Open call for evidence

Restricting the generation of surplus funds from traffic contraventions

Published 17 March 2024

Applies to England

Ministerial foreword

Councils have powers to enforce traffic regulations in order to ensure that our roads are safe for all users and that people can move about without undue interference.  They are not an alternative way for local councillors to raise taxes, or decide who  gets to travel where. 

This call for evidence looks at an issue that even good councils, doing the right thing, are sometimes accused of – the suggestion that traffic management measures with penalty fees attached are there to raise money from motorists more than anything else. 

I want to hear the views of local councils, but also motorists, motoring organisations and the public in general on this issue. 

Should government remove any suggestion there is a “profit motive” for local councils – such as by requiring any surpluses that councils might generate from new charges to be repaid to His Majesty’s Treasury – after the costs of enforcement have been repaid? 

This seems an appealing solution – and is effectively how speeding fines operate already – but are there unexpected considerations that we should be considering? 

I would encourage everyone with an interest to have your say and ensure your thoughts are taken into account. 

Rt Hon Mark Harper MP 

Secretary of State for Transport

Introduction

The Secretary of State for Transport announced in the Plan for Drivers action to address concerns about several motoring matters, including councils generating surpluses from issuing penalty charge notices (PCNs) for contraventions of moving traffic restrictions. Examples of such traffic restrictions include: no entry, no left/no right turn, prohibited vehicles, unlawful entry into box junctions and driving in mandatory cycle lanes.  

These enforcement powers have a role to play in freeing up police time while helping councils to fulfil their network management duty through reduced traffic congestion, with consequent benefits to air quality, cycle safety and bus service punctuality. However, enforcement must be undertaken proportionately and not used as a means to raise revenue.  

Background

Since 2003, London councils have had moving traffic enforcement powers and the decision was taken in 2020 to make them available to local authorities elsewhere in England.  

Local councils know best where these powers are appropriate. If they want to use them they need to apply to the Secretary of State for Transport for permission. Only then can they begin enforcement using approved camera equipment. 

Statutory guidance requires that for the first 6 months of operation, councils issue only warning notices to first-time offenders. This also applies to any new camera location. 

So far, 52 local councils outside London have got these powers. Because not all councils have the powers yet, we understand that the level of detailed knowledge may differ, but welcome feedback from all councils. 

Local councils are required to act fairly. Regulations protect the rights of drivers to make representations against a PCN with the council and to appeal to an adjudicator if that is rejected. Adjudicators are independent lawyers whose appointments are subject to the consent of the Lord Chancellor. 

Local councils should operate to reduce genuinely dangerous and irresponsible driving. If councils come to rely on surpluses from enforcement to fund wider spending, this risks an incentive to take a disproportionate approach to technical or minor breaches by well-intentioned drivers.  

Ensuring proportionate enforcement of PCNs

Some drivers are concerned local authorities use PCNs too liberally, not to make our roads safer and easier to navigate, but to raise revenue. In London alone, more than 7 million PCNs were issued in the year ending March 2022, but in the 40,000-plus cases where drivers appealed, just under half (43%) were overturned. This call for evidence will help us to establish a clearer picture of existing local authority practices and as well as gathering ideas for how to make sure enforcement is proportionate and fair.  

As announced in the Plan for Drivers, this call for evidence is designed to help us: 

• gather evidence of current practice to inform possible policy proposals; and 
• explore options for restricting a local authority’s ability to generate surpluses from traffic contraventions

How to respond

See the Ways to respond section of the call for evidence page on GOV.UK to find out how you can respond to this call for evidence.

The call for evidence period began on 17 March 2024 and will run until 11:59pm on 11 May 2024. Please ensure that your response reaches us before the closing date.

What will happen next

Responses will help to inform further policy development work.

Paper copies will be available on request.

If you have questions about this call for evidence, email civiltrafficenforc@dft.gov.uk or write to us at:

Civil Traffic Enforcement team
Department for Transport
3rd Floor
Great Minster House
London, SW1P 4DR

Full list of questions

These questions are listed here to give you an overview of what we’re asking. Questions 6 to 36 are intended for local authorities only.

See the Ways to respond section of the GOV.UK home page for this call for evidence for an online response form and other ways to respond.

