REVIVING THE PRIVATE PARKING BILL

Car1980

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-05-06/debates/DE2A42ED-5A2B-49E3-835E-CFD8ADB3806B/ParkingRegulation

Hansard now updated.

Car1980

Some snippets:

One of the two DVLA-accredited trade associations is the International Parking Community. Members of the IPC are granted access to DVLA data to pursue unpaid parking charges. If a constituent receives a penalty charge notice from an IPC member, they are directed to appeal via the Independent Appeals Service, a body accepted by the DVLA for the purpose of handling appeals.

Although the IAS is an accredited alternative dispute resolution provider, it is not directly run by the Government. The word “independent” may lead consumers to believe that they are appealing to an impartial Government-run body, but the IAS operates independently of both Government oversight and parking operators. The International Parking Community and the Independent Appeals Service are both trading names of one company, United Trade and Industry Ltd. This overlap raises legitimate concerns about perceived conflicts of interest, as the same corporate entity that profits from private parking companies through membership fees is responsible for overseeing the code of practice and adjudicating disputes under it. This lack of separation, clearly, could undermine trust in the fairness of the process.

The IAS asserts that its independence is safeguarded by its use of qualified solicitors or barristers as self-employed adjudicators, all of whom remain anonymous, are duty-bound by their professional codes and are paid fixed fees regardless of appeal outcomes. It is also true that individuals retain the option of appealing a PCN through other means, such as in court, under consumer protection legislation. However, for the average citizen, and particularly for someone without time, resources or legal understanding, the impression of full independence created by the Independent Appeals Service’s name could easily be misleading. At a minimum, the current framework could contribute to a perception of bias and could foster a lack of public confidence.

These are precisely the issues that a Government private parking code of practice needs to address

On the appeals process, constituents across the country are attending court to find that their hearing has been cancelled by the company at the last minute. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a waste of their time and a waste of the court’s time?

I do. These companies use tactics simply to increase their profits and our frustration, and to make people impotent in the face of their abuses. 

I welcome his commitment to start a consultation process shortly. Enough is enough, and we need to protect our residents from rip-off fines. As I said earlier, over the length of this debate about 3,000 more fines have been issued.

kryten3000

A pity about the repeated use of the F and P words, and I got a distinct sense of deja-vu listening to the debate, it reminds me of the proceedings around the introduction of the CoP bill back in 2018/9.

But is it clear that the house is united in their condemnation of the entire parking industry and those who pretend it's not about the money.

Le_Kirk

exongrad said:

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”.

What does shortly" mean?  Abso-bloomin-lootly nothing!

Car1980

Good news. Will Hurley has responded to the criticism of him in the debate:

Private parking companies "don't want to issue parking charges", an industry leader has insisted, despite around 41,000 tickets being handed out each day.

Will Hurley, chief executive of the International Parking Community, a trade body, also told drivers "if you're thinking about it, just don't park in a way that gets a parking charge". 

He added: "If you're really that upset by it, just follow the signs. If the signs are unclear, go and park somewhere else."

He also insisted the "vast majority" of the industry's income came from people paying for parking, adding "any business is there to make money".

              

Protest

RobinKlunts provides a comprehensive paper but I don't think it will be read by the intended recipients - simply too long and too confrontational especially at this stage.

The current target is now the ministerial  "shortly".  The debate clearly supported urgent statutory regulation but the minister hasn't quite got up to that sense of pace.  Why not?

Might it not be expedient to shift the Parking Code - a contentious matter and already a first battle lost in 2022 - into the framework of DMCC, off the MHCLG agenda and into Business & Trade, where it is likely to be submerged in a stronger but even more glacially-slow process, one where there will be other sexier priorities?  If that was to be the future where would the regulatory apparatus reside, and would it have the teeth that were proposed in the 2019 Act? 

This also has to be a key focus for action ----- ""that 'rule-breaking' motorists need to be sufficiently deterred..." ATAs have always claimed a high monetary charge is the deterrent."   The courts have supported this idea and changed 1000 years of Common Law without realising that the sufficient deterrent they have permitted is also a more-than-sufficient high monetary incentive for industry malpractice. Hence the need for urgency and for cost capping and constraint to end the hemorrhage of motorists' cash and of public confidence in the effectiveness of Parliament to remove malpractice from the public marketplace.

Nellymoser

Mr Hurley misses the point 🤦‍♂️ Telling people to "park somewhere else" is driving customers away from the landowner's car park and businesses people intended to visit and it turns the simple action of parking a vehicle into a timewasting stressful process.

The signs should be clear Mr Hurley they are after all audited by the IPC and BPA.

kryten3000

Nellymoser said:

Mr Hurley misses the point 🤦‍♂️ Telling people to "park somewhere else" is driving customers away from the landowner's car park and businesses people intended to visit and it turns the simple action of parking a vehicle into a timewasting stressful process.

Exactly.  Most people just want to park and are willing to pay a fair price to do so, all the while the PPCs can issue £100 charges for what they decide is an infringement of their rules whilst also collecting the say £5 tariff, that is what they will continue to do.  Ker-ching!

patient_dream

Supermarkets using an IPC member should be aware that signs in car par parks that are not suitable, that customers are being told to park elsewhere, no doubt another store

Not the most smart idea is it ???

Protest

Mr Hurley shows exactly why he should not be running any customer appeals process. His "sod off" thinking shows in how his organisations work.