Should councils be able to profit from carpark charges and parking tickets?

Every so often it comes out in a news story that councils have profited £x million from ticketing drivers for illegal parking. This almost universally appears to be presented as a bad thing, but my personal belief is that there is really nothing wrong with this - after all, councils are struggling for enough money as it is; some of these funds should presumably be covered by those who are presumably being detrimental (by choosing to leave their vehicle in a ridiculous place, or not buying a pay and display ticket).

I'd be interested to hear other members' thoughts on this.

py_megapixel said:

Every so often it comes out in a news story that councils have profited £x million from ticketing drivers for illegal parking. This almost universally appears to be presented as a bad thing, but my personal belief is that there is really nothing wrong with this - after all, councils are struggling for enough money as it is; some of these funds should presumably be covered by those who are presumably being detrimental (by choosing to leave their vehicle in a ridiculous place, or not buying a pay and display ticket).

I'd be interested to hear other members' thoughts on this.

Click to expand...

Yes, and the reason being that councils:
1) are capped at how much they can increase council taxes (limited to about the rate of inflation, so in some years they are getting less money in real terms)
2) are getting cuts to the amount given to them from central government (some have lost £70 million in the last few years which equals about 5% of their income)
3) are seeing costs for social care increasing significantly

Something will have to change unless we want yet even more council cuts and charges applied (which are likely to equate much more for many people than paying extra council tax, as the cost of administration of the charges would probably wipe out most if not all of the extra income generated).

One thing which will need to change is how we deal with social care, as such it's about time that central government dealt with this issue (given that they've been aware of it being a growing problem for quite some time, as well as the risk of the problem due to the aging population for quite a few years before that).

I don't see why not, they can on other things.

The Ham said:

Yes, and the reason being that councils:
1) are capped at how much they can increase council taxes (limited to about the rate of inflation, so in some years they are getting less money in real terms)
2) are getting cuts to the amount given to them from central government (some have lost £70 million in the last few years which equals about 5% of their income)
3) are seeing costs for social care increasing significantly

Something will have to change unless we want yet even more council cuts and charges applied (which are likely to equate much more for many people than paying extra council tax, as the cost of administration of the charges would probably wipe out most if not all of the extra income generated).

One thing which will need to change is how we deal with social care, as such it's about time that central government dealt with this issue (given that they've been aware of it being a growing problem for quite some time, as well as the risk of the problem due to the aging population for quite a few years before that).

Click to expand...

I agree absolutely. Apart from the media using such 'news' to sell their wares, the only people who really agree with these rants are those who think that their motoring behaviour shouldn't be subject to the law. Those who think that their actions shouldn't benefit others only need to obey the rules, then they won't be fined at all. It seems that most of them are a bit too thick to work that one out.

Sadly, it's a classic example of short-termism. Councils understandably see parking as a fairly easy target for revenue to supplement restricted budgets. On the surface - fine.
But, meanwhile we see endless tales of town centres dying and are happy to blame the Internet and Out-Of-Town shopping centres for the decline.

If we accept that using public transport has become for most (through a combination of factors not least of which is the self-destructive activities of, especially, bus operators, but including successive governments of all colours) the transport of last resort, and car use the first thought that crosses most peoples' minds, then had these august bodies taken a longer term view, they may have seen that meeting the competition head-on might have mitigated or even prevented their decline. More visitors = more trade = more revenue from taxes.

Put it this way: if most folk who want a bit of hands-on retail therapy and have a choice, are they going to drive their car to
a) somewhere where parking costs and where public toilets are practically non-existent and those that do remain cost money to use (yes, even if it's only pennies - many are very sensitive to what in reality are trivial amounts of money) and/or are badly maintained and dirty
or
b) somewhere where they can park for free for as long as they want; can recharge their electric car for free while they are there; and where the public toilets are free and in clean, good order, properly provided with soap and hot water and so on.

I know where I'd go to spend my money.

