Agenda item

Report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Resident Experience. To be presented by the Cabinet Member for Climate Action and Transport

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST MADE FOR THIS ITEM:

None

RESOLVED:

That Cabinet:

1.    Pursuant to Contract Standing Order 7.02 (use of a compliant framework) and 2.01(c), approved the award of a contract for the provision of Enforcement Agency Services to six suppliers set out in the exempt appendix (Part B) (active and reserve), for a period of two years from 16 November 2026 to 15 November 2028, with no option to extend. The estimated aggregate contract value was £4 million over the two-year term, representing statutory enforcement fees anticipated to be recovered directly by the appointed providers from debtors, rather than expenditure payable by the Council.

2.    Approved four bidders becoming active providers from contract award, with the remaining two bidders designated as reserve providers. Active suppliers could be moved to the reserve list, and reserve suppliers could become active providers, in accordance with the Enforcement Agency Specification and Code of Practice.

3.    Noted that the number of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) registered at the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) over the term of the contract was estimated at 120,000. The registration cost was £11.00 per PCN, resulting in a total cost of £1.32 million. Although some PCNs remained unpaid, the overall costs were expected to be recovered through income generated from the contract from the overall number of PCNs that were paid.

Reasons for the Decision

This report followed the successful completion of a further competition conducted in accordance with the rules of the Yorkshire Purchasing Organisation (YPO) Procurement Framework No. 1200 for Enforcement Agency Services. The framework was already being used for other debt types within Haringey and by other councils, including Council Tax, Business Rates and Business Improvement District (BID) Levy collection.

The Council had statutory duties relating to the effective management of parking and moving traffic. Enforcement was necessary to improve compliance and effectively manage limited kerbside space. The use of enforcement agents was always a measure of last resort. The new multi-provider model was intended to strengthen service resilience, improve recovery performance through competition, provide clearer performance management arrangements, and maintain safeguards for vulnerable residents and those experiencing financial hardship.

Enforcement Agencies recovered their statutory enforcement fees directly from debtors in accordance with legislation and did not charge the Council for core enforcement activities. However, the Council incurred the Traffic Enforcement Centre registration fee for cases progressed to debt registration, which was £11 per PCN. Where recovery was successful, the registration fee formed part of the balance owed by the debtor. The service model also included pre-TEC activity designed to identify cases where escalation might be inappropriate or unlikely to result in recovery, helping to avoid unnecessary registration costs. The fees that Enforcement Agencies could charge in recovering debt were prescribed by legislation.

The contract award moved the Council from reliance on a single Enforcement Agency to a competitive model consisting of four active providers and two reserve providers. This provided greater operational resilience and enabled the Council to adjust allocations and active or reserve status in response to performance, in accordance with the Enforcement Agency Specification and Code of Practice. The model included checks to identify cases involving hardship and vulnerability that might require earlier intervention before the formal debt recovery process commenced. Earlier case reviews ensured that the Council did not unnecessarily incur statutory court fees and supported value for money.

Alternative Options Considered

Do nothing

Continuing with the existing single Enforcement Agency arrangement would have maintained dependence on a single provider, limited the Council’s ability to use competition to improve recovery performance, and reduced resilience in circumstances where performance or service issues arose. It would also have prevented implementation of the enhanced performance, vulnerability and service safeguards contained within the new Enforcement Agency Specification and Code of Practice.

Cease using Enforcement Agencies

Ceasing to use Enforcement Agencies altogether would have significantly affected the collection of legitimate debt and overall income. Parking income was ring-fenced, and Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 set out how any parking surplus could be allocated. In summary, any surplus could be used for off-street parking provision, public transport services, such as concessionary travel, and the authority’s costs of maintaining publicly funded roads. This option would have materially weakened the Council’s ability to recover unpaid debt once the statutory notice and appeal processes had been exhausted.

Insource the service

Unlike Civil Enforcement Services, which use Civil Enforcement Officers who are often employed directly by councils, either in-house or through contractors, parking debt enforcement is typically outsourced to certificated enforcement firms. Most, if not all, London authorities outsourced warrant enforcement to specialist enforcement companies. Establishing an in-house enforcement service would have required the Council to develop expertise it did not currently possess and would have involved significant upfront investment in infrastructure, recruitment and training. The Council therefore considered outsourcing through the compliant framework to be a more proportionate and resilient approach.