1. What is your name?  

 2. What is your email address?  

 3. Are you responding on behalf of an organisation?

 4. Your organisation name is?  

5. Is your organisation a local authority?

6. For your most recent financial accounts, how much (a) income, (b) expenditure and (c) surplus or deficit was allocated to:

• all civil traffic enforcement
• moving traffic enforcement (including yellow box junctions)
• yellow box junctions enforcement only
• bus lane enforcement
• parking enforcement

7. What financial year do these figures relate to?

8. Provide a link to your published financial accounts.

9. For your 2019 to 2020 financial accounts, how much (a) income, (b) expenditure and (c) surplus or deficit was allocated to:

• all civil traffic enforcement
• moving traffic enforcement (including yellow box junctions)
• yellow box junctions enforcement only
• bus lane enforcement
• parking enforcement

10. For your most recent financial accounts, what was the (a) name and location and (b) percentage of total enforcement income from each type of enforcement raised by each of the top 3 sites for:

• moving traffic site with the highest enforcement income (include the specific contravention code/suffix)
• moving traffic site with the second highest enforcement income (include the specific contravention code/suffix)
• moving traffic site with the third highest enforcement income (include the specific contravention code/suffix)
• bus lanes with the highest enforcement income
• bus lanes with the second highest enforcement income
• bus lanes with the third highest enforcement income
• parking site with the highest enforcement income
• parking site with the second highest enforcement income
• parking site with the third highest enforcement income

11. What financial year do these figures relate to?

12. Provide a link to your published accounts.

13. For your 2019 to 2020 financial accounts, what was the (a) name and location and (b) percentage of total enforcement income from each type of enforcement raised by each of the top 3 sites for:

• moving traffic site with the highest enforcement income (include the specific contravention code/suffix)
• moving traffic site with the second highest enforcement income (include the specific contravention code/suffix)
• moving traffic site with the third highest enforcement income (include the specific contravention code/suffix)
• bus lanes with the highest enforcement income
• bus lanes with the second highest enforcement income
• bus lanes with the third highest enforcement income
• parking site with the highest enforcement income
• parking site with the second highest enforcement income
• parking site with the third highest enforcement income

14. Do you review the effectiveness of the design and signing of moving traffic, bus lane and parking measures once they have been implemented?

15. In the past 5 years, how many times have you reviewed the effectiveness of the design and signing of each site you have listed in your answer to question 10?

16. Where your local authority made an overall surplus on parking, bus lane or moving traffic enforcement, how was it spent (specify the 3 projects or schemes with the highest costs in each category, including the value of each scheme or project, and whether they were partly or wholly funded by a surplus) in terms of:

• using surpluses to cover any losses from civil enforcement activity in the past 4 years 
• meeting costs incurred in the provision or operation of, or of facilities for, public passenger transport services   
• highway improvement projects   
• environmental improvements (does not apply to bus lane enforcement and moving traffic enforcement inside London only)   
• costs of anything that facilitates the implementation of the London transport strategy 
• road maintenance (for moving traffic offences inside London only)   
• contribution(s) to another authority for any of the above purposes (for moving traffic and bus lane offences inside London only) 
• other

17. If any surpluses generated were required to be repaid to His Majesty’s Treasury, what would be the consequence for your local authority in terms of:

• civil enforcement practices
• schemes and projects that are partly or wholly funded by surpluses

18. What are the reasons for your local authority making a surplus?

19. If your local authority made an overall deficit in question 6 how was this loss managed?

20. What are the reasons for your local authority making a deficit?

21. For each financial year within your medium-term financial strategy, describe whether you expect your civil traffic enforcement activities to deliver an overall:

• surplus
• deficit
• neither surplus nor deficit (cost neutral)

Explain your answer.

22. If your local authority enforces yellow box junctions, how many yellow box junction enforcement cameras were in operation on 1 June 2019 and on 1 June for each year up to 2023?

