Agenda item

 

To consider the levels of performance and agree the importance of enhanced enforcement and visibility.

Councillor Hoddinott, Cabinet Member, together with Tom Smith, Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene, and Lewis Coates, Regulation and Enforcement Manager, presented an update in relation to the ‘Time for Action’ initiative which provided for a mechanism to deliver enhanced enforcement around enviro-crime particularly littering offences and parking offences.

 

The report set out Service delivery performance together with a number of challenges that were currently being addressed.

 

Contract management arrangements were different for the delivery of enviro-crime and parking enforcement.  For littering and dog fouling the contract was wholly managed by Doncaster Borough Council; for parking enforcement additional resources were provided through the contract, however, the processing of Parking Penalty Charge Notices and payments was managed within Rotherham Council’s existing provisions.

 

The report set out updates relating to:-

 

·           Delivery targets/Service Level Agreement

·           Improving Places Select Commission recommendations

·           Staffing

·           Reporting

·           Performance

·           Cancelled fines, representations and complaints

·           Prosecutions

·           Parking enforcement

 

Discussion ensued with the following issues raised/clarified:-

 

-          The money arising from a fine was split between Rotherham and Doncaster – if Doncaster was collecting a £80 fine and Rotherham only getting £7 that meant Doncaster was getting a larger cut of the profits?

 

The fine paid for the resource on the ground that issued the fine plus the cost of Doncaster to administer the control.  The vast majority of the fine did go to those who actually issued it because that was where the cost was.  Doncaster was not making a big profit out of the contract but was something mutually benefitting both authorities.

 

-          Litter and dog fouling patrol locations – why was there such a disproportionate amount of patrols v fines in January as opposed to May?  Who decided where the patrols would take place?

 

Councillors could submit requests from residents in terms of where the patrols should be.  The column on the Appendix was the ratio of patrols v the number of fines issued.

 

One of the main objectives of the initiative was to get patrols into areas and have a visible presence.  Work was taking place with the contractor regarding the spread of patrols.

 

-          Could Members be informed of when there would be patrols in their area?

 

       Communications data and intelligence was one of the recommendations that was not up and running as yet.  There was the ability to get data out for the reports but there was still work to be done on the systems to get it on a continuous basis.

 

       There was a new supervisor in place now who would drive that information.

 

-          There was a big issue with parked vehicles at night in certain areas of the Borough.  The optimum time to catch them would be at the weekend.

 

Parking enforcement was carried out 7 days a week.

 

-          Were there any figures on outlaying visits from officers?

 

Appendix 1 of the report set out the fines of patrols.  It was still an area for development.  Patrols had visited everywhere from a Ward perspective but there was agreement in the arrangement that there was more working out of the town centre than was currently reflected in the figures.  Work was taking place with the contractor to increase that.

 

-          When cases do not get paid they were taken into the Single Justice Court. Unfortunately these Courts had standard amounts for victim surcharge.  Was there any data on what had been charged on how many Rotherham residents who probably could not pay?

 

The Single Justice System was brought in to deal with large number of cases.  Feedback would suggest that the Court system were struggling with the number of cases given the cuts that had been introduced.

 

The Service had the full listing of each individual case and the cost to that individual.  There was a standard fee, however, some were increased depending upon circumstances.  Nothing had been received so far from the Citizens Advice Bureau stating that someone was facing hardship due to the fine. 

 

-          How would you treat vulnerable individuals who were repeatedly offending?

 

It was clearly set out within the arrangement that all staff issuing tickets were trained in Safeguarding and vulnerabilities.  Where a vulnerable individual came to light after the fine was issued it was taken into account and the fine cancelled.

 

One measure for the Council was the complaint figures which were compared to previous years; 2 complaints had been upheld in the first year of operation which reflected the slightly more measured approach being taken by the operator.

 

-          Was there a bonus scheme for individuals for the issuing of fines?

 

It was difficult to comment upon the terms and conditions of staff employed by Kingdom, however, the Council would not encourage a contractor to have a bonus scheme in place.

 

-          How simple would you say the appeals system was?  Was it simple enough for people to approach and was it a quick process to turn round and if not could you look at it again and make it simple?

 

There was a quick appeal process.

 

Members of the public could submit a complaint into the Council.  It could be via a telephone call from the individual/family member/friend and would then be passed onto the staff at Doncaster who would review that particular fine.  When looking at the representations that had been made and the scrutiny that Doncaster had conducted into the fines, the number that had been overturned indicated that they were scrutinising them correctly.

 

-          How did the contract managed by Doncaster MCB for littering and dog fouling link with the Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) and if so how did the public differentiate between them?

 

The contract did not enforce Rotherham’s Public Space Protection Order; that was separate.  The PSPO was currently enforced by the Police and Council Officers.  It possibly could in the future but currently was not.

 

-          The Select Commission had made some recommendations but nowhere did it state which you had agreed to be implemented and which were not and if not why not.

 

All the recommendations had been agreed and taken forward; the submitted report was the progress made against them.  Not all the recommendations were completed particularly around Communications and talking to Councillors which was still progressing.

 

-          How did the general public know who it was they were being fined by?

 

Any officer issuing someone with a Fixed Penalty Notice had to identify themselves and who they represented so the person receiving the fine would clearly know who it was issuing the fine.  It was quite difficult for people to differentiate who it was (Kingdom or RMBC) but it was about visibility of people undertaking enforcement work.  It was part of the Service Level Agreement that there was not too much differentiation because it was about public seeing someone undertaking enforcement. 

 

-          What was a patrol?

 

One officer that went to Anston and Dinnington would count as one patrol; if two officers went it would be two patrols.  Each individual Officer’s patrol would be counted against each individual area that that Officer visited.

 

-          Who set the target for littering and why was it so high?

 

It had been drawn from the pilot.  It would continue to be reviewed.  

 

-          Why was the loss of a patrol vehicle allowed to go on for so long?

 

This was an issue of the contractor and the resources available; it had taken sometime to source a new vehicle and had taken officer patrols out of the districts. 

 

Resolved:-  (1)  That the update be noted.

 

(2)  That the levels of performance be noted and the importance of enhanced enforcement and visibility agreed.

 

(3)  That a further update be submitted in 6 months.