Parking wardens told to book 100 cars an hour
Discussion
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/08/nwarden08.xml
Parking wardens told to book 100 cars an hour
By Gary Cleland
Last Updated: 2:35am BST 08/05/2007
A council has recommended that its parking attendants hand out at least 840 tickets and 36 clampings a day.
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea in London said the private firm that runs its parking enforcement, National Car Parks (NCP), should issue at least 306,000 tickets and clamp 15,000 vehicles a year.
To beat their targets attendants will need to slap tickets on about 100 cars for every hour that the restrictions are in force - more than one ticket every minute.
The revelation has prompted an investigation by the British Parking Association (BPA) and drawn criticism from the RAC Foundation. The BPA has produced a model parking enforcement contract for councils but cannot insist they use it.
It urges councils to measure the efficiency of their parking companies using indicators such as how many tickets are subject to appeal rather than how many are issued.
Edmund King, the executive director of the RAC Foundation, said yesterday that the contract should be made statutory. He said the primary aim of parking enforcement for many councils was no longer to regulate traffic but to make money.
"When parking enforcement was controlled by the police, if they saw someone parking illegally outside a newsagent they would tell them to move on," he said. "Nowadays an attendant is more likely to hide until they see them go into the shop, then hand them a ticket. There is no doubt at all that parking enforcement now is a multi-million-pound business and for some of the larger authorities, like Kensington and Chelsea, it brings in more revenue than probably anything else."
He added: "We need a statutory guideline to regulate that, rather than leaving local authorities to run their own parking regime, picking their own arbitrary figures."
Keith Banbury, the chief executive of the BPA, said: "We have previously received some concerns about the contract introduced by The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea for parking enforcement and are currently undertaking an investigation."
Tim Cowan, a spokesman for NCP, confirmed the figures in the contract with Kensington and Chelsea but said they were merely a guideline and if they were not met there would be no financial impact on the company.
He said: "If we issue less tickets next year in Kensington and Chelsea it will be because less people are parking illegally and there is no way on Earth we will get fined for that."
A spokesman for the borough told The Guardian the number of tickets and clampings were not the only performance measurements in its contract with NCP. The local authority could not be reached for comment last night.
Parking wardens told to book 100 cars an hour
By Gary Cleland
Last Updated: 2:35am BST 08/05/2007
A council has recommended that its parking attendants hand out at least 840 tickets and 36 clampings a day.
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea in London said the private firm that runs its parking enforcement, National Car Parks (NCP), should issue at least 306,000 tickets and clamp 15,000 vehicles a year.
To beat their targets attendants will need to slap tickets on about 100 cars for every hour that the restrictions are in force - more than one ticket every minute.
The revelation has prompted an investigation by the British Parking Association (BPA) and drawn criticism from the RAC Foundation. The BPA has produced a model parking enforcement contract for councils but cannot insist they use it.
It urges councils to measure the efficiency of their parking companies using indicators such as how many tickets are subject to appeal rather than how many are issued.
Edmund King, the executive director of the RAC Foundation, said yesterday that the contract should be made statutory. He said the primary aim of parking enforcement for many councils was no longer to regulate traffic but to make money.
"When parking enforcement was controlled by the police, if they saw someone parking illegally outside a newsagent they would tell them to move on," he said. "Nowadays an attendant is more likely to hide until they see them go into the shop, then hand them a ticket. There is no doubt at all that parking enforcement now is a multi-million-pound business and for some of the larger authorities, like Kensington and Chelsea, it brings in more revenue than probably anything else."
He added: "We need a statutory guideline to regulate that, rather than leaving local authorities to run their own parking regime, picking their own arbitrary figures."
Keith Banbury, the chief executive of the BPA, said: "We have previously received some concerns about the contract introduced by The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea for parking enforcement and are currently undertaking an investigation."
Tim Cowan, a spokesman for NCP, confirmed the figures in the contract with Kensington and Chelsea but said they were merely a guideline and if they were not met there would be no financial impact on the company.
He said: "If we issue less tickets next year in Kensington and Chelsea it will be because less people are parking illegally and there is no way on Earth we will get fined for that."
A spokesman for the borough told The Guardian the number of tickets and clampings were not the only performance measurements in its contract with NCP. The local authority could not be reached for comment last night.
Some smoke and mirrors in that article.
On the one hand, the suggestion that the wardens hand out 100 tickets per hour. On the other hand, the suggestion, in the article, that wardens are more likely to issue tickets, than the police are. So which is it? More tickets, or less tickets?
Or a scaremongering article.
My money is on the scaremonering. Parking Wardens; they're such a soft target for a lazy journalist giving unecessary credence to "facts" that don't even make sense.