23. For the year of your most recent financial accounts (the same years you entered for question 6), how many of the following were attributed to (a) moving traffic, (b) bus lanes and (c) parking:

• PCNs issued
• PCNs that were unchallenged and paid
• challenges and representations (pre-appeals stage)
• PCNs cancelled as a result of challenges and representations at the pre-appeal stage
• PCNs upheld as a result of challenges and representations at the pre-appeal stage

24. What financial year do these figures relate to?

25. Provide a link to your published financial accounts.

26. For your 2019 to 2020 financial accounts, how many of the following were attributed to (a) moving traffic, (b) bus lanes and (c) parking:

• PCNs issued
• PCNs that were unchallenged and paid
• challenges and representations (pre-appeals stage)
• PCNs cancelled as a result of challenges and representations at the pre-appeal stage
• PCNs upheld as a result of challenges and representations at the pre-appeal stage

27. What were the common reasons for your local authority to accept drivers’ representations and challenges for:

• moving traffic
• bus lanes
• parking

28. What were the common reasons for your local authority to reject drivers’ representations and challenges for:

• moving traffic
• bus lanes
• parking

29. Describe any ideas you have for measures that would help drivers comply with moving traffic, yellow box junctions, bus lanes or parking restrictions.

30. How lenient do you feel your local authority is when conducting moving traffic enforcement?

31. How lenient do you feel your local authority is when conducting yellow box junction enforcement?

32. How lenient do you feel your local authority is when conducting bus lane enforcement?

33. How lenient do you feel your local authority is when conducting parking enforcement?

34. When reviewing yellow box junction enforcement activity, what action does your local authority take at locations where you identify that a disproportionately high number of PCNs are issued at a particular location?

• do nothing
• review traffic flow
• review junction layout
• review traffic signing
• we do not monitor the number of PCNs being issued
• review enforcement practices
• other

35. In the first 6 months of moving traffic enforcement, how many warning notices for first-time contraventions did you issue?

36. Describe any lessons learnt over the period when you issued warning notices and actions you took as a result?

37. Do you consider that current civil traffic enforcement by local authorities is fair for:

• moving traffic (excluding yellow box junctions)
• yellow box junctions
• bus lanes
• parking

38. If you disagreed or strongly disagreed that moving traffic enforcement was fair, describe how moving traffic enforcement could be made fairer.

39. If you disagreed or strongly disagreed that yellow box junction enforcement was fair, describe how yellow box junction enforcement could be made fairer.

40. If you disagreed or strongly disagreed that bus lane enforcement was fair, describe how bus lane enforcement could be made fairer.

41. If you disagreed or strongly disagreed that parking enforcement was fair, describe how parking enforcement could be made fairer.

42. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement – “restricting local authorities’ ability to generate a surplus would make traffic enforcement fairer”?

43. Why do you think this?

44. Do you have ideas for restricting a local authority’s ability to generate surpluses from traffic contraventions?

45. Describe any ideas you have for measures that would help drivers comply with moving traffic, yellow box junction, bus lane or parking restrictions.

Freedom of information

Information provided in response to this call for evidence, including personal information, may be subject to publication or disclosure in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, under the FOIA, there is a statutory code of practice with which public authorities must comply and which deals, among other things, with obligations of confidence.

In view of this, it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information, we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, in itself, be regarded as binding on the Department for Transport (DfT).

DfT will process your personal data in accordance with the Data Protection Act (DPA) and, in the majority of circumstances, this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties.

Data protection

DfT is carrying out this call for evidence to gather evidence on restricting the generation of surplus funds from traffic contraventions. This call for evidence and the processing of personal data that it entails is necessary for the exercise of our functions as a government department. If your answers contain any information that allows you to be identified, DfT will, under data protection law, be the controller for this information.

As part of this call for evidence process, we’re asking for your name and email address. This is in case we need to ask you follow-up questions about any of your responses. You do not have to give us this personal information. If you do provide it, we will use it only for the purpose of asking follow-up questions.

DfT’s privacy policy has more information about your rights in relation to your personal data, how to complain and how to contact the Data Protection Officer.

Your information will be kept securely on a secure IT system within DfT and destroyed within 12 months after the call for evidence process has been completed.

Call for evidence principles

This call for evidence is being conducted in line with the government’s consultation principles.

If you have any comments about the call for evidence process, contact:

Consultation Co-ordinator
Department for Transport
Zone 1/29 Great Minster House
London, SW1P 4DR

Email consultation@dft.gsi.gov.uk