29/10/2026
OLDHAM COUNCIL'S £1 MILLION PARKING SURPLUS QUESTION: FEWER WARDENS, THOUSANDS OF FINES AND A BOROUGH WHERE PARKING ENFORCEMENT APPEARS TO BE A POSTCODE LOTTERY!
The further you dig into Oldham Council's own financial records, the more questions emerge about money, staffing, enforcement priorities and the people supposedly running this circus. Because while motorists across Oldham are handing over hundreds of thousands of pounds in parking penalties, the council's own published accounts reveal an even bigger financial picture.
For the 2025/26 financial year, Oldham Council recorded a staggering £2,655,224.20 in parking related income against £1,650,286.14 in expenditure. That's a difference of £1,004,938.06 between income and expenditure. Yes, over ONE MILLION POUNDS. Now, before the council's professional excuse department starts choking on its taxpayer funded coffee, this isn't simply parking fine income, and the difference doesn't automatically represent unrestricted profit. The figures include parking charges, permits, bus lane penalties and other related income, while parking surpluses are subject to legal restrictions. But it does mean the council has some serious explaining to do about where the money goes and what residents are actually getting in return.
And here's where things become even more interesting. In 2024/25, the council reported parking income of £2,715,058 and expenditure of £2,349,668, leaving a difference of approximately £365,390. Fast forward to 2025/26 and that difference has jumped to more than £1 million, an increase of approximately 175 per cent in just one year. But here's the part that should really get people asking questions. Parking income actually FELL by around £60,000, while reported expenditure dropped by approximately £699,000. So this enormous increase wasn't created by a spectacular rise in overall income. It was largely driven by a massive reduction in spending. Has the service improved to match those savings, or have we simply discovered another council department where cutting costs looks fantastic on a spreadsheet while residents are left dealing with the consequences?
Council staffing figures show that before July 2025, parking contractor NSL deployed between 12 and 18 Civil Enforcement Officers across the borough, supported by two senior team leaders and three team leaders. Since bringing enforcement in house, Oldham Council says it employs eight frontline enforcement officers, one team leader and one senior team leader. That's potentially FOUR TO TEN FEWER FRONTLINE OFFICERS than the previous contractor deployed. And we're talking about an entire metropolitan borough here, not a bloody supermarket car park. These officers have Oldham, Chadderton, Failsworth, Royton, Shaw, Saddleworth, Hollinwood, Waterhead and the rest of the borough to deal with, alongside shifts, holidays, sickness and everything else involved in running a public service.
SO THE STAFF ARE THERE, THE EQUIPMENT IS THERE, THE VEHICLES ARE THERE AND THE MONEY IS CERTAINLY COMING IN. WHY THE BLOODY HELL DOES PARKING ENFORCEMENT STILL APPEAR SO SELECTIVE? We've all seen cars abandoned on double yellow lines, pavements turned into personal parking spaces, junctions obstructed and absolute chaos outside certain schools when the afternoon bell rings. Yet motorists are left wondering why some locations appear to receive enforcement attention while problems elsewhere seem to continue week after week. If you make a mistake in the wrong place, you might receive a lovely little financial reminder from Oldham Council, while somebody elsewhere appears able to treat the Highway Code as optional reading.
And this is where the financial decisions become particularly relevant. A council budget proposal prepared in January 2025, under reference PEG-BR1-817, identified a potential £250,000 annual efficiency saving from reviewing the parking enforcement contract. The proposal was signed off at director level and by the then cabinet member, Councillor Arooj Shah. It considered savings through an alternative in house delivery model or revised contractual arrangements and did not anticipate reductions to the council's existing staff establishment. Yet we now have figures showing a lower frontline officer headcount than the former contractor had supplied, alongside published accounts showing parking expenditure falling by approximately £699,000 in one financial year.
So here's a perfectly reasonable question. DID OLDHAM COUNCIL PRIORITISE FINANCIAL SAVINGS OVER MAINTAINING SUFFICIENT FRONTLINE PARKING ENFORCEMENT? Because if reducing the cost of the service has contributed to residents dealing with dangerous parking, blocked roads and obstructed pavements, that isn't necessarily efficiency. That's potentially a false economy dressed up as financial competence, with the public paying the price for decisions made behind desks at the council.
Now let's look at something else the council might prefer residents didn't examine too closely. In February 2024, Oldham Council was reviewing its long running parking enforcement contract with NSL and had engaged specialist consultants, Parking Matters. Council documents referred to identifying further potential sources of income as part of reviewing the service. Now compare that with the Department for Transport's statutory guidance, which makes clear that raising revenue should not be an objective of civil parking enforcement and that authorities should not set parking ticket or revenue targets. So why was identifying income opportunities part of the review? Were officials considering legitimate improvements to paid parking services, or were opportunities to increase penalty income also being examined? Those are two very different things, and residents deserve a straight answer rather than another carefully worded exercise in council waffle.