On the one hand, the suggestion that the wardens hand out 100 tickets per hour. On the other hand, the suggestion, in the article, that wardens are more likely to issue tickets, than the police are. So which is it? More tickets, or less tickets?
Or a scaremongering article.
My money is on the scaremonering. Parking Wardens; they're such a soft target for a lazy journalist giving unecessary credence to "facts" that don't even make sense.
RichBurley said:
Some smoke and mirrors in that article.
On the one hand, the suggestion that the wardens hand out 100 tickets per hour. On the other hand, the suggestion, in the article, that wardens are more likely to issue tickets, than the police are. So which is it? More tickets, or less tickets?
Or a scaremongering article.
My money is on the scaremonering. Parking Wardens; they're such a soft target for a lazy journalist giving unecessary credence to "facts" that don't even make sense.
On the one hand, the suggestion that the wardens hand out 100 tickets per hour. On the other hand, the suggestion, in the article, that wardens are more likely to issue tickets, than the police are. So which is it? More tickets, or less tickets?
Or a scaremongering article.
My money is on the scaremonering. Parking Wardens; they're such a soft target for a lazy journalist giving unecessary credence to "facts" that don't even make sense.
I'm not sure I follow your logic. The sums indicate that in order to meet targets, the wardens will have to dish out more tickets than they already do. The police would have been less likely to issue tickets and more likely to tell someone not to park like an idiot. Hence, parking wardens are blood-sucking leeches who are being asked to suck more blood and the police are bastions of common sense and all-round good guys.
Having been on the receiving end of a Traffic Warden who wanted to write me out a ticket WHILE I WAS COUNTING OUT MY CHANGE TO PUT IN THE METER, I'm not inclined to see the article as lazy scaremongering.
RichBurley said:
Some smoke and mirrors in that article.
On the one hand, the suggestion that the wardens hand out 100 tickets per hour. On the other hand, the suggestion, in the article, that wardens are more likely to issue tickets, than the police are. So which is it? More tickets, or less tickets?
Or a scaremongering article.
My money is on the scaremongering. Parking Wardens; they're such a soft target for a lazy journalist giving unecessary credence to "facts" that don't even make sense.
On the one hand, the suggestion that the wardens hand out 100 tickets per hour. On the other hand, the suggestion, in the article, that wardens are more likely to issue tickets, than the police are. So which is it? More tickets, or less tickets?
Or a scaremongering article.
My money is on the scaremongering. Parking Wardens; they're such a soft target for a lazy journalist giving unecessary credence to "facts" that don't even make sense.
No it's not saying they do hand out 100 tickets per hour but that the council recommends to the enforcement company that they should etc. It sounds like a target to me.
On our patch parking enforcement on the streets is still in hands of police, though council car parks have in part been handed over to council attendants. Civilianised enforcement is coming apparently.
It's also clear that some, but not all councils on our patch, do set ticket targets to attendants, in fact some were fired* for not issuing the requisite number of tickets per day.
I'm the first person to criticise journalists for not letting the facts get in the way of a good story but in this case not sure it's scaremongering at all.
* Technically their probationary term of employment was not made permanent, however the reason for not doing so was made publically known as being due to repeated failure to issue the target quota of tickets. This was because they adopted the police strategy of warning people and advising them to move. Just one example, warning somebody that if they park over the boundaries of a bay they will be liable for a ticket, as opposed to letting the person park, pay and display ticket, then attaching FPN for aa wheel on/over white line.
Flat in Fifth said:
RichBurley said:
Some smoke and mirrors in that article.
On the one hand, the suggestion that the wardens hand out 100 tickets per hour. On the other hand, the suggestion, in the article, that wardens are more likely to issue tickets, than the police are. So which is it? More tickets, or less tickets?
Or a scaremongering article.
My money is on the scaremongering. Parking Wardens; they're such a soft target for a lazy journalist giving unecessary credence to "facts" that don't even make sense.
On the one hand, the suggestion that the wardens hand out 100 tickets per hour. On the other hand, the suggestion, in the article, that wardens are more likely to issue tickets, than the police are. So which is it? More tickets, or less tickets?
Or a scaremongering article.
My money is on the scaremongering. Parking Wardens; they're such a soft target for a lazy journalist giving unecessary credence to "facts" that don't even make sense.
No it's not saying they do hand out 100 tickets per hour but that the council recommends to the enforcement company that they should etc. It sounds like a target to me.
On our patch parking enforcement on the streets is still in hands of police, though council car parks have in part been handed over to council attendants. Civilianised enforcement is coming apparently.