Yes. Councils need all the revenue they can get to deliver public services

Next question

Harpers Tate said:

Sadly, it's a classic example of short-termism. Councils understandably see parking as a fairly easy target for revenue to supplement restricted budgets. On the surface - fine.

Click to expand...

Do councils see it that way? Or is it more a case that, councils enforce parking restrictions because they want to stop people infringing them. Remember that people breaking parking restrictions carries a cost to other people - mainly in blocking roads etc. making it harder for other people to make their journeys.

Harpers Tate said:

But, meanwhile we see endless tales of town centres dying and are happy to blame the Internet and Out-Of-Town shopping centres for the decline.

Click to expand...

I would have thought that the reason we blame the Internet and out-of-town shopping centres for the decline is that those are - on all the evidence - precisely the reason for the decline of town centres. Or am I missing something?

DynamicSpirit said:

..Or am I missing something?

Click to expand...

No. But the question is why do people herd to malls etc., rather than town centres? And one explanation I suggest is parking fees and public facilities.

This is a capitalist country.

Generally, when demand for something exceeds supply, we deal with this by charging for the scarce thing.

So, if all city centre parking was free, demand would be so high that people willing to pay couldn't find parking spaces - spaces would be taken up by commuters whose cars would be there all day, meaning leisure/shoppers couldn't get parked.

Yet the people most up in arms about the idea of charging for "scarce" parking spaces in town/city centres are from the Clarkson wing of society, who are seem pretty happy with deregulated private markets in almost any other area. Odd.

Plus there's the fact that providing a car park can cost a lot of money. Maintenance, security, insurance. It's not always a great money spinner. Easy for the papers to show that a council has taken £1,000,000 in revenue from their car parks but that's not the same as "profit"

Also, it's useful for tabloids to conflate "all money raised for motoring charges, including fines for improper use of bus lanes/ parking illegally/ offences that require your vehicle to be towed away" with "parking charges" - a disproportionate amount of the money will relate to a smaller number of major offences (which may cost the council some money due to the need to pursue people through the courts etc) but that gives the impression that Councils Are Raking In Millions Of Pounds From Car Parks And You Are Footing The Bill (and similar outrage headlines) << I wish we could separate "car park revenue" and "fees/charges for illegal parking or improper driving"

tbtc said:

<Snip> Also, it's useful for tabloids to conflate "all money raised for motoring charges, including fines for improper use of bus lanes/ parking illegally/ offences that require your vehicle to be towed away" with "parking charges" - a disproportionate amount of the money will relate to a smaller number of major offences (which may cost the council some money due to the need to pursue people through the courts etc) but that gives the impression that Councils Are Raking In Millions Of Pounds From Car Parks And You Are Footing The Bill (and similar outrage headlines) << I wish we could separate "car park revenue" and "fees/charges for illegal parking or improper driving"

Click to expand...

This ^^^^

The figures quoted in the media are usually the combination of all charges and penalties for both on and off-street parking, and may include income from moving traffic contraventions including bus lane enforcement.

Income from parking charges should be viewed as a separate issue from enforcement penalties. However, in terms of public perception and the potential impact on town centre vitality the two may be linked where an authority takes an overly keen approach to enforcement. For the law-abiding majority it may make a town centre seem an unattractive place to shop if you regularly return to your vehicle and find an enforcement officer standing there waiting....

However, in decriminalised parking/traffic enforcement there are no 'major offences', just a refusal or unwillingness to pay at the earliest stage possible. The cost to the contravenor increases as the enforcement process progresses, but so do the costs to the authority, and the net income per-PCN typically reduces as progression occurs. Well-run parking operations usually generate the vast bulk of their income/surplus via PCN's paid within the first 14/28 days.

The main issue is the lack of clarity on how the money is spent. Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 details the requirement to account for 'parking' income and expenditure, and limits the things that any surplus can be spent on. Most people wouldn't object to parking revenue being spent on improving and maintaining car parks, improving and maintaining roads (including cycling and pedestrian facilities), contributing to public transport provision, environmental improvements etc.

