To comment on the report to be considered by Cabinet on the 26 January 2017.

MINUTES

resolved unanimously that: the Part II minutes of the meeting held on 24 January 2017 be approved.

Delivering Differently COMMUNITIES DIRECTORATE – CIVIL ENFORCEMENT SERVICES

(Not for publication by virtue of Paragraph 2, 3, 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972)

Councillor Cox introduced the report and stated the report proposed a new operating model which was required due to the parking rules in the Borough becoming more complicated. Members had asked for various parking schemes within their wards and it was more difficult to police.

The proposal was to contract parking enforcement to a private company called NSL Ltd for two years with an extension of a further two years and then for a further one year. It was a short term contract. The company would be able to deal with issues of resilience such as holiday and sickness cover and would also be able to increase the volume of patrols. NSL Ltd would also be able to rectify the time lag currently experienced when uploading data.

The contract would cost £837,319 per annum which was approximately £33,000 less than the Borough currently spent on the service. The service would also be able to deploy officers more effectively with better technology and more staff being deployed. If the Borough provided the same level of service offered by NSL, it would cost over £1m and would raise the current civil enforcement officer FTE level from 18 to 24.

A pilot was run in 2016 and covered Maidenhead Town Centre and Cookham which was a rural area. At the start of the pilot, there was an increase in tickets issued but with a lesser error rate. Towards the end of the pilot, the volume of tickets issued reduced as compliance rates increased.

Councillor Cox stated the trial was a success and supported the proposals. There had been concerns that NSL Ltd would incentivise issuing parking tickets but, there was no incentive for that in the contract. Instead, the contract incentivised accuracy levels so that tickets issued were issued correctly. If NSL ltd issued tickets incorrectly on a large scale, the council could withhold a percentage of the contract fee.

NSL Ltd had a good reputation in the industry and Officers were asked if there were any incidents where a local authority had revoked a contract from NSL Ltd; the answer was no and other local authorities had continued to renew contracts with NSL Ltd.

The proposal was what was best for the council with savings to be achieved whilst providing a better service for residents. The uniforms for the enforcement officers would still be branded with the RBWM logo but might also have an additional logo for NSL Ltd.

Andy Jeffs, Executive Director - Communities confirmed that all net income raised from tickets issued would need to be reinvested into highways and transport projects. He added that paragraph 2.3 in the report listed all the functions that NSL Ltd were to carry out.

Maidenhead and Cookham were chosen for the pilot because the areas were close together but also very different. 2,432 more tickets were issued compared to when the council’s own civil enforcement officers were issuing parking fines. The increase was down to the efficiency of NSL Ltd and also being able to cover a larger area.

There were three bidders for the contract, one fell away straight away, a second potential bidder did not meet the minimum mandatory requirements of the contract and that left NSL Ltd. Paperwork had been submitted through the normal processes and three companies showed interest.

Councillor Sharma stated there should have been a pilot across the whole Borough. Councillor Cox stated the pilot was carried out with an urban Town Centre setting and a rural setting. If the Panel were supportive of the paper that would effectively approve a wider Borough pilot as the contract was only for two years; therefore the Borough would see the full effect of the contract.

The Chairman stated that if the Borough spent an extra £180k, it could provide an equivalent service in house, but by using NSL Ltd, the Borough was saving £33k. He added he was aware of the negative press NSL Ltd had received. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) had stated that NSL Ltd were predatory and in Westminster, the council had filmed NSL Ltd using cars to block other cars in so that tickets could be issued. He added that the report was not balanced and he had found the negative comments on google after doing a quick search. The Chairman stated he wanted to know how much the council would make in fines by using NSL Ltd. The Executive Director - Communities confirmed that paragraph 4.4 of the report showed additional income raised if NSL Ltd were to carry out the service which was estimated as more than £450k than if the council kept the service in house or, chose to leave the service as it was. This was due to NSL being able to enforce all areas fully.

The Executive Director - Communities stated he did not know how much revenue the council was currently raising with the service being in house but he had used an average cost of a ticket at £45 in the pilot area. Councillor Bowden stated that there were nine complaints throughout the pilot which equated to 0.9%. it was a low figure but, if the pilot had been carried out in Windsor, the number of complaints would have been much higher. The Executive Director - Communities confirmed there was a get out clause in the contract if the Borough was not happy with the service. NSL Ltd also had the option to withdraw from the contract.

