Agenda item

Report of the Director for Director of Environment and Resident Experience. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Resident Services and Tackling Inequality.

Modification to uplift the value of the PMIS contract to allow the continued enforcement against parking and moving vehicle offences in the Borough.

Cllr Gordon returned to the meeting.

The Cabinet Member for Resident Services and Tackling Inequality introduced the report which sought approval under Contract Standing Order (CSO) 10.02 1.(b) and in compliance with Regulation 72 (1)(e) of the Public Contract Regulations (PCR) 2015 for the increase in the total contract value for the Parking Management IT System (PMIS) contract.

 It was noted that this was a result of increased notice processing volumes due to expanded traffic schemes, all of which generate additional income for the Council that adequately covers the additional spend. This increase was to cover the remaining 6½ years of the initial 10-year contract term (i.e., from August 2024/25 to March 2031), thereby ensuring the continued efficient management of parking and enforcement activities.

In response to questions from Cllr Emery, the following information was noted.

-       In relation to the number of PCNs issued reducing for each school street / LTN after implementation, this varied and was connected to how busy the street was and how closely drivers registered that they were approaching an LTN or School Street.

-       With regard to PCNs appeals or contested tickets, and ability to contact the Council directly on the matter, the Cabinet Member explained that all parking fines appeal processes, in general, including LTNs were governed by the London Tribunal service. This organisation had a strict code to follow and was a written only appeal journey process.

-       The address in Sheffield was a data centre for parking appeal documentation and this needed to be a secure centre, in accordance with GDPR rules, for holding and processing confidential information. The Council were not dissimilar to other boroughs in keeping this data outside London. Improvements had been made regarding the flow of communication between residents and the contract provider about the status of their PCN fines. Noted that residents were able to go online through the Taranto system and see the evidence that has been held against them. Residents were also able to track the progress of their appeal. A small minority of residents that were not able to use a computer to track and respond to their PCN fine could send their documents for appeal to Sheffield where it was logged.

Further to considering exempt information at Item 25,

RESOLVED

1. To approve, in accordance with Contract Standing Order (CSO) 10.02.1(b), an increase in the total value of the existing Parking Management IT System (PMIS) Contract with Taranto Systems Limited from £4.35m to £19.1m to cover the initial 10-year contract term. Therefore, an additional expenditure of £14.75m is proposed to the remaining 6½ years of the initial 10-year contract term (i.e., from August 2024/25 to March 2031) including an estimated £2.51m for RingGo cashless parking transactions processing costs (see section 3.2).

2. To approve the payment to Taranto Systems Limited for managing RingGo cashless parking transaction processing costs, totalling an estimated £2.51m for the remaining 6½ years of the initial 10-year contract term (i.e., from August 2024/25 to March 2031).

3. To note that the financial adjustments referred to in sub-sections 3.1 and 3.2 above result in additional expenditure of £14.75m to accommodate increased enforcement activity and associated processing costs. This additional spend is adequately offset by corresponding increases in enforcement activity income, ensuring the contract supports the borough’s expanded traffic schemes, including LTNs and School streets. Future decisions on the retention of existing traffic schemes or the introduction of new schemes may change, which may require further updates / variations to the value of the contract.

Reasons for decision

On December 12, 2023, the Cabinet Member for Resident Services and Tackling Inequality approved an increase in the contract value for the initial 10-year term by 50%, in compliance with Regulation 72(1)(c) of the Public Contract Regulations (PCR) 2015. This increase amounted to an additional £1.44m (which is equivalent to the amount approved in the original contract award for the optional 5-year extension period), bringing the total contract value for the initial 10-year contract term to £4.35m.

However, it's important to note that this was not a long-term solution, but rather an interim measure that allowed for further exploration of options. Since the procurement of the original contract, the service has expanded significantly, leading to the adoption of new parking schemes increasing processing costs to an unanticipated level. The implementation of new parking schemes, including low-traffic neighbourhoods and School Streets, has resulted in a 76% increase in the issue of PCNs and corresponding increases in notice processing and postage costs.

This report now thoroughly considers the current situation and provides a longer-term solution to address the increased notice processing volumes due to the expanded parking schemes. The approval sought in this report is for a contract variation, which is now required to ensure the continued efficient management of parking enforcement activities. This decision supports the implementation of the Council’s strategic objectives and aligns with the Councils budgetary limitations, ensuring the contract remains viable.

Alternative options considered

Doing nothing:

Meeting the Council’s monthly financial obligations to Taranto Services Limited under the PMIS contract is crucial, as failure to do so would be grounds for contract termination with no suitable alternative immediately available. This would disrupt day-to-day operations, posing a risk to public safety and the discharge of the Council's statutory duties and causing significant issues with income derived from enforcement under normal operating circumstances. Inaction is, therefore, not an option.

See further options set out in sections 5.2 to 5.6 of the Part B exempt report.