The problem comes when authorities bleat they don't have enough money for certain transport projects, but via clever accounting money from the parking account is being transferred into general fund expenditure. E.g. In London no authority should be claiming a lack of funding to repair potholes if they are able to transfer parking money into their general fund.

The other issue is that the purpose of on-street parking management and enforcement should be to manage the use of roadspace for the benefit of the community as a whole, not as a measure to raise revenue on its own. At least one authority has had its knuckles rapped for increasing parking charges for the purpose of making up a shortfall in the surplus it was expecting to generate from parking. That kind of behaviour is what gives the system a bad name, and outrages the headline writers.

Trouble with councils issuing parking tickets is that they're going after the "easy wins" to generate revenue, rather than actually keeping the roads/pavements clear of illegally parked cars.

In the old days of traffic wardens operated by the police, the wardens used common sense as they didn't have targets, so tended to prioritise road safety issues over revenue generation.

We have a council parking warden who comes through our village on his moped every day. He ignores trades vans parked on double yellows/pavements around the pie shop - doesn't even stop to "have a word". But his daily route includes a barely used one way street side road with no houses and a ridiculously narrow pavement (about 1 foot wide so not wide enough for a wheel chair etc). He is on the lookout for cars blocking the dropped kerb and will happily ticket them. As I said, this dropped kerb is for a 1 foot wide pavement where literally no one ever walks and which is impossible for wheelchairs/prams to use anyway. In Summer, the hedge grows to virtually take over the entire pavement. But, hey-ho, it's a good money spinner for the council - basically a "jobsworth" taking advantage of a technicality. Shame he isn't bothered about the vans blocking pavements near the shops which causes wheelchair and pram users to walk into the busy road to pass them! But there's no money in that and no ticket for his targets as they'll see him and move before he can ticket them, so he basically doesn't bother.

tbtc said:

Plus there's the fact that providing a car park can cost a lot of money. Maintenance, security, insurance. It's not always a great money spinner. Easy for the papers to show that a council has taken £1,000,000 in revenue from their car parks but that's not the same as "profit"

Click to expand...

Indeed, and further to that is the fact that car parking is not a very good use of space; especially in city centres. I wonder how many millions could be generated if this space was sold
off.

The bus route running closest to my home into and out of Birmingham city centre is frequently hit by the appalling traffic on a stretch of 'main' road bedevilled by appalling parking. Drivers park on double yellows all day, at bus stops, on crossing zigzags, and all around street corners. Waiting and loading restrictions intended to keep one side of the road clear alternately 7am-1pm and 1pm-7pm are completely and comprehensively ignored. The city council could, at least in the short-term, make a very handsome sum by ticketing, ticketing and ticketing some more, until drivers get the message. I for one would be very pleased, and wish the council would crack on and cash in. And yes, I am also a car owner and driver but I actually bother to read road signs and look out for yellow lines when parking.

underbank said:

Trouble with councils issuing parking tickets is that they're going after the "easy wins" to generate revenue, rather than actually keeping the roads/pavements clear of illegally parked cars.

In the old days of traffic wardens operated by the police, the wardens used common sense as they didn't have targets, so tended to prioritise road safety issues over revenue generation.

We have a council parking warden who comes through our village on his moped every day. He ignores trades vans parked on double yellows/pavements around the pie shop - doesn't even stop to "have a word". But his daily route includes a barely used one way street side road with no houses and a ridiculously narrow pavement (about 1 foot wide so not wide enough for a wheel chair etc). He is on the lookout for cars blocking the dropped kerb and will happily ticket them. As I said, this dropped kerb is for a 1 foot wide pavement where literally no one ever walks and which is impossible for wheelchairs/prams to use anyway. In Summer, the hedge grows to virtually take over the entire pavement. But, hey-ho, it's a good money spinner for the council - basically a "jobsworth" taking advantage of a technicality. Shame he isn't bothered about the vans blocking pavements near the shops which causes wheelchair and pram users to walk into the busy road to pass them! But there's no money in that and no ticket for his targets as they'll see him and move before he can ticket them, so he basically doesn't bother.