And then we come to Waterloo Street in Glodwick, where the problem stops being an abstract discussion about spreadsheets and becomes something residents have to live with. People have repeatedly complained about vehicles parked on double yellow lines, blocked pavements, obstructed roads and dangerous driving conditions. Local reporting has documented those concerns, including occasions when numerous vehicles appeared to be parked in breach of restrictions. By 1 September 2026, Oldham Council said it had issued 273 parking fines on Waterloo Stret since the beginning of the year, with only 161 paid at that point. Some of the outstanding penalties may subsequently have been paid, challenged or cancelled, but the bigger question remains. If hundreds of tickets have been issued and residents are still reporting serious parking problems, is the enforcement strategy actually working?
We've also seen longstanding concerns about vehicles obstructing pavements around Union Street, including difficulties for pedestrians and wheelchair users. And this is exactly why parking enforcement cannot simply be judged by the number of tickets issued or how much money is collected. A successful system should reduce dangerous parking, improve access and protect road users, not simply produce a healthy looking income figure while people continue encountering the same problems. Nobody should be abusing or threatening parking officers who are simply doing their jobs, but protecting those officers and demanding an effective enforcement service are not mutually exclusive.
Then there's the rather fascinating case of the Ashton Road bus lane camera near Bellfield Avenue. Between September 2024 and August 2026, that single camera issued 4,205 penalty notices and generated £95,014 in income. ONE CAMERA, ONE STRETCH OF ROAD AND MORE THAN FOUR THOUSAND PENALTIES. In May 2026 alone, it reportedly issued 290 notices and generated £8,026. Concerns have been raised about whether the camera was repeatedly catching drivers making genuine mistakes, while the council defended the enforcement as necessary for bus reliability and traffic flow.
Now nobody is suggesting motorists should be free to ignore bus lanes whenever they fancy it. But when thousands of drivers are making the same mistake at the same location, surely somebody should examine whether the signage, road markings and layout could be improved. If the objective is compliance, then preventing offences should be just as important as punishing them. Is the council interested in reducing contraventions, or has issuing penalties simply become an accepted part of the operation? Given the figures involved, that's a perfectly legitimate question.
And here's where the politics gets even more ridiculous. In April 2026, the Oldham Group made an election pledge concerning not fining motorists for pavement parking in certain inner wards. Labour criticised the idea and Reform UK raised concerns about a potential two tier approach to enforcement. The Oldham Group defended its position by pointing to residents who have nowhere suitable to park. This was a political proposal, not evidence that different enforcement policies were actually implemented, and councils currently have limited powers to penalise general pavement obstruction. But the fact politicians were debating different approaches for different areas of the same borough should concern anybody who believes the rules ought to be applied fairly.
ONE BOROUGH, ONE SET OF RULES AND NO POLITICAL FAVOURITISM. If a restriction is legally enforceable, residents should be entitled to expect it to be enforced consistently, regardless of their postcode, their councillor or the political party running the show. If a road is dangerous because vehicles are blocking visibility, then it's dangerous regardless of which ward it happens to be in. We shouldn't need a political argument to establish that basic principle, although this is Oldham Council we're talking about, where apparently even common sense requires a committee meeting.
And let's not forget the absolute circus surrounding parking outside some of our schools. Residents regularly report vehicles mounting pavements, blocking visibility and turning school collection times into something resembling a free for all. In October 2026, councillors raised parking concerns around The Oldham Academy North during discussions about a proposed housing development near Broadway. Existing problems involving pavement parking and dangerous visibility were highlighted, while council officers explained that the particular planning application had to be assessed on its own merits. Fair enough from a planning law perspective, but what about the bigger picture? Who is responsible for ensuring that existing neighbourhoods can safely cope with traffic and parking pressures before even more development is approved?
This is exactly the sort of joined up thinking that appears to be missing from local government. The council approves developments, draws up traffic restrictions, publishes road safety policies and produces endless documents explaining its responsibilities. Yet residents still find themselves fighting the same problems year after year. If there aren't enough parking spaces, why wasn't that properly addressed? If existing restrictions are being ignored, where is the enforcement? And if the council already knows certain locations are dangerous, what exactly is being done beyond issuing the occasional ticket and hoping the problem magically disappears?
