Parking Complaints Online

Reflections on 2007

Where are we heading?

Here are a few lessons from the last few months. Parking Complaints Online has been reviewing the responses that it has received from councils.

The majority of organisations mentioned did not want to be named and were not 'pleased' with the focus on their operations. One or two asked for references to them to be removed. A few others felt that we should have asked for permission before mentioning them in this blog. Does this mean that Councils will only respond to hostile criticism in the local Press? Or are some media categories more important than others? This blog has chosen not to feature the contentious aspects of parking - the repetitive complaints, appeals and hard luck stories. We will continue to address principles, startegies, policies and issues. There are others who want to deal with specific cases of service failure.

The second issue is the response to requests for information or most often, the lack of response. How does one interpret this? Consider the combination of the following factors:

Requests for information from the media puts leadership and officers on the defensive. Does it pay to ignore requests? Even more important, does it pay not to be prepared? The next time it could be the local paper with tight deadlines.

Without exception, Council staff will not respond to requests for information. They are not allowed to write to the Press. This code of practice for employees is fully understood and has its purpose in local goivernment. However, it is interesting that some officers do write privately. This blog will always protect their identity and follow their instructions for maintaining confidentiality. However where officer contribution can be detected when reporting on an issue, we would rather drop the subject altogether.

Parking services are high volume transactional services. Despite stringent quality controls and efforts to work within the law, there is always scope for human error and mistakes will be made by both the customer and service provider. Our vehicle entered the London Congestion Parking area with a fully paid permit. But, there was an error in the registration number- the permit stated LV07 when the actual number was LB07. We decided that there was a good case to send in an appeal or a represenation. We had paid the congestion charge in full and on time. It was considered likely that the first four letters and numerics LV07 did not even exist. On a computer keyboard the letters 'v' and 'b' are situated next to each other and the possibility of an error can be recognised. Our appeal was accepted by London Congestion Charging but with a warning that this error will not be entertained again. The permit must be checked at the time of issue. There is no problem with this warning.

The impact and importance of online media is not, perhaps, being taken seriously. The most likely reasons are a) the council decides that circulation is likely to be low, b) local residents will not be reading the blog anyway c) the cost and benefit of responding does not warrant any effort, d) blogs are a nuisance and e) blogs must be ignored.

Finally, customer service complaints do require special expertise. Many a parking manager spends a lot of their time dealing with customer complaints when this task, with proper training should be carried out by staff who are three to four grades below the manager. It would be most helpful to investigate how efficient and effective departments deal with customer service complaints. Examples of good practice are worth reporting on. 

Given all these concerns, what lessons can be drawn from our experience of reporting on the management and delivery of parking services?  More on this next time.

Lambeth claims "Financial incentives removed from parking contract"

"Financial incentives removed from parking contract"

Councillor Steve Reed, Leader of the London Borough of Lambeth, explains how the authority has tackled the issue of removing financial incentives from its parking scheme.

“ In 2003, Lambeth Council signed a new contract with its parking contractor, Control Plus. The contract included thresholds that reduced the contractor’s income if specified levels of ticketing were not met.

Arguably, these operated as incentives to issue more tickets.  Appeals against unfair tickets shot up by 71 per cent in a matter of weeks. The press was full of lurid stories about over zealous ticketing and claims that parking attendants were under pressure to meet targets and maximise the contractor’s income. 

By the time of the council elections in May, parking had become a key is in several marginal wards. All the political parties offered new approaches to parking enforcement. Our preference was to renegotiate the contract immediately to remove the financial incentives. 

Following our election win, councillors confronted sceptical town hall officers with the unwelcome news that we were serious about renegotiating the contract. Without a precedent, Lambeth’s transport staff were going to have to break new ground.  Following a clear political steer, officers moved fast and completed negotiations within months. 

By October, the council was ready to announce a new contract that would no longer rely on financial incentives. In an attempt to simplify the contract, the 21 areas of activity previously monitored have been reduced to just nine.”

The full article can be accessed by using this link to the IDeA website

http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=5474686

Parking Complaints Online will be asking a number of questions both to the Council and to the contractor. We hope to highlight any innovative aspects of the new contract but in the absence of hard information on contract volumes and enforcement numbers, the Council’s decision seems worthy of further consideration. The details of the contract are unlikely to be withheld on grounds of commercial confidence. Readers are invited to submit questions. We will add any queries that you may have to our own list of questions.

