REVIVING THE PRIVATE PARKING BILL

ChirpyChicken

Kaizen2024 said:

h2g2 said:

Kaizen2024 said:

Not at all, just anti-those that disrespect the wishes of a landowner then complain when they incur the consequences.

Just FYI I have PPC operating on land I own. 

I didn't ask for them to be there.  They were appointed by a stranger to the land who are supposed to look after the common areas of the estate (which does not include any parking).

I showed them my title deeds to the land and they insist I take it up their their principle. The IPC say they audited the site and don't want to get involved.  Their principle says they don't cancel short of a court order requiring them to.

If parking companies are there to serve the landowner's wishes, can you tell my I'm having to pay over £3500 in legal fees now to evict them from my land, even after they've seen proof I'm the legal owner? 

Or do you maybe think they only care about exploiting as much profit as possible from whatever poor sap they can on the vaguest excuse and trust that most people don't have the will or expertise to fight them?

I know nothing about your circumstances, but I am aware that some people claim to own land when in fact they lease the land.

Sometimes, not necessarily in your case, leaseholders are required to follows rules that are stipulated by the freeholder/management company; often after a vote amongst leaseholders.

Personally, I would have no issue removing your allocated bay from a permit scheme; but I would have sign(s) saying your bay was not subject to enforcement so you do not benefit from the deterrent against unauthorised parking that the scheme provides. 

You may soon change your mind though if you then can’t park in your own bay due to the unauthorised parking that gave cause to introduce the scheme.

This is typical of the mindset of those in the parking industry.  If they cant make money from something they dont like it.

Duke1999

Kaizen2024 said:

h2g2 said:

Kaizen2024 said:

Not at all, just anti-those that disrespect the wishes of a landowner then complain when they incur the consequences.

Just FYI I have PPC operating on land I own. 

I didn't ask for them to be there.  They were appointed by a stranger to the land who are supposed to look after the common areas of the estate (which does not include any parking).

I showed them my title deeds to the land and they insist I take it up their their principle. The IPC say they audited the site and don't want to get involved.  Their principle says they don't cancel short of a court order requiring them to.

If parking companies are there to serve the landowner's wishes, can you tell my I'm having to pay over £3500 in legal fees now to evict them from my land, even after they've seen proof I'm the legal owner? 

Or do you maybe think they only care about exploiting as much profit as possible from whatever poor sap they can on the vaguest excuse and trust that most people don't have the will or expertise to fight them?

I know nothing about your circumstances, but I am aware that some people claim to own land when in fact they lease the land.

Sometimes, not necessarily in your case, leaseholders are required to follows rules that are stipulated by the freeholder/management company; often after a vote amongst leaseholders.

Personally, I would have no issue removing your allocated bay from a permit scheme; but I would have sign(s) saying your bay was not subject to enforcement so you do not benefit from the deterrent against unauthorised parking that the scheme provides. 

You may soon change your mind though if you then can’t park in your own bay due to the unauthorised parking that gave cause to introduce the scheme.

The fact that they are leasing the land should surely give them the right to use the parking for the premises as they see fit.

The PPC's are quite happy to have confirmation authority from a lease holder to operate on their land, but are not willing to back off when that same lease holder request they cancel the PCN, as in a case I've dealt with recently, and I'm sure there are many similar cases.

RobinKlunts

To be sent to MPs prior to Westminster parking debate 6th May - thoughts ?

Urgent: Parliament Must Confront the Private Parking Scandal – Letter from Concerned Constituent” 

Dear Member of Parliament,

RE: Westminster Hall debate

6 May 2025 from 11:30am until 1:00pm

Parking regulation

Today,in towns and cities across the United Kingdom, ordinary constituents are being harassed, penalised, and financially extorted by a profit-driven private parking industry that has operated, largely unchecked, for over a decade. These are the very people your office was created to serve. They are voters, workers, carers, pensioners—individuals who placed their trust in democracy, and in your responsibility to uphold it.

This is not a marginal issue. It is a systemic one, touching the lives of millions of motorists and contributing to the erosion of our high streets, public confidence, and belief in fair process. From before Anne Robinson’s 2011 Watchdog report exposed the predatory nature of this industry, complaints have only grown more serious and frequent. You and your colleagues have received countless letters from constituents describing PCNs issued after genuine attempts to pay, “broken” or manipulated payment systems, falsified timestamps, no tickets or receipts issued among the many complaints, along with unreasonable enforcement practices.

You may have contacted a parking operator or property management company to request that a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) be cancelled. But at what point did your involvement extend to properly questioning the processes that brought these PCNs to you? At what point did you ask whether a profit-driven enforcement model should be tested for fairness, or whether the system itself is sound? As a public servant, elected to act in your constituents’ best interests—why not?

Where is your courage to act?

The time for excuses—“too busy,” “complex issue,” “waiting for ministerial guidance,” “Covid”—has long passed. None of these will stand up to future scrutiny when the public turns around and asks: Where were you when this was happening in plain sight?

I might also draw your attention to the Post Office/Horizon scandal—a national disgrace that unfolded over years while ministers failed to act, despite mounting evidence of injustice and distress. The parallels are painfully clear: an opaque, technology-driven enforcement system; financial penalties imposed on ordinary individuals; and the institutional failure of those in power to listen, scrutinise, and intervene.

Yet if the Post Office scandal was a failure of ministerial action, the private parking crisis may well prove to be worse. It affects a far greater number of people (disproportionately effecting those most vulnerable), millions of PCNs are issued annually—and it generates vast sums of private profit under the guise of regulation, using access to government data and state-backed court processes. The knock-on effects on high street footfall, small businesses, and commercial tenants are profound, eroding the economic resilience of communities across the country. In revenue, reach, and long-term damage to public trust, the private parking industry may dwarf the Post Office scandal—unless Parliament intervenes with seriousness and speed.

