Councils told to reveal why parking fines are waived

City councils are being told they cannot withhold the criteria they use in deciding how to let someone off a parking fine. Photo / Doug Sherring

City councils are being told they cannot withhold the criteria they use in deciding how to let someone off a parking fine, after one council sought to do so because it would affect council revenue.

The Ombudsman has ticked off the Wellington City Council for defining parking infringements as a money-making "commercial activity", and using that as an excuse for not disclosing the criteria.

The case was outlined in the annual report of the Ombudsmen's Office, tabled in Parliament last week. A Wellington resident laid a complaint last year and the Ombudsman agreed, ordering the Wellington City Council to partially release the information.

The council argued disclosing it would "prejudice the maintenance of the law" and hit the council in the pocket, as residents would find it easier to have their fines waived.

The council received about $8 million to $10 million from enforcement - including parking fines - each year, a council spokesman said.

The council justified its position by defining its money-gathering from parking infringements as a "commercial activity" that would be disadvantaged.

"In administering parking infringement bylaws, local authorities are carrying out a law enforcement role, not a commercial one," the Ombudsmen's annual report said.

"The fact that income may be generated from carrying out a law enforcement role is beside the point."

Wellington City Council spokesman Richard MacLean said the council was the most likely in the country to let people off their fines.

An investigation into parking infringement fines by the Herald on Sunday in July found Wellington was the most lenient local authority.

Out of 21,000 fines that were disputed, more than 15,000 were waived, or 73 per cent.

"We have a proud history at the Wellington City Council of letting people off tickets, but we tend to try to keep our rationale close to our chest," Mr MacLean said.

"It's not a question of revenue gathering at all. I think someone at the council made a call, rightly or wrongly, that these criteria were commercially sensitive, and clearly the Ombudsman has decided otherwise and we are complying with the decision.

"The revenue is very useful, but as we say repeatedly, if people didn't break the law then we wouldn't have the revenue."

He said the money the council made through enforcement every year was sensitive to economic factors.

The Ombudsman ruled certain criteria should be disclosed, but not all.

"Release of the factors that authorities consider in deciding whether to waive an offence ... form part of the law as it operates in practice and citizens are entitled to know," the report said. But how a council assesses evidence to prove if an offence has been committed should not be made public.

THE NUMBERS

$8mto $10m received by Wellington council a year from enforcement

21,000 fines disputed

73 per cent of disputed fines waived