Parking Code of Practice Consultation 2025 - now let's see what happens

Coupon-mad

This was a thread to discuss these questions:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/private-parking-code-of-practice

Let's see what the MHCLG do next.

Thorndorise

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/private-parking-code-of-practice?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications-topic&utm_source=df2e4397-6fd6-44c4-b12a-b85ae15ccb78&utm_content=immediately

Open consultation

Private parking code of practice​

Summary

​​We are seeking views on proposals to raise standards across the private parking industry ahead of preparing a new code of practice.

This consultation closes at
11:59pm on 5 September 2025

Consultation description

​​The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 (the Act) requires the Secretary of State to prepare a code of practice containing guidance about the operation and management of private parking facilities. The Act is applicable across England, Scotland and Wales.  

​The government’s code of practice contains:

• guidance that promotes good practice in the operation and management of private parking facilities
• guidance about appeals against private parking charges imposed by, or on behalf of, persons providing private parking facilities 

This consultation seeks views on the government proposed measures aimed at raising standards in the private parking industry before launching the Code of Practice.  

​This is a public consultation and we welcome views from anyone who has an interest in private parking. However, views are especially invited from:

• car park users
• those who represent the interests of motorists
• the parking industry
• landowners
• businesses involved in debt recovery

Discuss....!

Thorndorise

Link to the new code here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice

Annex A: proposed minor corrections/clarifications to the withdrawn code here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/686bf108fe1a249e937cbdb2/private-parking-consultation-annex-a.pdf

Options assessment here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/686d45d281dd8f70f5de3cac/private-parking-consultation-options-assessment.pdf


Online survey of responses: https://consult.communities.gov.uk/off-road-parking-team/private-parking-code-of-practice-consultation/

OR Downloadable questions: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/686be7d9a08d3a3ca3b67845/private-parking-consultation-questions.pdf

Coupon-mad

Where parking tariff exceeds the parking charge

Question 25 (a): Do you agree with the proposal to clarify that where the parking tariff exceeds the parking charge, the full payment of the tariff may be pursued alongside payment of the parking charge?

AGREE

Question 25(b): Agree; it made no sense in that PPCs could only pursue the tariff (no deterrent value, and tariffs sometime go to the client which would make the Withdrawn Code version unworkable) but:

(a) the PCN issued must offer the usual discount and appeal. The case is no different in that respect.

(b) the MHCLG must keep this clause under review in case of abuse, e.g. PPCs leasing small pockets of land with small signs with a deliberately high tariff or unexpectedly high escalation of tariffs, alongside faulty machines or flaky apps. This is why the data collected by government MUST include the postcode of each site (or anonymised site identifier) to expose 'cash cow' locations quickly.

Question 26: leave blank - PPCs only

Data

Question 27(a): Do you agree with the proposal that a Government Code of Practice will mandate that the trade associations should collect data from their private parking operators members and share it with Government and the Scrutiny and Oversight Board?

I will say: STRONGLY AGREE

Question 27(b): Please explain your answer 

I will put something like this:

Whilst this is a very important addition, the MHCLG has missed out two of the most important questions:

(a) to identify the postcode of each site (or an anonymised site identifier) to expose 'cash cow' locations quickly.

and

(b) to identify the reason for issue of PCNs at the operator's sites. If they are almost all overstays, or almost all 'non-payment of a tariff', or lots of 'PCN plus the tariff' high value ones, the MHCLG and Standards Board will never know.

The Scrutiny and Oversight Board

Question 28(a): Do you agree that the Scrutiny and Oversight Board should be made up of people not associated with the private parking industry, motorist groups or government officials, so that they can independently review data on the Code’s efficacy?

I will say: STRONGLY AGREE

Question 28(b): Please explain your answer 

I will put something like this:

Whilst the SOB being fully independent is a welcome safeguard, the same cannot be said of the Conformity and Assessment Bodies. It is well publicised in Parking News, and at Parkex, that the CABs will be made up of people from the parking industry and from the BPA and IPC.

