To receive questions from Members of the Council to appropriate Portfolio Holders.
Minutes:
In accordance with Standing Order 20, a number of questions were submitted on the civil parking enforcement regime operating in Exeter, to which the Portfolio Holder for Sustainable Development and Transport replied. Copies of each of the questions were circulated to Members and made available at the meeting.
The questions and a summary of the replies (in italics) are set out below.
(1) In accordance with Standing Order 20, Councillor Mrs Thompson submitted the following question to the Portfolio Holder:-
Recently at a Traffic Penalty Tribunal the Independent Adjudicator decided parking at the layby location in Pinn Lane was lawful, although following this decision it was apparently necessary to await instructions from Devon County Council before refunding the monies to the drivers wrongfully issued penalty tickets at this location.
Is it possible to question how Exeter City Council is able to safeguard its position both in the perception of the public and most importantly within the law when acting for the County Council, if the City Council considers it is at variance with the County Council and is it possible for a review of the Agency Agreement to be carried out if necessary?
Councillor Sutton (Portfolio Holder for Sustainable Development and Transport) responded to the question as follows:-
She stated that she did not accept that the interests of the City Council were at variance with those of the County Council in relation to Pinn Lane. She was aware that Councillor Mrs Thompson did not agree with the enforcement of restrictions in this location, but others supported enforcement on the grounds of public safety. Councillor Sutton agreed with the latter view. She commented on Councillor Mrs Thompson’s interest in this matter as this part of Pinn Lane did not fall immediately in her ward. It would be irresponsible if this Council was to start ignoring the views of the Highway Authority and put the interests of motorists who were parked in contravention of parking restrictions (and have a statutory appeal process open to them) above bigger questions of public safety and highway management. She questioned who would defend the City Council if there was an accident in this location caused by a pedestrian stepping into the road to avoid parked cars, and also if we did not address the situation despite very clear instructions from the County Council to take action.
She did not support acting independently from the views of the County Council in matters of on-street enforcement. In this matter the City Council is simply the agent of the County Council. The Agency Agreement can be reviewed, and there is provision for a review every 18 months in any case, but she did not support any review which blurred the respective responsibilities of the City and County Councils.
Councillor Mrs Thompson stated that her involvement in this matter was due to this issue being raised by a local resident who had contacted her as a Pinhoe councillor. Councillor Mrs Thompson asked a supplementary question:-
In previous correspondence our Head of Legal Services advised:- ‘We are obliged to act in accordance with their wishes (‘their’ being reference to Devon County Council) I note the letter from the Traffic Penalty Tribunal was addressed to Exeter City Council and to our Exeter City Council officer saying ‘You must comply with any adjudicator’s directions to you’. Following this direction Exeter City Council continued to wait for approval from Devon County Council. A further email dated 19 October 2011, from Devon County Council following rejection of their appeal, stated Exeter City Council act as agents for the County Council – they therefore cannot do whatever they might consider is right’.
On what basis does Exeter City Council consider it feels ‘obliged’ to delay acting within the instructions which have been given, addressed and sent to our Exeter City Council Authority until approval is received from Devon County Council?
Councillor Sutton reemphasised that the City Council acts as the agent on behalf of Devon County Council and the matter should be addressed to the County Council. The Enforcement Officers have acted entirely properly and will refer matters of on-street enforcement to Devon County Council and act on their instructions.
(2) In accordance with Standing Order 20, Councillor Prowse submitted the following questions to the Portfolio Holder:-
1. Penalty Tickets
On Friday 21 October 2011, I alerted this Council to a potential legal issue regarding the penalty tickets that we issue on behalf of DCC for alleged parking offences.
a) What positive action has this Council taken to confirm the legality of the ticket?
The City Council’s legal team is currently looking into the matter. Their preliminary view is that the Penalty Charge Notices are enforceable. We have also sought the views of the County Council, in their capacity as highway authority. I understand they have taken advice from their lawyers and consider that the PCN’s comply with the relevant regulations. As such, the County does not consider it appropriate to suspend on-street enforcement.
b) If it is the case then was a suspension notice issued?
c) If not why not?
No suspension notices have been issued because the City Council has to date not received any legal advice that would support such action.
d) If no suspension notice was issued, then how many tickets were issued in this City for alleged offences from the time of my revelations (approximately 15.00hrs) using tickets that were legally flawed, and until 18.00hrs of the 9 November?
1,170 Penalty Charge Notices have been issued in the time specified by Councillor Prowse.
e) What is this Council doing (if not already done) to re-order a re-print to include the statutory notice and secondly to omit those words and phrases which are not correct.
No Penalty Charge Notices are being reprinted at this stage.
2. Residents Parking in Newtown
Ten of the eleven car parks in this area are owned by the Council. Prior to 5 May 2008 they were covered by the City of Exeter (Residents Parking Places) Order 1995; this order was revoked but ceased to be legally enforceable on 5 May 2008. Residents using these car parks have however paid an annual permit of £20 assuming after administration costs, any residue has been passed to Devon County Council.
a) Under what authority are we taking their money?
b) Currently as it stands, anyone can park in these car parks and not be liable to a charge or penalty ticket. This situation is untenable. Who took this outrageous decision?
