A Manifesto on the Reform of Parking and Traffic Enforcement

This document was released to the press and politicians on 23rd February 2010. It analyses the failings of the current system and what needs to be done to set it right.

 

The following is an extract from the manifesto under the heading of
Why do we all hate parking enforcement so much?

 

Because it has become simply the enforcement of trivia in an effort to raise revenue.

Melanie Reid wrote in an article on bank charges "Being caught out for something trivial infuriates us." She reasons that:

"...unauthorised overdraft charges are fair in the same way as...parking tickets from traffic wardens are fair. They trip up the undisciplined. They are, in fact, an inevitable by-product of a society that seizes every opportunity it can to capitalise on human frailty, while pretending it is all for the greater good. And while some may call [it] a form of idiot tax, and sneer at those who fall foul of them, by doing so they sneer at what it means to be human."

We are all human. However hard we try, we make mistakes. Why should be relieved of hard earned money each time we do so?

The reductio ad absurdum of this triviality is illustrated by the case of Joan (now Baroness) Walmsley and Transport for London (TfL). Ms. Walmsley paid the London Congestion Charge on two successive days giving the registration number of her car as W616 JBF when it was in fact W616 OJC; the letters JBF were those of her previous car. TfL insisted that she pay a penalty, so she went to the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) who upheld TfL on the grounds that as she had technically not paid for W616 OJC and that PATAS had no power to exercise discretion. She went to the High Court where Mr. Justice Burnton concluded that PATAS did have discretion and "It is not a purpose of the Scheme to penalise those who make a genuine error as to their vehicle's registration number". TfL went to the Appeal Court who reversed the judgment – the rules are the rules are the rules.

The political commentator Peter Oborne confirms the widely held view that parking enforcement is yet another form of taxation. He describes the growth in the use of fixed penalties as:

"...a move away from formal justice to an improvised method of executive justice, thus sidestepping the due process of law that has always been a defining feature of the British system."

"This form of causal justice was introduced for a variety of offences, for instance...certain motoring offences. The resultant move to fixed penalty notices means that suspects could buy their way out of the formal process of punishment by paying the fine. This new approach has started to mean that some kinds of offence...are effectively now subject to taxation rather than criminal punishment."

It's not justice as we used to know it. You now pay the bully to stop hitting you.

Minette Marin also thinks it is sinister. Everywhere we turn, nanny is there and ready to hit us was the title of an article she wrote back in 2004. She looked at the various ways in which fixed penalties intrude on our everyday life, and had this to say about parking:

"When Gwyneth Paltrow said recently that one of the things she most dislikes about this country is the traffic wardens, few people took her seriously...Traffic wardens infuriate most of us out of all proportion to what they do. After all, illegal parking is something up with which we should not put, and they are only obeying orders. But somehow their officious bullying has come to stand for something significant in the public imagination; traffic wardens are the storm troopers of the forces of state interference."

Quite right. But take a second to spare a thought for the human being inside that "storm trooper" outfit. These men and women are not the cause of the problem, perhaps not even complicit. Their behaviour is merely a manifestation of a system that is rotten to the core.

Traffic wardens are reviled, and abused by their employers and the motoring public alike. If they work for an enforcement sub-contractor rather than being directly employed by a council they are quite likely to be underpaid and lacking in employment benefits. They can be poorly trained and have very little knowledge of the laws they are supposedly enforcing.

Some even lack communication skills and it is not unusual to encounter a warden whose command of the English language is fairly basic. There have been reports of arrests for drug dealing, and the employment of a convicted criminal and illegal immigrants. None of this helps to project an image of competence, honesty and integrity as should be expected by people whose job it is to enforce the law.

But that's just it; it is no longer about law enforcement; it's about revenue raising. These unfortunate souls, desperate for a job, are daily thrust out on to the street to face the hostility of the motoring public and ordered to meet revenue targets. It's the council's "generals" hiding safely and secretly in their town hall bunkers who must take responsibility for the current situation.

It is therefore hardly surprising that when Transport for London surveyed drivers about their attitudes towards parking and traffic enforcement in early 2009 they found that drivers believed there was a "Perceived eagerness to hand out PCNs and fines" and it was "understood as [a] money raising exercise". Drivers also thought that: some rules and their enforcement make no allowance for natural human error, and the use of cameras and ‘unfair’, heavy handed procedures exacerbates this view.

So, it's sinister, abusive, intrusive, trivial, an idiot tax, or a tax on being human and for what? Where is the benefit? If there is one it is not obvious. Minette Marin again:

All stick and no carrot makes Joe Public an angry boy. And angry boys and girls tend to turn upon nanny and tell her they don't love her any more.