The Executive Director - Communities confirmed that the contract included the coach parks in Windsor and that NSL would enforce the expanding level of different resident parking permit schemes and would also enforce vehicles blocking garages, parking on pavements and across dropped kerbs. Councillor Cox confirmed that if a vehicle was parked on the pavement where pedestrians could not get past, a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) would be issued. If parked on the pavement but not restricting pedestrians, NSL Ltd officers would have a word so that they can enforce the contract appropriately.

Councillor Cox confirmed that although parking permit schemes in some areas of the Borough had been implemented in an ad hoc way, the current agreement on parking would be honoured and enforced in the same way. He added that at some point in the future, he wanted to sit with Ward Members and produce an agreement that would make enforcement easier.

Councillor Bowden suggested a survey of all parking signage should be carried out prior to the contract beginning in December 2017 so that everything was in place and ready. He added that during the Changing of the Guard in Windsor, an enforcement officer should be present as a mandatory arrangement within the contract. The Executive Director - Communities stated that it was stipulated within the contract and also covered state visits, mayoral events and the Changing of the Guard.

Councillor Cox confirmed that there would be a communications and marketing plan for the start of the contract to make residents aware of the changes to the service. He added that during the last flood event, the council’s enforcement officers helped out and were great at assisting the council in managing the event; NSL had agreed to offer the same level of service as part of their contract.

Councillor cox confirmed that he was aware of the disabled blue badge abuse and that he would ensure that NSL Ltd were also made aware of those issues so that they could enforce where necessary. He stated that disabled parking facilities would remain as they were. The Executive Director - Communities stated that the council’s enforcement officers would be TUPED over to NSL so staffing levels would not be reduced. NSL also had a pool of 30 FTE officers that they could deploy during major events or when necessary across all their contracts. As a minimum, there would be at least the same level of feet on the ground as currently provided and if the Borough required more, more could be deployed.

Councillor Beer queried whether or not there was enough space for NSL Ltd to be based at Tinkers Lane Depot. The Executive Director - Communities  confirmed that the current staff were mainly deployed from Tinkers Lane and there was also an office at the Nicholsons Centre that was used. When the Nicholsons Development was redeveloped, there would be enough space at Tinkers Lane for all the enforcement staff.

Councillor Cox confirmed that the contract would be awarded at the end of July 2017 but then there would be time to tweak the contract if required before the contract began on 1 December 2017.

Councillor Cox confirmed that the council was not changing the current service to make money. By changing the service, the council would be able to enforce areas that have not been regularly enforced up till now. The areas with parking problems included people parking in residential streets around car parks with residents complaining that they were not being enforced. The council also received complaints during major events such as Ascot as the councils resources were often deployed elsewhere with a skeletal service being provided to the rest of the Borough to cope. With additional staff from NSL Ltd, the whole Borough could be enforced. Councillor Cox added that he would be happy if the financial figure for PCN’s reduced because that would mean that there would be less complaints due to people parking more responsibly. As more people moved into the area and want parking outside their homes, the council needed more officers to enforce the parking arrangements. He would like to see the number of fines reduced as that would mean the system was working.

The Chairman stated the report indicated the Borough was unable to use the contract as a vehicle to make money; however, if there was more income in excess of £1m, why did the Borough need the scheme. The Executive Director - Communities confirmed that table two in the report showed that from August 2016 there was a high volume of PCNs issued; following the pilot, the number of PCNs reduced as people were more compliant; therefore, the council would not be making any more money than it already was.

Councillor Cox requested the information that the Chairman discovered on the negative press received by NSL Ltd so that he could look into it. He then added that in paragraph 5.3 of the report, it stated that any income made from the scheme could only be spent in a specific way in reinvesting in the highways and transport of the Borough. The Executive Director - Communities stated the Borough spent over £2m on roads and highways which was far greater than the income that would be made in fines.

The Executive Director - Communities confirmed that NSL would be able to enforce untaxed and abandoned vehicles. He stated that in terms of the what the money could be spent on from the income received, it was not possible to be specific which areas within highways and transport it would go towards; however, it would mean that the council would need less bids for capital funds.

RESOLVED: That the Panel endorsed the report and recommendations to Cabinet.

Parish Councillor Pat McDonald abstained from the vote.