Transfer of bus lane camera offence processing to Transport for London (TfL)

Report: 5
Date: 20 February 2001
By: Commissioner

Summary

TfL is planning to apply a decriminalised procedure to bus lane offences captured on camera (i.e. driving in a bus lane) and has asked if the MPS wishes to retain the processing function for these offences. It is recommended that the MPS, which has already relinquished enforcement responsibility for bus lane offences should not retain the processing function. The current processing function mainly uses contracted staff funded by TfL and therefore there are very few resource implications for the MPS arising from the proposed transfer.

A. Recommendations

1. The MPS should not retain the decriminalised processing function for bus lane camera offences.
2. The MPS should be prepared to offer advice to TfL on the design of its new systems if required.

B. Supporting information

Background

1. Transport for London (TfL) is planning to apply a decriminalised procedure to bus lane offences captured on camera (i.e. driving in a bus lane) and has asked if the MPS wishes to retain the processing function for these offences. At present, the MPS Central Driving Offences Unit (CDOU) processes offenders, caught on bus video cameras, when using a bus lane. Contractor's (WS Atkins) staff, based on TfL premises and funded by TfL, view TfL video film to spot possible offenders. One MPS police constable in CDOU decides whether an offence has been committed or not and, if so, DVLA is contacted to establish the identity of the vehicle's owner. TfL then writes to the owner about the offence, asking that the reply should be sent to CDOU. The MPS handles subsequent enquiries, prosecutions, and correspondence from drivers, using ten Blue Arrow clerks (funded by TfL) who are supervised by one executive officer (partially funded by TfL). TfL does not fund any other MPS management time or the clerks' accommodation.

The proposed new system

2. The new system proposed by TfL would operate in much the same way except that police involvement in identifying the offender would no longer be required. Only the owner of the vehicle, not the driver, would need to be identified: this would have the effect of speeding up the process. Also, if owners did not pay the penalty charges the recovery process would be handled by civil, not criminal courts, probably via a system of escalating penalties the longer payment is outstanding. Whether the new decriminalised enforcement process is handled by the MPS or TfL it is clear that it will have to be redesigned and a new computer system purchased (TfL has already invited tenders for the design of this).

Reasons why the MPS does not wish to retain the processing function

3. There are several reasons why the MPS would not wish to retain the function:

• the MPS feels that it is inappropriate for it to be seen to be collecting substantial fine revenue for a decriminalised system, especially as it relates to an area it does not enforce. Moreover the task is not core MPS business;
• it will be an advantage for the MPS to distance itself from the collection and use of penalty charge revenue which is unpopular with the public (speeding offences are seen as being much more serious);
• the CDOU has little experience of civil debt recovery and would need to build new expertise amongst its staff if it were to retain the function;
• the CDOU would have to become heavily involved in the development and implementation of a new computer system at a time when its management and staff are already stretched: this could affect the additional work it hopes to undertake in connection with the hypothecation of fines from speed cameras (which has great potential for accident reduction);
• losing the function would release a police constable for other duties and free up a member of the civil staff for use in speed fine work.

Other implications

4. There are a few issues which will need to be addressed if the MPS stance is agreed:

• with an increasing emphasis on the use of all types of intelligence, the MPS will need to ensure that it can access TfL's bus lane camera images and data (especially in the case of terrorist incidents);
• TfL may require some advice in setting up a new system: the MPS should be prepared to offer this if required;
• if the MPS declines to take on the processing function it may be setting a precedent for what may occur post decriminalisation of red route offences (which will be the subject of another paper to the MPA in due course): the MPS would undoubtedly lose the processing of these tickets also and that could have staff implications. This is currently not seen as a major problem by the head of CDOU since staff could easily be redeployed on speed offences: there are vacancies here now and additional staff may be required if the MPS adopts the government's proposed speed camera hypothecation scheme (in which fine revenue will pay for the operation of the cameras and processing).

C. Financial implications

Financial implications will include: savings of most of an executive officer's salary and overheads (approx. £25,000 p.a.); a small amount of more senior officer management time (which cannot readily be quantified); some savings in consumables such as stationery (which have not been quantified); accommodation costs of approximately £34,000 p.a. The police constable, currently funded by TfL, will be released for other duties.

D. Background papers

• Section 290 of the GLA Act 1999 amends s.95(4)b of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 by adding: 'for the purposes of sub-section (4) Transport for London is a local authority'.

E. Contact details

The author of this report is Sue Merchant, Director of Operational Policy Support Unit.

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback