Parking stories in the News/media

Bazarius

Nellymoser said:

Following backlash from customers the store was found to be breaching it's lease agreement by reducing customer free parking from 3hrs to 2hrs.

After the Council pointed this out to the store Sainsbury’s said "We are working to restore the signage to reflect the three-hour free parking policy as soon as possible, and we can reassure customers that they will not be charged for parking for up to three hours."

So….. they are effectively confirming that it is not relevant land under Pofa ?  The land is publicly owned by the council . 

Le_Kirk

Nellymoser said:

Think it's beyond the capabilities of the IPC to investigate what measures can be put in place to prevent this happening again. Repetative problems at Feethams have been going on for years MPs must be sick to death telling Will Hurley CEO and Founder of the IPC about them.

There was a news item about parking (yet again) during last week and it featured pictures of Feethams.  I didn't see it on the news but caught it on Gogglebox.

pinkelephant12

On Tuesday 21st October 2025 at 4.30pm there will be a debate in Parliament about the draft Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Definition of Relevant Land) (Amendment) Order 2025 which is intended to make station car parks ‘relevant land’ under PoFA.

https://committees.parliament.uk/event/25339

The draft statutory instrument is here:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2025/9780348274721/contents

ChirpyChicken

pinkelephant12 said:

On Tuesday 21st October 2025 at 4.30pm there will be a debate in Parliament about the draft Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Definition of Relevant Land) (Amendment) Order 2025 which is intended to make station car parks ‘relevant land’ under PoFA.

https://committees.parliament.uk/event/25339

The draft statutory instrument is here:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2025/9780348274721/contents

Make it easier to beat apcoa pcns

TomOrrow

Could someone who understands please explain;
- the significance of this proposed amendment
- and who it favours
I can see no background papers to place this public meeting in context

TomOrrow

Ahhh.  I've just found the explanatory note.
Looks like permission is requested to allow parasites to cast their net wider
How do I now find out who is sponsoring this amendment?

Coupon-mad

I started a thread about this a month ago:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6631195/relevant-land-railway-parking-definition-amendment#latest

Doesn't bother me. Stops them being able to issue byelaws penalties for parking and ends any car clamping on railway land AFAIK.

ChirpyChicken

Coupon-mad said:

I started a thread about this a month ago:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6631195/relevant-land-railway-parking-definition-amendment#latest

Doesn't bother me. Stops them being able to issue byelaws penalties for parking and ends any car clamping on railway land AFAIK.

Thats correct no clamping 

TomOrrow

Coupon-mad said:

I started a thread about this a month ago:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6631195/relevant-land-railway-parking-definition-amendment#latest

Doesn't bother me. Stops them being able to issue byelaws penalties for parking and ends any car clamping on railway land AFAIK.

Thanks for pointer.
Locally a station car park has never had cameras, though managed by a PPC. No clamping occurs, but parking works.
A camera is now installed.
I'm supposing this legislation will now allow PCNs be issued via DVLA requests, and all the problems that brings.
No investment in tech done unless income is expected.
And income only comes from PCNs plus add-ons.

Coupon-mad

Totally agree.

But stopping PNs being issued at railways - and banning clamping/towing - will make things more consistent with other private land. The debate might raise interesting points but I suspect it'll go through, as the DFT has been pushing for this for years.