Now let's return to the financial figures, because there are more questions worth examining. The council recorded £926,420.70 in penalty income, made up of £622,062.88 from on street parking penalties, £142,262.82 from off street parking penalties and £162,095 from bus lane enforcement. So actual parking penalty income was £764,325.70, with bus lane enforcement making up the rest. The council also listed £356,766.97 in enforcement costs relating to the in house operation from July 2025 onwards. These numbers need to be properly reconciled because they do not represent a complete account of the same activities over an identical financial period.
And there's another financial question. The council's published parking account shows that £1,004,938 difference between income and expenditure, while figures drawn from its return to central government indicate a parking surplus of approximately £704,000. Different reporting requirements and accounting categories may explain the discrepancy, but that is precisely why the council should publish a clear reconciliation that ordinary residents can understand. The law places restrictions on how relevant parking surpluses can be used, including permitted transport, parking and highways purposes. So let's see exactly how much money is available under those rules, how much has been carried forward and where it has actually been spent.
And would you believe it, the council isn't finished with parking enforcement technology either. Its forward plan includes a decision scheduled for 2 November 2026 concerning the procurement of a modern cloud hosted parking enforcement system. It's classified as a key decision involving significant expenditure or savings, although the full financial details have yet to be established publicly. So here we have a council that has substantially reduced its reported parking expenditure, now operates with fewer frontline officers than its former contractor and is considering another investment in enforcement technology.
Will that technology improve the service for residents? Will it mean quicker responses to complaints, better enforcement at dangerous junctions, safer school entrances and more consistent coverage across Oldham? Or will it simply make processing penalties cheaper and more efficient? Technology can be a good investment, but only if it delivers a public benefit rather than providing another expensive system for a council that seems permanently fascinated with finding ways to save money while residents wonder where their services have gone.
Here's what Oldham Council should now be required to explain. How many parking penalties have been issued in each ward, and how many complaints about illegal parking have been received? How much time do enforcement officers actually spend patrolling different areas, including evenings, weekends and school collection times? How many penalty notices are challenged, cancelled, written off or remain unpaid? What financial savings have genuinely been achieved by bringing enforcement in house, and what assessment was carried out of the impact of reducing frontline staffing compared with the previous contractor? Most importantly, how is the money in the parking account being spent, and can the council demonstrate that its enforcement strategy is improving public safety rather than simply generating financial returns?
Because the hardworking motorist who makes a genuine mistake shouldn't feel like an easy source of revenue while persistent dangerous parking remains an unresolved problem elsewhere. People have every right to expect equal treatment, sensible regulations, properly maintained roads and a council that understands the difference between public service and financial administration. This isn't about attacking ordinary parking wardens. They have a difficult job, and many deserve more support, not less. This is about the politicians and senior managers who decide the budgets, staffing levels, enforcement priorities and policies.
And perhaps that's the biggest issue of all. Oldham Council can produce detailed financial statements, employ consultants, commission reviews, identify savings and consider new technology. It can account for millions of pounds passing through its parking operation. Yet residents are still entitled to ask whether the actual service on the ground reflects all that financial management. Because if the money is being collected, the officers are being employed and the equipment is being funded, WHY DOES ENFORCEMENT STILL APPEAR SO BLOODY INCONSISTENT?
OLDHAM COUNCIL HAS RECORDED MORE THAN £2.6 MILLION IN PARKING RELATED INCOME. REPORTED EXPENDITURE HAS FALLEN BY NEARLY £700,000. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INCOME AND EXPENDITURE HAS RISEN ABOVE £1 MILLION. AND THE NUMBER OF FRONTLINE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IS LOWER THAN UNDER THE PREVIOUS CONTRACTOR.
These aren't figures invented by somebody on Facebook after getting a parking ticket. They come from the council's own published financial records and official staffing information. And taken together, they raise legitimate questions about the direction of a service that should exist to protect motorists, pedestrians, businesses and residents, not simply to look impressive on a financial spreadsheet.
So come on, Oldham Council. Where is the money going? Why has spending fallen so dramatically? Are there enough wardens to properly cover the borough? Why are residents still reporting the same dangerous parking problems? And what evidence can you provide that enforcement is being applied fairly and consistently across Oldham?
THE COUNCIL HAS THE MONEY, THE ENFORCEMENT POWERS AND THE RESPONSIBILITY. NOW LET'S SEE SOME ACCOUNTABILITY, BECAUSE OLDHAM'S MOTORISTS AND RESIDENTS DESERVE BETTER THAN ANOTHER BLOODY EXCUSE.
Sources: Oldham Council parking accounts for 2024/25 and 2025/26, council budget and parking contract review papers, Department for Transport statutory guidance, council committee records and local reporting.
