Agenda item

Cabinet agreed to extend the contract with District Enforcement Limited for the enforcement of the Council’s PSPO and littering offences for a further 48 months.

Decision

Cabinet agreed to extend the contract with District Enforcement Limited for the enforcement of the Council’s PSPO and littering offences for a further 48 months.

Corporate Priorities

A clean, safe and enjoyable environment; Ensuring efficient, effective and modern service delivery.

Statutory Officer Comments:

Monitoring Officer:

The Council has a lawful basis for issuing fixed penalty notices pursuant to the powers highlighted in the report. Utilising a private contractor to enforce environmental offences has proven to be an effective means to enforce and prevent the reoccurrence of anti-social behaviour in the relevant areas and it is therefore appropriate that the contract be extended.

S151 Officer:

The proposal to award a longer term contract to an external contractor to facilitate the enforcement of the Council’s PSPOs and littering offences, would be the most cost-effective option to maintain the current service provision. The proposal to fund the PSPO enforcement through utilising the FPN income is sustainable and in line with the medium term financial planning for this service.

Advice

Cllr Banks introduced the report and invited questions.

Cllr Elliot referred to page 88 and the figure of 1553 abandoned vehicles and asked, is that our responsibility or DVLA?

RLebrun advised it is dependant on the reason for abandonment, if they are taxed and insured and abandoned, it is us.  If it is not taxed it is the DVLA.

Cllr Elliot asked does that have to be on our land?

RLebrun advised it has to be on open land, if the land owner gives permission we can deal with the issue even if it is not on our land.

Cllr Griffiths asked, if it is taxed and insured, how is it abandoned?

RLebrun advised it depends on the state of the car, if it is unsafe/burnt out etc we can view that as abandoned.  However we cannot consider a vehicle abandoned just because someone is unhappy about where a car has been left parked. 

Cllr Tindall referred to the notices you sometimes see on windscreen that obscures driver from driving away and asked; are we in a position, if all the indications are it is potentially an abandoned vehicle, to put a sticker on the vehicle and then after a set number days remove the vehicle?  Cllr Tindall also queried; when does a vehicle that is parked become potential fly tipping?

RLebrun advised yes a notice could be placed, it depends on if we deem the car to represent immediate harm.  If we assess a vehicle as safe but potentially abandoned, we attempt to contact the owner, there is a period to be satisfied before the vehicle can be removed.  Under the environmental protection act, a car parked in a legal way would not class as a fly tip.

Cllr Tindall suggested if it is on the pavement it would not be legal?

RLebrun advised if it is not parked legally you can pursue under legality of the parking, but it would not necessarily be considered a fly tip. 

Cllr Griffiths commented that the information in the report is fascinating and it has been very useful to see the information broken down by ward.

Cllr Elliot referred to Page 89; the breakdown of challenges and representation, noting the number of challenges accepted amounted to 25% and asked; are we able to benchmark against other authorities to ascertain if this is a normal figure?

RLebrun advised he does not have a benchmark with other authorities but advised that in his own experience, that percentage is common.  There can be various reasons such as the age of the offender, not being able to confirm the details of the offender etc, so a number of reasons why a penalty might be withdrawn.

Recommendations agreed