The parking postcode lottery – should councils tow the line?

It should be the case that the nett revenue [any overall surplus after enforcement and administration costs] from parking fines and permit parking schemes makes a major contribution to the council tax account and therefore benefits council-taxpayers. Strictly speaking, councils are not supposed to be making profits from parking violations and control zones – they were expected to break even taking one year with another so although they should not run at a loss they should not be continuosly accumulating surplus funds. Any surplus funds that due accrue are then intended to be ring-fenced for the improvement of off-street parking, highway safety, public transport, cycling and such like. Under this system, the funding for a whole lot of highway-related spending [including maintenance] has moved from the general account to the parking revenue account which means that the council tax could be lowered. But is it? Alternatively, better and more extensive public services could be provided. But are they? In practice, schemes funded from the parking account have become gold-plated and extravagant in an attempt to use the money and justify the parking enforcement; parking enforcement operations have become administratively expensive and over-zealous, and the managements have become bloated [if the private sector is involved some of this is not readily apparent in physical form because the fat has been converted into executive bonuses and shareholders’ profits]. In consequence of all this
we have permit schemes with excessively high charges and restrictive rules to draw in more money from visitors, tradesmen, and second-car owners; waiting restrictions with complicated variations to catch people out, and squads of roving enforcers – backed-up by tow-trucks – determined to protect their jobs. I have always believed that society works best when money is left in the pockets of the people and not washed through the mires of municipal bureaucracy with no doubt well-intentioned but doomed attempts at benevolent redistribution for “benefits” we were not seeking and payrolls for superfluous officials.

Once councils or their contractors have made the considerable investment in a tow-away vehicle and its specialised crews, leased a car pound, and set up the extensive back-office systems to support tow-away activity with its 24hr reclaim procedures and payment facilities, it is obvious that the operation is not going to be allowed to remain idle for much of the time. To earn its keep each tow-truck probably has to lift several cars a day off the streets and – as drivers become more canny and avoid the more obvious parking contraventions – the enforcement operatives will be on the look-out for more and more borderline infractions and give unsustainable reasons for removing a vehicle.