Do you model?

How to avoid being shocked with traffic congestion at Christmas

In an ideal world, parking managers would be able to run their departments in a way that enables their customers to view them as a helpful resource. Most responsible motorists want to find parking, save time and money and leave the area as soon as they can. The rush for Christmas shopping used to start in early December. Then shoppers responded to the increasing congestion in our towns and cities and noting the declining availability of parking, people decided to start their shopping earlier and one started to see congestion in mid-November. This year, some shopping areas have seen parking queues in October. Shoppers see parking services providers as a invisible service. They are nowhere to be seen.

This leads one to a second point. Shoppers see their councils in terms of their willingness to be active service providers. They want to see their council wanting to listen to them. They want to see their parking managers considering the shoppers’ best interest at this busy time of the year. However, preparation for this year’s Christmas shopping congestion should have started three Christmases ago.

Most Parking ‘Service Plans’ are not only linear, they are written by engineers for implementation by engineers. Most service plans provide technical solutions whilst maintaining as much of the ‘status quo’ as possible. The real blockages are not engineers though. It’s the policy makers.

Parking services need strategic business modelling that allow them to distinguish between expansion and growth. Short-run incrementals for expansion can be funded from current resources and from improvements in productivity or cashflow. Growth can only come with strategic investment. The business model selects 4-6 variables and allows policy makers to see the impact of this type of challenge.

There is one problem, though. Policy makers are normally politicians. The business model invariably throws up a few harsh realities. A parking manager should be able to say, “ This problem can be solved with an investment of say, £1 million. However, for services to improve, policy makers need to find £20 million over five years”. Managers generally prefer not to provide accurate modelling forecasts to policy makers, who in turn would not want to concede that for a London borough’s traffic congestion to ease, for example, it is going to cost them £20 million. Apart from the old ‘hostage to fortune’ explanation, managers like to be safe in their jobs. Policy makers also want to remain in their roles as long as possible.

However, in the course of inspection work for the Audit Commission, I have had the privilege of meeting at least one executive director of a major local authority, who said, “ Yes, I do have a business model, but it is secret”. Only he knew the real scale of investment required to solve his council’s parking problem.

This could come to a spot near you!

Six Initial Challenges for developing an enforcement regime

A local authority is examining its plans to start enforcement against moving traffic offences. Consultations with the police, road safety pressure groups, parents associations, head teachers, motorists’ organisations and the motorists themselves have produced a list of locations where enforcement will be necessary and justified. Challenge: In what way and to what extent will local authority parking services consult with similar sources and others not mentioned here?

Let us assume that traffic planners have taken into account the patterns of traffic flow, the local bottlenecks, the spots which will give the road users their “referred pain”- not physically but where action in one location will trigger chaos in other places! Challenge: what criteria will local authorities use for selecting enforcement points?

How does the local authority plan to alert the motorists when they approach an enforcement point or area? Challenge: There are two points of view – a) that motorists do not need to be warned about the location of a camera. They should be following road signs and the Highway Code anyway and at all times, and b) that providing advance warnings against locations with new cameras is a fair way of treating motorists especially those who use local roads for commuter runs.

Assuming that a local authority has done its homework in selecting the most important locations for enforcement, how does it prioritise its decisions to place cameras? Challenge: This decision is likely to attract the most criticism from motorists. If ease of enforcement and recovery of cost is their chosen criterion, the authority can select the busiest yellow box-junctions and conditional 'right-turns'. The cameras will click ‘furiously’ and generate steady and predictable revenue streams. The motorists will soon be saying “ Ah! We told you so, they only want to make money”.

There are likely to be residents who are conscious about road safety and may ask for cameras to be installed to deal with a local hazard, such as a ‘no entry’ point, a ‘no u turn’ or a school crossing point.  Challenge: how will the local authority aim to provide equitable and fair enforcement where the temptation is to install cameras at least cost for maximum return? Road crossing points outside schools are a periodic hazard and may not warrant extra measures, according to some authorities.

There will be key decisions relating to concentration and dispersal of cameras. Where a local authority uses its entire budget to place cameras in the busiest parts of the city, they run the risk of exposing the less congested areas to regular contraventions. Challenge: what criteria will local authorities use to select the right technology and the mix of cameras in order to ensure that a sense of balance should prevail?