MPs have a legal and moral responsibility to act in the public interest. You are expected to hold government and agencies to account, uphold democratic values, and operate transparently and with integrity. Your duties include:

• Challenging government policy and holding ministers to account.

• Sitting on Select Committees to scrutinise industry and legislation.

• Representing the concerns of your constituents and advocating for fair treatment under the law.

The Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament and the Nolan Principles of Public Lifedemand honesty, transparency, and accountability. Yet despite over a decade of consistent public outcry and clear evidence of abuse, this industry remains largely untouched.

Where is the accountability to YOUR people and the democratic principles our nation is founded upon? Or have you, like so many institutions, been quietly paralysed by corporate lobbying, outsourced enforcement models, and the slow creep of systems that favour profit over fairness?

The judicial system, too, has been drawn into this situation. The Judiciary of England and Wales asserts that “justice must not only be done—it must be seen to be done.” Yet judges presiding over parking charge litigation have publicly criticised such cases as “unreasonable behaviour” and “bordering on an abuse of process,” with one judge noting that “…conduct in relation to this litigation was both unreasonable and out of the norm.” Either the judicial system is being gamed by an industry well aware of its loopholes, or it is complicit in the system itself. Either way, this reality is the opposite of justice being “seen to be done.”

This is not a functioning system—it is a financially extractive one.

Private parking operators are only able to access motorists’ data via the DVLA by being members of one of two “accredited trade associations” (the IPC or the BPA). These organisations serve to give legitimacy and an acceptable face to an industry whose core practices have long been questioned. But the appearance of legitimacy is not proof of ethical conduct. As some judges have highlighted, the tactics employed by many of these companies—unclear signage, inflated debt collector fees, opaque appeals processes—may be deliberately designed to game the system.

Whichever way it is viewed, not only must impartiality, transparency, and disclosure of all operational methods be delivered—they must be seen to be delivered at all costs.

⸻

What Is Needed Now

• A full and truly independent parliamentary investigation into the private parking industry and its associated actors (including debt collectors, enforcement agencies, accredited bodies, and data handlers). This investigation must be transparent in its scope, methods, and conclusions, with full public access to findings. It must be beyond reproach or suspicion of collusion or political influence.

• A public review of the DVLA’s data-sharing agreements, especially where data has been misused or monetised in ways inconsistent with public interest and public service principles.

• A full review of civil court processes, including use of default CCJs, inflated enforcement fees, the number and proportion of claims submitted via bulk upload or secure file transfer systems, the names of all organisations authorised to file claims through these channels, any internal audits or assessments conducted to identify misuse or disproportionate filing by high-volume claimants, and the disproportionate burden placed on ordinary individuals contesting charges—many of whom are penalised despite having paid or made honest attempts to comply.

• The immediate suspension of DVLA data access for any operators found to have engaged in predatory practices or information misuse. Membership in the IPC or BPA must no longer be accepted as sufficient assurance of accountability.

The judicial system, the DVLA, the DVSA, and Members of Parliament are all funded by the public purse. With public money comes public accountability. In this case, the taxpayer is both the funder and the victim of a broken enforcement regime. When democratic institutions fail to listen, act, and intervene, public trust is eroded—permanently.

Democracy only functions when people believe its institutions operate fairly, transparently, and in their interests. You—and your fellow MPs—must now demonstrate that this belief is not misplaced.

You are either wittingly part of the solution to the abuse being enacted on the British public and the fabric of democracy—or you are wittingly part of its tacit approval.

Yours sincerely,

Constituent Advocate – Private Parking Oversight Campaign

“Submitted anonymously due to professional concerns, but with full commitment to truth and public interest.”

Coupon-mad

What's needed is restriction on camera use.

Never miss this from submissions to MPs.

The disproportionate, excessive and often illegal surveillance is the cause of the £14.5 million PCNs

patient_dream

BRILLIANT RobinKlunts

Don't forget the serial court timewasters that call themselves DCBL
Right now Starmer should WAKE UP to the parking scam .... maybe Nigel will help open Stamer's eyes ?????

SEND TO ALL

Nellymoser

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-drivers-warned-over-new-31577635

Well about time, hope there's some truth in this:

"The Labour-led government also intends to impose sanctions on firms found guilty of violating these regulations. It aims to hold private parking enforcement companies accountable to a statutory Code of Practice, with corresponding penalties for any breaches."

Should be no objections from the BPA and IPC who have always promoted:

"that 'rule-breaking' motorists need to be sufficiently deterred..." ATAs have always claimed a high monetary charge is the deterrent.

The 'rule-breaking' PP companies and ATAs should be deterred in the same manner.

Coupon-mad

The sanctions should be the CMA investigating under the new DMCC Act and fining them.

exongrad

https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/8f99a416-40a5-4c75-b9b6-d3234774a25c 

a good debate on Parliament Live TV today.The new minister said the revised Code of Practice will be out to consultation “shortly”.

Gr1pr

Yep, 100% AYE,   no dissenters,  Alex Norris and others do seem to have a good grasp of the main issues

Hopefully,  shortly means within the next few weeks 

patient_dream

Well that debate will ensure that the provate parking industry buy plenty of nappies

I must admit that I don't like the word "sgortly". or another consultation, they already have all the info required

AND, the jury is out ..... THE BPA /IPC SINGLE CODE OF PRACTICE is not fit for purpose which we all know.