It's also clear that some, but not all councils on our patch, do set ticket targets to attendants, in fact some were fired* for not issuing the requisite number of tickets per day.
I'm the first person to criticise journalists for not letting the facts get in the way of a good story but in this case not sure it's scaremongering at all.
* Technically their probationary term of employment was not made permanent, however the reason for not doing so was made publically known as being due to repeated failure to issue the target quota of tickets. This was because they adopted the police strategy of warning people and advising them to move. Just one example, warning somebody that if they park over the boundaries of a bay they will be liable for a ticket, as opposed to letting the person park, pay and display ticket, then attaching FPN for aa wheel on/over white line.
RichBurley said:
Some smoke and mirrors in that article.
On the one hand, the suggestion that the wardens hand out 100 tickets per hour. On the other hand, the suggestion, in the article, that wardens are more likely to issue tickets, than the police are. So which is it? More tickets, or less tickets?
Or a scaremongering article.
My money is on the scaremonering. Parking Wardens; they're such a soft target for a lazy journalist giving unecessary credence to "facts" that don't even make sense.
I saw the undercover documentary. On the one hand, the suggestion that the wardens hand out 100 tickets per hour. On the other hand, the suggestion, in the article, that wardens are more likely to issue tickets, than the police are. So which is it? More tickets, or less tickets?
Or a scaremongering article.
My money is on the scaremonering. Parking Wardens; they're such a soft target for a lazy journalist giving unecessary credence to "facts" that don't even make sense.
They are not a soft target, they are a total bunch of parasites who work to rigorous targets for commission, causing misery and distress to thousands of hard working innocent people every hour, motorists who on the one hand have been let down by a government unable to run a church bazaar, let alone a public transport system, and on the other hand by a government who preys on them using speed cameras and parking vermin, as all they do is struggle to work to support themselves and theoir families and pay about half their income in tax, and most of the rest in interest rates or rent.
The police enforced the law, parking attendents are about as low as speed camera operators in the human chain of existence. If they were all lined up against a wall and shot, I for once would not be sad.
Just think back to the freedoms we enjoyed in the 1970's to realise just how low the UK has now sunk.
Mon Ami Mate said:
Why does the Council need a target?
The council says it employs parking attendants in order to keep the roads flowing freely and car park occupancy turned over so as to continually provide spaces for new arrivals.
Fair enough, however a ticket target does not guarantee or work towards any of these, nor is it a measure of how effective the procedure is.
The council could argue that it is a measure of how effective or hard wrking it's employees or contractors are. However again this assumes that a certain level of law breaking takes place, and that by not issuing enough tickets the said employees are slacking. In the case mentioned the sacked employees maintained that there were insufficient offences for them to meet their target of 19.25 (why the .25?) average tickets per day without resorting to underhand means plus ignoring the part of their job spec which was clearly intended that they should move people on. Again a target in this context is meaningless.
The only reason for a numerical target is because a bean counter budgeted for a certain amount of income from parking enforcement.
Thus it is just about the money.
QED.
Don't forget, just to go off topic, that the London Kengestion charge would go completely bankrupt if it wasn't for the penalty charge income.
Flat in Fifth said:
Mon Ami Mate said:
Why does the Council need a target?
The council says it employs parking attendants in order to keep the roads flowing freely and car park occupancy turned over so as to continually provide spaces for new arrivals.
Fair enough, however a ticket target does not guarantee or work towards any of these, nor is it a measure of how effective the procedure is.
The council could argue that it is a measure of how effective or hard wrking it's employees or contractors are. However again this assumes that a certain level of law breaking takes place, and that by not issuing enough tickets the said employees are slacking. In the case mentioned the sacked employees maintained that there were insufficient offences for them to meet their target of 19.25 (why the .25?) average tickets per day without resorting to underhand means plus ignoring the part of their job spec which was clearly intended that they should move people on. Again a target in this context is meaningless.
The only reason for a numerical target is because a bean counter budgeted for a certain amount of income from parking enforcement.
Thus it is just about the money.
QED.
Mon Ami Mate said:
Why does the Council need a target?
That’s a good question. The council needs the wardens to do their job, otherwise the roads and short term car parks are clogged by rule breakers. If the wardens are strolling about reluctant to ticket anybody because of the abuse they get or because they are slack then some kind of management tactic is needed or there’s no point in having wardens. I assume the ticket target is related to an assessment of the number of illegally parked vehicles.
herewego said:
Mon Ami Mate said:
Why does the Council need a target?