Those persons will still have allegiances or their erstwhile employers and trade bodies (it seems that most of them worked for PPCs in the past).Not only will the CAB auditors be marking their mates' homework, but there has been no assurance that 'auditors' must not audit firms where they used to work or have a conflict of interest. CAB auditors must be required to declare all previous PPC or DRA employers before they start work for the CAB. They MUST NOT audit or sign off any firms where there is a personal conflict of interest.

There is also no reassurance coming from the MHCLG to suggest that the IPC and POPLA will be removed, banned and replaced by a Single Appeals Service, as the Parking (Code of Practice Act) 2019 specifically added by an amendment during its journey through Parliament. When questioned by other MPs, to everyone's alarm, the Minister responsible talked about 'improving' second stage appeals.

The IPC in particular, is considered unfit for purpose and cannot continue in my opinion.

It is particularly imperative that the MHCLG immediately removes the non-standard IAS version that charges appellants £15 to lose and also (so the Lead Adjudicator says in his flimsy 'Annual Reports') sign away their right to be heard in court. It is astonishing that this 'service' that allows as low as just 4% of appeals decided in favour of consumers is still a CTSI ADR entity.

IMHO it must be removed from the sector before this iteration of the statutory Code and not given any pedestal or status whatsoever. It is not enough to appoint a SOB that will only find all this out two years down the line.

bargepole

I've had a quick skim-read of this, and once again, it is a complete fudge.

The parking charge may be capped at £100, or a lower amount.

The debt recovery fees look like they will remain, but possibly at a lower level than the £70.

The discount for early payment may remain ay 40% or possibly 50%

They say they don't have enough evidence to make decisions on these issues, hence yet another consultation. The reality is that they have had shedloads of evidence over the past 7 years since the Act became law, but have dragged their heels, and have given far too much credibility to the lies and spin of the parking industry.

This consultation runs for 8 weeks, then probably another few months while they collate and analyse all the responses. Which means that it will probably be another 2 years before the statutory CoP is passed by Parliament, and the final version won't be vastly different from the existing BPA and IPC codes.

I really can't be bothered with this any more, it's much more satisfying to defeat the scammers in contested court hearings, where I win nearly every time.

daveyjp

I've also had a quick skim and it should be stamped 'sponsored by the BPA'.

Very little of the consultation gets near any of the fundamental issues needed to fix a system which is broken.

Car1980

The Withdrawn Code stated that signs displaying terms and conditions should be sufficiently large to be visible from a distance and legible on approach. This will be retained in the proposed Code. However, the government proposes to remove the reference to best practice being that signs should be at least 60cm x 80cm. This is because the government recognises the feedback from industry that not all sites are the same, and that requiring all signs to be the same size takes away the flexibility that individual sites need. The government proposes to include standards for information that entrance signs must contain, including text size, legibility in all light conditions, and location of signs (in line with section 3.1 of the Withdrawn Code). The Certification Scheme will ensure that signage meets those requirements.

Ah, it suddenly makes sense.

Make the signage a minimum of 60 x 80cm and what does the parking company do? Increase the number of words so that the overall effect is to effectively shrink the sign 

ChirpyChicken

And an interesting take here 
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/367325/parking-fines-rise-govt-cosies-operators-code-practice-review

Le_Kirk

bargepole said:

This consultation runs for 8 weeks, then probably another few months while they collate and analyse all the responses. Which means that it will probably be another 2 years before the statutory CoP is passed by Parliament, and the final version won't be vastly different from the existing BPA and IPC codes.

....... by which time, we might have another new Government and will have to start all over again.

1505grandad

Annex B:-

". This level of profit is indicative of high market power. As a point of comparison, the Call for Evidence finds a net profit margin for BPA operators of 18.9% and 14.5% for IPC members. Whilst there may be justification for such high profit levels, for example for highly innovative companies, the lack of market mechanisms around setting the DRF suggest this level of profit should at the very least be a concern."

Too much to hope I suppose that HMRC would look at this "concern" so that VAT should be included?

Kaizen2024

Someone has messed up on an excel sheet formula there, DRA’s do not have a 63% profit margin