Finally, there is a solution. The local authority should invest in developing a ‘DTE Business Plan’, that is, a Decriminalised Traffic Enforcement Business Plan. The local authority will have to seriously look into its assumptions, prepare a cost-benefit-analysis on the one hand and weigh its decisions relating to equity, spread or concentration of cameras, educating the road user and choice of technology on the other. There is a problem though. Does the authority have a business plan for the rest of parking provision? Many parking services which are driven by regulatory pressures will not want to spend money on business planning. The money they save will be miniscule compared the the money they stand to lose.

Enforcement against moving traffic offences

Opportunity lost

I think the Press has lost a good opportunity to educate the public on the implications of enforcement of these so called 'new' offences. I did not hear anyone say that these contraventions have always been the responsibility of the police. I do not remember reading anywhere what 'decriminalising' means in this context.

In one London borough where cameras have been tested for piloting enforcement, drivers ignored a    'No Entry' point during the school runs on a regular basis, bringing danger to the road. It was not so much about saving themselves a long detour if they were to follow the road signs - it was more about the fact they were consistently late in dropping their children. The police turned up and fined or cautioned a few motorists each day and that was the end of the matter. There is a problem here.

No one has responded publicly to my challenge in the last but one post about the logistics and economics of enforcement against moving traffic offences. I have had a few private emails. I respect the fact that public sector staff are not allowed to write to the Press. As a result, I have to offer free advice on what I see as the principal challenges for local authorities in enforcing against moving traffic offences.

Watch this space - the challenges are not about technical solutions relating to cameras or how to produce reliable evidence. The challenge lies in how a local authority treats its residents and other motorists driving through their boundaries.

BBC has a field day!

BBC's Breakfast claims to have broken a new story...

This morning's Breakfast has enjoyed itself claiming to have broken a new story on the the use of special traffic cameras to monitor moving vehicles. It reports on the existence of a secret Government working group, how the proposed enforcement will raise millions in revenue for local authorities and how the evidence from the pilot testing schemes only show a marginal benefit. The BBC seems to have a problem in containing itself - it seems to be saying that all revenue proceeds will be used to fill the coffers of the local authorities.

Well, it is not a new story. The tests have been going on for at least one year when a number of authorities were selected for testing. Several local authorities also self-nominated themselves. Secondly, there are over 25 offences which are to be included in the scheme - the BBC is overemphasising box junctions and 'u turns'.

What the BBC is not telling us is how much the cameras will cost, how long will it take for the investment to be recovered and how the public needs to be aware of a range of offences that the cameras may or may not cover depending on the area and its traffic flows. What the BBC also does not realise that cameras can be requisitioned by the Police at short notice to monitor crime or carry out any urgent investigations into developing incidents.

Is this yet another case of excitement leading to willful misreporting? Or is it just that BBC journalists have not carried out enough research to acquire a balanced view. Only the BBC can answer these questions. The outcome of repeated misreporting this morning is that many viewers will be getting unnecessarily angry and reinforcing their prejudices, to say the least.

Time for you to do an exercise!

Lets brainstorm for a zero risk approach

The introduction of moving traffic offences, that is, further decriminalisation of traffic enforcement (DTE)  to reduce congestion is a really good opportunity for London boroughs to

1. Plan and implement a programme based on comprehensive public consultation
2. Introduce an enforcement programme which is based on principles of equity, access and fairness.
3. Create the right impressions at the outset - the programme is aimed at managing congestion and not for raising money or making life more difficult for motorists and residents
4. Avoid seeking quick wins at the risk of alienating the customers or borough residents.

You have been asked to develop an action plan to implement a DTE for your borough.

• What actions and safeguards will you be looking at? 
• How will you ensure that your plans for DTE are not shot down on the first day?
• How will you develop a multi-agency approach?

What are the moving traffic offences (MTOs) that offer the most scope for managing congestion in your borough? Do you know which MTOs are available for consideration? Have fun.

Parking Services seem to have been overlooked in 'the whole Council approach to customers'

Improving the customer's experience of Parking Services

Siobhan Coughlan, a Principal Consultant for IDeA, has a wide range of experience in local government and has managed a number of varied projects, addresses these issues on the IDeA website. Here are some highlights:

·               Traditionally, the concept of good customer service has been something for the private sector to worry about. But the old notion of taxpayers being somehow different from business customers is changing. 