That’s a good question. The council needs the wardens to do their job, otherwise the roads and short term car parks are clogged by rule breakers. If the wardens are strolling about reluctant to ticket anybody because of the abuse they get or because they are slack then some kind of management tactic is needed or there’s no point in having wardens. I assume the ticket target is related to an assessment of the number of illegally parked vehicles.
In general in these schemes, the stated objectives are to improve traffic flow, reduce the number of people illegally parking in residents' parking areas, etc, etc. The problem is that many of these aims are difficult to measure. It's much easier to measure a proxy for these, ie. the number of people ticketed. Unfortunately it was ever thus, eg. don't measure the police by crimes not committed, but instead on the number of people arrested and/or cleanup rate. Generally of course, you don't get what you want from these proxies, but in an atmosphere where management doesn't trust its employees to do what's actually required, the proxies at least prove they're doing something.
It reminds me of the old joke about the guy looking for his car keys under the streetlight. "Is this where you lost them?" "No, it was over there but there's no light there". It's the same with targets, and it happens in all companies. It's just it's more visible with front-line public sector jobs like traffic wardens and police. How do we fix it? Remove society's dependence on measurement for the sake of it! Expected level of success? Hmmm, good question....
Having sat in a number of those annoying little tribunal things (out of principle!! 
) and everytime I did, I won; I think I am in a good position to hate the B**tards that put on those nice little (oversized) uniforms.
My then MP even got involved at one point (Ken & Chel). I was continually getting tickets issued to my car and motorbike. On one occasion, the bike was parked at the end of a residents bay and had been knocked over by some muppet; into the adjacent metered space. Lying on its side, half in and half out, it was ticketed for failing to pay into the meter and penalty was displayed! All the while there was a valid residents permit on clear display.
They are scum and purely a money generating exercise. No more and no less.
If the money was not the objective, then stick more wardens on busy through routes and main roads rather than 5 per street in quite residents streets. Allow them to 'on the spot' huge tickets (backed by photo) of say £150 for stopping and causing a jam?
Now live in Westminster and they are just as bad, if not worse! (And I havent yet been called one but of I am ever referred to as a customer of the council I will punch someone)
Aaarrggghhhhhhhhh
) and everytime I did, I won; I think I am in a good position to hate the B**tards that put on those nice little (oversized) uniforms. My then MP even got involved at one point (Ken & Chel). I was continually getting tickets issued to my car and motorbike. On one occasion, the bike was parked at the end of a residents bay and had been knocked over by some muppet; into the adjacent metered space. Lying on its side, half in and half out, it was ticketed for failing to pay into the meter and penalty was displayed! All the while there was a valid residents permit on clear display.
They are scum and purely a money generating exercise. No more and no less.
If the money was not the objective, then stick more wardens on busy through routes and main roads rather than 5 per street in quite residents streets. Allow them to 'on the spot' huge tickets (backed by photo) of say £150 for stopping and causing a jam?
Now live in Westminster and they are just as bad, if not worse! (And I havent yet been called one but of I am ever referred to as a customer of the council I will punch someone)
Aaarrggghhhhhhhhh
Flat in Fifth said:
Don't forget, just to go off topic, that the London Kengestion charge would go completely bankrupt if it wasn't for the penalty charge income.
Yes, how does that work - take one potentially huge source of income, and set up such an inefficient empire to run it that you have to raise prices shortly after saying you wouldn't raise prices.
These socialists aren't inefficient at all, are they?!? And the last half of the 20th Century in Eastern Europe never really happened, did it?!?
Having re-read the article, I got the wrong end of the stick, earlier. But the fault is with the Council's that set the targets, not the people who issue the tickets, irrespective of whether issuing the ticket enables the target to be met, or not.
I personally think the problem with the system is that there is an inadequately explained appeals procedure, which gives people a reluctance to accept the ticket, because they feel "forced" into accepting the fine, whether it is justified, or not.
I think that if there was a streamlined appeals process, then people might actually eventually accept justified tickets, and unjustified tickets would get scrubbed. A bit like the difference between binge drinking, and european style "24 hour drinking".
I personally think the problem with the system is that there is an inadequately explained appeals procedure, which gives people a reluctance to accept the ticket, because they feel "forced" into accepting the fine, whether it is justified, or not.
I think that if there was a streamlined appeals process, then people might actually eventually accept justified tickets, and unjustified tickets would get scrubbed. A bit like the difference between binge drinking, and european style "24 hour drinking".
mechsympathy said:
herewego said:
I assume the ticket target is related to an assessment of the number of illegally parked vehicles.
A more reasonable assumption would be that the ticket target is related to an assessment of how much money is required to support their little empire.
I don't think so, but that might be how they decide how much to charge. Personally I don't want a parking free for all.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff