parking tickets

[sjnb6]

are po vans exempt from parking tickets while on delivery.

[wabbithunta]

I think this should "clarify" your question and then again maybe not [this is from March 2000, and was all I could find online. So you'll need to get clarification from your local council on what is or isn't allowed]

parliament-uk.jpg

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 309s05.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Postal Services Bill

Clause 11

Licences: general

Mr. Duncan: I beg to move amendment No. 112, in page 7, line 28, at end insert—

`(5) A licence holder shall have no exemption from traffic regulations.'.
I seek here to promote an understanding in the Committee of what equity there will be in the way in which the existing Post Office and future licence holders can conduct their business. At present, legally, the Royal Mail has no special exemption from traffic restrictions. Although in urban areas—and, I am sorry to say, even in the rural idyll of Rutland—traffic wardens are becoming slightly more aggressive, when a beautifully driven red van stops by the pavement, the driver nips into a property to deliver a package and then hops back into the van, a warden will probably turn a blind eye. There is seldom a risk of fisticuffs when a van parks, the driver delivers the mail and then moves on.
There is a clear recognition, born of habit, that the insignia of the Royal Mail on its vans conveys a purpose that is well understood. Everyone knows them and the business they are doing. The Royal Mail van is part of our life and there is a clear working relationship—usually acceptable, but occasionally frosty—between people who have to make sure that drivers do not park on double yellow lines and postmen who have to go from door to door to deliver the mail on time.

In future, some inequity could arise. The Royal Mail, with its recognisable insignia emblazoned on the side of its vehicles, will have an advantage over, say, Johnson Postal Services Limited, which is granted the first pioneering licence to deliver in the London area as well. Its brand image—including its vehicles—will be treated differently. The amendment calls for equity. I am not terribly bothered about whether postal delivery vans are treated strictly or with leniency. It is common sense to treat them slightly differently from other vans, because one knows that they will move on quickly and their drivers are not pulling a fast one. But there should be a level playing-field. An established practice with existing systems for delivery should not be treated differently from—and better than—what becomes established practice for competitors. All carriers should either have an exemption or be subject to the same traffic rules.

Mr. Russell Brown (Dumfries): I seek clarification. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that at present and in the future Securicor, for example, should be treated differently from Royal Mail?

Mr. Duncan: I think that they are already, because Securicor probably has a rougher time. The AICES tells me that, on average, its four largest members paid over £125,000 each on parking tickets in 1998. That is quite a whack. I am sure that the Minister will give us the figure for the Post Office, but because it is a universal service provider with more vans it may be greater. If Securicor is handling or delivering cash it would be unwise for a traffic warden to slap a ticket on its vans. Licence holders working in the same area should be treated on a similar basis. To achieve clarity, there should either be no exemption, or a measure of exemption—perhaps granted under a bylaw or licence—but not privilege for one and cost for others.

Will the Minister assure us that there will be fair play and equity, so that any licence holder working in the same area will be treated on the same basis as the Royal Mail?

Mr. Hoyle: The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton made a strange comment about like for like and fairness. That will not be achieved. He was carried away by Postman Pat and his black and white cat, Jess. The reality in the high street should be explained. There is no like for like. Securicor, Panic Link and others are not operating a national service in the same way—far from it. Unlike the Post Office, they do not have postboxes to empty up and down the country in addition to making deliveries. Post Office vans are obliged to park on double yellow lines to do that. Other companies do not give a universal service and cannot be compared with the Post Office, nor do they compete with it.

Mr. Duncan: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not deny the truth of what he says, but those who are subsequently licensed should thereafter be on the same footing as the Royal Mail. I am not arguing that, if they are in a different business but happen occasionally to drive up the same road, they should be accorded the same rules.

Mr. Hoyle: I cannot believe that other postal companies will come into competition with Royal Mail and have exactly the same number of postboxes and vehicles, as well as post boats operating between islands and so on. That would be a universal service, but I do not believe that any company will equal that provided by the Post Office, which therefore needs to be granted special conditions.

Mr. Alan Johnson: There is no need for the amendment. Although he did not say so, the hon. Gentleman seems to assume that there is a general exemption from traffic regulations for the Post Office. Given that the Royal Mail or Post Office will in all probability be the first licence holder—let us get that straight—there will be no general exemptions. That has been debated over the years in Select Committees. I understand the concerns of the private couriers. I met them recently and heard the argument about parking fines. We do not have figures on the parking fines inflicted on the Post Office because, as I was told in answer to a written question, such figures are not gathered. There are, however, fines. I remember, when I was a postman driver, having my collar felt in Slough high street; it nearly saddled me with a police record. The fact is that exemptions are written into local traffic regulations and they are generally for Royal Mail liveried vehicles engaged in the collection and delivery of mail. Those are local matters, however, and they are not appropriate for primary legislation.

10.15 am

The most usual exemption is in relation to yellow line restrictions. My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley was right: the Post Office is obliged to collect mail from about l20,000 pillar-boxes every day and from l8,500 post offices and it has to deliver to every address in the country. It would be fair for some local authorities to decide that, if a vehicle is used for transporting cash so that pensioners can be paid, it should not be parked miles away, creating a security hazard for staff.

It is our intention that there should be a level playing field so that, if the Post Office as a licence holder has these exemptions, any other similar licence holder should also have them. In that respect, therefore, I can give the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton that assurance. That is our intention. Under this amendment, the one licence holder at the moment, the Post Office, would have considerable difficulty in carrying out its duties when the legislation was enacted. I hope that, having explored this area, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment. If he will not, I shall invite the Committee to reject it.

Mr. Duncan: I will seek leave to withdraw the amendment, but I hope that there will be equity and that no unfair competition will arise from different treatment being meted out to one licence holder compared with another. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[IcanthelpthewayIam]

http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... 36&t=39011" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Read the link will give you more info