·               In recent years, the Government has introduced legislation, guidance and inspection standards based on ensuring public sector users receive a good customer experience. The 1999 white paper, ‘Modernising government’ committed the public sector to meeting the “needs of citizens, not the convenience of service providers”.

·               Last year, customer focus became an integral part of the revised Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA). This will be followed by the forthcoming Treasury-commissioned Varney Review, which is based around improving the customer experience. “In the last seven or eight years we have seen a significant shift in attitude within the public sector, especially in local government which has been leading the way. These initiatives have helped up the ante. Many people saw customer services as something for the private sector, but that is no longer the case.”

Defining 'customer service'

Siobhan says: “The definition depends on who you are speaking to. In my view, we should be thinking about a whole council approach to customers. It is not purely the responsibility of those officers working on the front line. First of all, it should be everyone the council deals with from the taxpayer to the parents of children in local schools.

“This, of course, includes a lot of people. So it is important to work out who they are and what services they need to use. It is not about a hierarchy, but grouping people and knowing what they want and designing services to meet these needs.

“For many residents, all they are after is a convenient way to pay their council tax and report things such as fly-tipping or an abandoned car. That can be easily done via the telephone, the internet or e-mail.

“However, for others, their needs are more complex. For someone who lives in social housing and is claiming a range of benefits, you may need to deal with them face-to-face. There may be rent to sort out, council tax to pay, perhaps subsidising school meals and uniforms. It is a different relationship.”

However, Siobhan believes councils should not stop there. “When talking about customer service, we should also be looking at how we work with, and deliver services to, voluntary organisations, businesses and government departments. I would even go so far as to say fellow officers and councillors. It is only by working closely with these partners that we will properly be able to join up services and improve the experience of customers.”

Source: http://www.idea-knowledge.gov.uk

Focus on Customer Service

How can Parking Services benefit from Customer Services programmes?

The Government’s Improvement and Development Agency, IDeA says

“Becoming a customer-focused authority is one of the key drivers behind the Government’s improvement agenda, but how can it be achieved? It is important to think about customer focus from a variety of angles in order to get it right. First, there is the context you are working from to consider, which could be determined by national or local priorities, or by your community strategy or simply from the point of view of direct customer feedback. The drivers behind improvement are also crucial to consider. Is improvement being led by vision, leadership, partnership, the e-government agenda, or performance management?

Structural and staff development and internal and external communications are also areas that need to be looked at. Then there is the type of customer contact your remit covers. Are they paying customers, beneficiaries eg, benefits recipients; obligates eg, recipients of child protection; citizens receiving indirect benefits or a combination of all types. Obviously, different types of customers have different needs and this has to be taken into account at the very start of the process of improvement”.

Sound advice. Is challenge for parking services any different. We try to look for evidence to see how ‘the customer experience’ is being managed by hard-pressed parking managers. Is this entirely their responsibility? How are central corporate services assisting them?

Moving Traffic Offences

Decriminalised Enforcement

Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE) is the term that has been traditionally used to refer to all parking enforcement functions which were managed by the Police but which were taken over by councils. In general the offences were identified by enforcement teams where vehicles were stationary and were, for example, were wrongly parked, causing obstruction or failing to meet the requirements of the previous legislation.

Decriminalised Traffic Enforcement (DTE) is the term that this blog will be using to discus enforcement against moving vehicles. This area of work became a responsibility of local authorities in 2004 when a number of pilot authorities were appointed.

The range of offences covered by DTE include

• compliance to procedures for turning right at traffic lights where are yellow box junctions,
• drivers doing U turns at prohibited locations and in restricted areas,
• use of yellow box junctions at all times - even when going straight,
• no right turns or no left turns,
• no entry signs

Parking Complaints Online is interested in the outcomes of the pilots. Have the outcomes been cost effective? Have the enforcement against moving vehicles reduced congestion? Is there reliable evidence to sustain any outcomes or positions taken by enforcement teams?

There were further concerns about the fairness and equitable distribution of DTE sites. For example, was traffic and road users in town centre locations penalised more than vehicles in 'quieter' parts of a borough?