventions
On-Street
Re-parked in the same parking place within one hour (or other specified time) of leaving
Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space
Parked for longer than permitted
Off-Street (Car Parks)
Parked for longer than the maximum period permitted
Parked after the expiry of paid for time
Parked in a car park without clearly displaying a valid pay and display ticket
Parked beyond the bay markings
New Contraventions
Enforcement of Double Parking and at Dropped Kerbs
The Traffic Management Act 2004 enables enforcement authorities to enforce double parking and parking at dropped kerbs.
In summary the prohibition of double parking is where a vehicle, when parked in a designated parking place, is parked further than 50 centimetres from the edge of the carriageway. This is however subject to a number of exceptions.
The prohibition of parking at dropped kerbs also includes parking across vehicle entrances. Again this is subject to a number of exceptions, including where a vehicle is parked across a vehicle entrance with the property owner’s permission.
Draft operational guidance originally issued by the Department for Transport stated that, unlike most parking restrictions, the prohibition of parking at dropped kerbs did not need to be signed. However recent redrafted guidance now states that dropped kerbs must be signed where enforcement is to be undertaken. But as there is no such authorised sign for this situation the Department for Transport has to review this matter further.
It is therefore recommended that Councils do not adopt this optional enforcement provision until the signage requirements have been clarified by the Department for Transport.
Serving of Penalty Charge Notices by Post
Under the current legislation a Penalty Charge Notice must either be fixed to the vehicle or given to the person who appears to be in charge of the vehicle. But under the Traffic Management Act 2004 a Penalty Charge Notice may be served if:
The contravention has been detected on the basis of evidence from an approved device (cctv).
The enforcement officer has been prevented from serving the pcn by the vehicle driver through intimidation, threats or actual physical force.
The vehicle is driven away before the enforcement officer has completed preparing and serving the notice.
When the Liberals and Conservatives were in opposition they both agreed that banks should pay back high bank charges to customers. Nothing seems to of happened since they came into power as a coalition. PPI insurance has been sorted now they should turn their attention to bank charges and help customers get exorbitant charges refunded.
Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.
Alliance & Leicester Moneyclaim issued 20/1/07 £225.50 full settlement received 29 January 2007
Smile £1,075.50 + interest Email request for payment 24/5/06 received £1,000.50 14/7/06 + £20 30/7/06
Yorkshire Bank Moneyclaim issued 21/6/06 £4,489.39 full settlement received 26 January 2007
Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.
This will prove interesting. I wonder how many councils are ready for this and how many PCNs will be issued with RTA 1991 still printed on them rather than Traffic Management Act 2004?
I also forsee plenty of "fabricated" PCNs occurring once PAs (Sorry, Civil Enforcement Officers!) no longer have to worry about the car driving off
This will prove interesting. I wonder how many councils are ready for this and how many PCNs will be issued with RTA 1991 still printed on them rather than Traffic Management Act 2004?
I also forsee plenty of "fabricated" PCNs occurring once PAs (Sorry, Civil Enforcement Officers!) no longer have to worry about the car driving off
If a PA is going to risk losing his/her job to 'make-up' PCNs I'm sure they already do so now and just say its been put on the vehicle. The only people who are going to have anything to worry about are those that currently gamble on driving away before a pcn is issued as the odds are now going to be stacked in the PAs favour.
I did think about the PCN wording issue myself and can foresee a lot of appeals on PCNs still with the RTA 1991 on them.
The changes are quite positive in most respects and will streamline the legislation to make it easier to understand and consistent countrywide. The CEO change is to take on board the fact that more Councils are enforcing more than parking, with many now doing moving traffic offences and some Councils using CEOs to issue FPNs for offences such as littering.
So why is it that the situation in London will still exist where for the same infringment the fine will be much higher than in other parts of the country? Surely a fairer system would see parity in the levels that pcn's are set across the board?
The changes are quite positive in most respects and will streamline the legislation to make it easier to understand and consistent countrywide. The CEO change is to take on board the fact that more Councils are enforcing more than parking, with many now doing moving traffic offences and some Councils using CEOs to issue FPNs for offences such as littering.
I can see the good intention there, but I remain to be convinced if it works. Consistency is an interesting point. Why should a penalty charge be more expensive for the same contravention in a different council area?
Littering is an interesting one. Are the CEOs to have interchangeable duties?
So why is it that the situation in London will still exist where for the same infringment the fine will be much higher than in other parts of the country? Surely a fairer system would see parity in the levels that pcn's are set across the board?
I think the thought behind it is because the cost of parking if higher in London generally. This means that the PCN as a deterent would be innefective if it was lower. There has been studies done as to why people contravene and its the chances of getting caught and the level of the fine, weighed up against the potential gain of parking in contravention. In some more affluent areas of London there are many that would quite happily pay £30 for the convenience of parking their Range Rover on the DYL outside their office, which obviously defeats the object of the PCN as a deterent.
ILittering is an interesting one. Are the CEOs to have interchangeable duties?
The London Councils are trying to decriminalise many enviromental offences such as littering in the next LLA so who knows what is around the corner. But technically a CEO can do anything the Council puts in the job description as long as they are legally entitled or qualified to undertake the duties.
I think the thought behind it is because the cost of parking if higher in London generally. This means that the pcn as a deterent would be innefective if it was lower. There has been studies done as to why people contravene and its the chances of getting caught and the level of the fine, weighed up against the potential gain of parking in contravention. In some more affluent areas of London there are many that would quite happily pay £30 for the convenience of parking their Range Rover on the DYL outside their office, which obviously defeats the object of the PCN as a deterent.
But that argument applies equally across the country. There will always be those with money who can afford to pay a PCN, so we come back to the inequality of having to pay a higher charge for a PCN just because it was issued within one of the 32 London boroughs. FPN's issued for speeding and red light offences in London are set at the same level as the rest of the country so why not PCN's? And don't forget the LA's have the option of removing vehicles that are parked illegally, which would deal quite nicely with the Range Rover or Mercedes parked on double yellow lines.
When the Liberals and Conservatives were in opposition they both agreed that banks should pay back high bank charges to customers. Nothing seems to of happened since they came into power as a coalition. PPI insurance has been sorted now they should turn their attention to bank charges and help customers get exorbitant charges refunded.
Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.
Alliance & Leicester Moneyclaim issued 20/1/07 £225.50 full settlement received 29 January 2007
Smile £1,075.50 + interest Email request for payment 24/5/06 received £1,000.50 14/7/06 + £20 30/7/06
Yorkshire Bank Moneyclaim issued 21/6/06 £4,489.39 full settlement received 26 January 2007
Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.
Civil traffic enforcement - certification of approved devices (557 kb)
Procedures that traffic authorities and manufacturers should follow in order to obtain the Secretary of State for Transport’s certification for cameras and associated evidence-recording equipment used for civil traffic enforcement under Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 and section 144 of the Transport Act 2000.
Published:
28 February 2008
Changes to DPE from April '08
has started to issue it but the vehicle is driven away before it has been served and in instances of where a driver prevents an officer serving a notice by way of making threats.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by robin9342
