Forum Topic

Parking Fines "Top Ten" Boroughs

The top 10 earners are as follows:1. Westminster £41.6 million2. Kensington & Chelsea £28.1 million3. Camden (north London) £25.0 million4. Hammersmith and Fulham (west London) £19.5 million5. Wandsworth (south west London) £16.1 million6. Brighton and Hove £14.4 million7. Islington (north London) £10.9 million8. Cornwall £7.9 million9. Newham (east London) £7.3 million10. Hounslow (west London) £7.3 million

Paul Scullion ● 4389d13 Comments

[also posted in ChiswickW4, as David's making the same propaganda point in both places this morning]Would you, David, prefer to live under Hounslow's parking charges or Hammersmith and Fulham's?One question, two possible answers. Do let us know.

Thomas Barry ● 4388d

Yes David...exactly what has already happened in Tory Hammersmith and Fulham. In spades...

Keith Iddon ● 4388d

I expect parking charges will continue to rise in Hounslow under the Labour Council's new privatisation of parking enforcement by outsourcing to Serco. There will be pressure for higher charges, higher fines, stricter enforcement and more unnecessary CPZ's.This is bad for local residents, local workers and local businesses.

David Giles ● 4388d

Except Ealing which does have an expensive parking service ( up 300% in just 2 years) comes 50th.Equally big borough but has one of the highest rates of refunds from successful objections.Ealing, Brent and Hounslow Parking is to be merged and operated by Serco who are already pushing for large hikes in charges, permits restrictions and visitor permit charges.It has to be remembered that Parking in particular CPZs are supposed to be a resident led service for and on behalf of residents and not in any way a profit led system for the corporation.That is the simple point being raised.

Raymond Havelock ● 4388d

"The top 10 earners are as follows:"Need to be a bit careful what we're talking about here - this is not 'fines', but entire parking income - (on-street, off-street, permits, PCNs), and in fact the table above is titled 'surplus before capital charges', nothing to do with fines.  For the record, Hounslow is: - 10th on the list for surplus before capital charges - 17th on the list for surplus after capital charges - 21st on the list for gross income - 15th on the list for penalty incomeHowever, you'd have known all of this if you'd read the report. You have read the report, I trust?http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation/content/downloadables/local_authority_parking_finances_report_david_leibling_010813.pdfThere are a number of odd things about this story, firstly the conflation of 'profit' with 'surplus before capital charges' but mainly the concentration on actual cash rather than percentage, which means a small borough making twice as much as it costs to run parking is hidden below places like Hounslow which make a smaller % over and above the huge costs of running parking in a London borough.

Thomas Barry ● 4388d

The question was how would you get them to recognise that, as in how would you get them to vote for it?

Keith Iddon ● 4389d

Keith - there will always be some who don't get it just like there will always be a minority who think it is acceptable to cordon a bit of road off as reserved parking. But there are many who do do the right thing - I know two sets of elderly people who send back their winter fuel allowance each year because they don't need it.

Chris Broadbent ● 4389d

I broadly agree Christopher but how would you get them to 'recognise that the argument that they use less of the services is irrelevant'?

Keith Iddon ● 4389d

Vanessa totally agree - if people want decent services then they should pay and the richer should pay more (and recognise that the argument that they use less of the services is irrelevant.The quid pro quo being that services need to be delivered efficiently and robustly managed to ensue value for money (which is different from the cheapest is best).

Chris Broadbent ● 4389d

Sadly low Council Tax has become the Holy Grail for both major parties, to the extent that intelligent discussion about the relative merits and demerits of it by comparison with other streams of income and expenditure has become more or less impossible.I actually do believe there are circumstances in which it is possible to do more with less - up to a point - but once a local authority has been "pruned" to remove any unnecessary wastage that has accrued over the years that is pretty much it, any further assault on the budget must inevitably be at the expense of valuable services and the only remaining question to be asked is just how valuable they are.Keith's example of how a single parking ticket wipes out the benefit of even a substantial reduction in Council Tax well demonstrates how over-sensitive we have all become on this particular issue.

Phil Andrews ● 4389d

No argument here. I would much rather see ct stay the same or even a small increase if that went hand in hand with aggressive pursuit of ct evaders and improved services to boot.

Keith Iddon ● 4389d

Which just goes to show Keith that it's all smoke and mirrors. The lesson being, if you want services you have to pay for them. I think this dishonest nonsense of kidding people that we all save if the council tax is kept down is, b****cks. I don't put all the blame on the local authorities they have been put in an invidious position by the government.

Vanessa Smith ● 4389d

That's a really startling tale of the tape...In some of these, maybe even all for I know, there has been a reduction in council tax. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to see that they have aggressively imposed and pursued these charges to make up and no doubt exceed the reduction in revenue. A 3% reduction for most ct payers would be more than lost with just one parking ticket or being caught in a box jct.

Keith Iddon ● 4389d