Conclusion
Creating a Scottish Contravention Code List
75% of responders agreed that an equivalent list should be created for Scotland. Common themes surrounding the agreement were that it potentially could make contraventions clearer for drivers throughout the UK and reduce confusion. In addition this could also provide better analysis of UK parking and help inform future legislation.
However, 25% had disagreed. A few responders had suggested that our suggestion of amending the list through guidance is too easily brought about without due consultation.
All 18 of the local authorities, that took part in this questionnaire had agreed that a graduated scale would reflect the severity of the contravention it would be appropriate.
Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 Contraventions
Question 4 had asked participants if the newly introduced parking contraventions from the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, (pavement parking, double parking and parking over a dropped kerb) should be considered as a higher contravention.
72% or responders agreed with this proposal with clear themes emerging to support this from comments provided. The majority of responders had suggested that this would help tackle inconsiderate parking and would put cyclists and pedestrians the forefront of parking policy.
28% disagreed with the proposal and noted that there was insufficient parking provided from councils or from planning developers and puts drivers in a difficult position when choosing a location to park.
Organisations such as logistics companies had suggested that local authorities need to do more to adequately mark out available parking space.
Penalty Charge Notice Increase
Questions 2 and 3 examined the public’s opinion on a proposal to increase PCN’s and also examined what costs these should be charged at.
When concerning question 2, 70% of respondents agreed that PCN’s should be increased. Some arguments for the increase were; it was cheaper to take the fine than park in a private car park and it is believed to not be a sufficient deterrent to the average motorist.
Arguments against the increase (30%) were; it is not the correct time to introduce fines as public / businesses are recovering from a pandemic and that an increase in fines could put financial pressure on motorists.
Suggestions were also received that repeat offenders should only incur the increase as the majority of motorists have made a genuine mistake.
It is clear that from the evidence presented that the majority wish for fines to be increased. However what is not clear is what level they should be set at.
Question 3 had proposed two options. ‘Proposal a’ suggested an increase which would bring the fine up to the inflation standard of 2021. ‘Proposal b’ suggested an inflation increase and an added cost which would act as a deterrent. A third option was presented as ‘Proposal c’ which was for none of the proposals but offered the respondent to present a proposal that they thought would be more sufficient.
12% of respondents had opted for ‘Proposal a’. Comments received for this were that inflation increase was enough, however, PCN’s should be reviewed on a regular basis. All other proposals were a financial burden on motorists and any higher would be more expensive than a private car park.
51% had opted for ‘Proposal b’. Comments received were that a larger fine would act as a suitable deterrent to stop motorists from reoffending. This would also mean less PCN’s would be issued. In addition some responses had explained that the offences should be equal to the distressed caused to the public for blocking pavements and being inconsiderate when parking.
37% opted for ‘Proposal c’. Common proposal themes received were that increase should only be for repeat offenders and we should keep the fines as is. Fines should be income proportionate and some respondents had suggested that fines should be much higher than what was proposed.
Negative Implications
Question 5 had asked motorists if they anticipated any negative impacts from the proposals presented.
52% had said ‘yes’ with 46% saying ‘no’.
Some suggestions received were that there may be some negative behaviour from motorists towards enforcement officers. There was also clear suggestion that the media would portray this change unfavourably and that motorists would also be financially impacted unnecessarily.
Next Steps
The findings of this public consultation analysis and the responses received will help inform Ministerial decisions on a number of areas. As such we are likely to see developments over the course of the coming months on the creation of a Scottish Contravention Code List; the new parking offences contained within the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 and on what level Ministers deem appropriate for the levels of fine associated with Penalty Charge Notices.
< Previous | Contents | Next >