Click to expand...

But are there double dashes on the kerbstones as well? If not then stopping on a double yellow to unload is perfectly legit.

Unless the law has been changed in recent months then pavement parking outside London isn't covered by civil enforcement.

PeterC said:

But are there double dashes on the kerbstones as well? If not then stopping on a double yellow to unload is perfectly legit.

Click to expand...

They're not loading/unloading, they're buying their pies!

underbank said:

They're not loading/unloading, they're buying their pies!

Click to expand...

The issue is, who says they aren't loading/unloading? Many authorities have tripped over themselves by trying to adopt a definition of 'loading' that tribunals have found to be invalid.

The fact you first need to buy the item(s) you will then load doesn't automatically negate the claim to be 'loading'. Neither does the size or weight.

What it generally boils down to is many authorities quietly decide the risk (and costs) of issuing a ticket to a van which might or might not be 'loading' is not worth it. A similar approach might be taken towards non-vans, depending on the authority.

Adding in the requirement for an observation period and the chances are the pie purchasers will be long gone before the first ticket is issued.

To the OP question, yes.

There is a ‘but’. A handful of local authorities make an awful lot of money out of parking, and use this to keep council tax / Business rates significantly lower than they might otherwise be. Westminster is the best example. Now whilst not every resident of Westminster is wealthy, there are a significant number who could pay more. Westminster’s council tax rates are roughly half those of the adjacent Lambeth, for example.

TrafficEng said:

Adding in the requirement for an observation period and the chances are the pie purchasers will be long gone before the first ticket is issued.

Click to expand...

That's the point I'm making. The local councils are more interested in revenue generating than keeping the roads/pavements clear of obstructions. In the old days of police controlled traffic wardens, they'd have "had a word" and moved on the offending vehicles, as they weren't money motivated.

TrafficEng said:

The issue is, who says they aren't loading/unloading? Many authorities have tripped over themselves by trying to adopt a definition of 'loading' that tribunals have found to be invalid.

The fact you first need to buy the item(s) you will then load doesn't automatically negate the claim to be 'loading'. Neither does the size or weight.

What it generally boils down to is many authorities quietly decide the risk (and costs) of issuing a ticket to a van which might or might not be 'loading' is not worth it. A similar approach might be taken towards non-vans, depending on the authority.

Adding in the requirement for an observation period and the chances are the pie purchasers will be long gone before the first ticket is issued.

Click to expand...

I did read a definition from TfL (I can't find it to hand right now) about what 'loading' consisted of - that it had to be heavy/bulky items etc rather than e.g. a newspaper.

I find a very big difference between areas such as London with enforced parking, and smaller towns where it's a free for all. Parking in bus stops, double/single yellows, on the pavement, on random bits of grass, in front of driveways, over junctions seems to be the done thing elsewhere and many folk seem to think they have the right to park exactly where they please and stuff everyone else. CPZs stop that!

Tom B said:

I find a very big difference between areas such as London with enforced parking, and smaller towns where it's a free for all.

Click to expand...

I find London to be as bad as anywhere else even with cameras everywhere. Taxis are by far the worst, they just pull up wherever they want but as soon as a warden comes along they just pull off. I had to go on the pavement during my HGV test because some idiot thought it would be appropriate to park directly on a T-Junction.

underbank said:

That's the point I'm making. The local councils are more interested in revenue generating than keeping the roads/pavements clear of obstructions. In the old days of police controlled traffic wardens, they'd have "had a word" and moved on the offending vehicles, as they weren't money motivated.

Click to expand...

Traffic Wardens had far greater powers than Civil Enforcement Officers. For example parking on the pavement isn't a civil enforcement matter outside of London.