In respect of Residents’ Parking in Newtown, the City Council is not taking anyone’s money. Residents’ parking in Newtown operates entirely under a Devon County Council scheme. Residents pay the County Council and are issued a County Council Zone C permit. The authority therefore resides with the County Council. Residents are also entitled to use the off-street parking areas referred to by Councillor Prowse, and that entitlement still exists. We don’t currently enforce the use of off-street parking places by non-permit holders because those areas are not in our 2008 Off Street Order. The City Council’s legal team is currently working on a new Order that will rectify this.
In accordance with Standing Order 20, Councillor Prowse asked a supplementary question: -
He referred to the number of people who habitually park in Newtown and under what authority did the City Council collect the revenue on behalf of Devon County Council and how was that revenue used. He would be satisfied with a written reply.
This question should be directed to the County Council.
3. Sandy Park - Residents Parking Zone
For two years I have raised the issue regarding the thousands of pounds of penalty tickets and permits that were issued in this zone from the 5 May 2008. I stressed that all this money had been taken with not one ounce of legal authority from motorists who had committed no offences and were not even legally required to buy a permit. At long last notices went up around this zone issued by this Council announcing that the penalty money could be returned. Who took this decision?
a) How many tickets and permits were issued during the period 5 May 2008 and 26 August 2010?
In respect of Sandy Park residents’ zone – all decisions on this have been made by the County Council, so Councillor Prowse should direct his questions to them. 144 Penalty Charges Notices were issued in the period specified by Councillor Prowse.
Councillor Prowse said he had a copy of the agency agreement and was aware of its contents. He also referred to a Queen’s Counsel report which clearly states which authority is responsible for issuing tickets. In accordance with Standing Order 20, Councillor Prowse asked a supplementary question:–
He sought an explanation as to why seven of the eight District Authorities in the County, do not have the statutory paragraph on the back of their Penalty Charge Notices, apart from North Devon District Council. He asked for an explanation from the Portfolio Holder as to why those District Authorities had that omission.
The response can only relate to this Authority’s actions. Exeter City Council’s Penalty Charge Notices are considered lawful and compliant with the relevant regulations.
4. Residents’ Parking Zones Duryard, Regents’ Park and Pennsylvania
Between 5 May 2008 and 2 February, this Council issued permits and penalty tickets to the value of just under £21,000. In these zones in this period, 296 penalty tickets were issued.
As a result of my representations the County Council eventually admitted that there was no Traffic Order for these three zones. To date this Council has only refunded four (I repeat four) tickets. This woefully falls short of any evidence of a proactive attempt to return money that does not belong to this or the County Council.
a) Was the District Auditor made aware of this unlawfully derived revenue?
b) Was the Section 151 Officer of this Council made aware of this situation?
c) Would the Portfolio Holder agree with me that more effort should be made to communicate with these motorists and alert them to their refunds?
In accordance with Standing Order 20, Councillor Prowse asked a supplementary question and said that he would accept a written reply. He was concerned that the District Authority introducing the agency agreement was also the Authority taking the revenue from those residents in the three zones. He felt the revenue had been unlawfully derived from the residents and Exeter City Council had no power to administer that revenue and send to Devon County Council. He asked under what authority was the revenue taken and directed to Devon County Council?
All decisions on this have been made by the County Council, so Councillor Prowse should direct his questions to them.
5. Residents’ Parking Zone – Sandy Park (S1)
Is the Portfolio Holder fully briefed on the full legal implications of the public notice recently attached to a lamppost in the Sandy Park zone?
a) Was the District Auditor made aware of this unlawfully derived revenue?
b) Was the Section 151 Officer of this Council made aware of this situation?
c) Would the Portfolio Holder agree with me that more effort should be made to communicate with these motorists and alert them to their refunds?
The questions relating to residents’ parking are all matters for the County Council, not the City Council. This Council simply acts as the County’s agent in matters of on-street enforcement and Councillor Prowse should direct his questions to the County Council.
In accordance with Standing Order 20, Councillor Prowse asked a supplementary question – he noted the reply in relation to Duryard, Regents Park and Pennsylvania, but did not feel this addressed the Sandy Park element. Exeter City Council is the agency that deals with the enforcement and he had been aware that there is no authority for enforcement?
These matters were for Devon County Council – the City Council acts as the County agent in this matter and the question should be directed to the County Council.
The Chair acknowledged that it would be beneficial to receive a report covering a number of issues concerning civil parking enforcement as soon as is practicable. Councillor Prowse asked that a report be considered at the next meeting and that appropriate officers including those from Devon County Council be present at the meeting. The Chair agreed to consult with the Portfolio Holder for Sustainable Development and Transport to discuss the matter, including the attendance of appropriate officers. The Director Economy and Development welcomed an opportunity for a thorough explanation on a number of points of detail and assured Members that every effort would be made to ensure that a report was considered at the earliest opportunity, but the process should not be rushed. He thought it was unlikely that a report would be ready for the January cycle, given the complexity of some of the issues that have been raised and the deadline for producing reports. The Chair agreed to a request from Councillor Mrs Thompson that matters surrounding the agency agreement and also the questions submitted to the Portfolio Holder for this meeting would be included and addressed in the report.
Scrutiny Committee – Economy supported that a report on all aspects of civil parking enforcement in Exeter be considered at the earliest practicable opportunity to scrutinise the matter and ensure all of the necessary information and relevant advice was available to Members.