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

Coupon-mad

It's 17.6 million this past year.

daveyjp

The response is the sort of report that gets released on the last day of summer session.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81937101#Comment_81937101

My thoughts exactly.

Protest

Meanwhile the private parking industry continues to position itself as an expert contributor to the wider area of road traffic strategy. As far as I can see zero input from men from the Ministry - as usual - even though they might have something to say about the CoP timetable and the recent £400k penalty on ECP from CMA. And also to hear what is being said to "their" LA people especially about pushing to align civil enforcement with criminal enforcement

========================================

PARKEX, Coventry Building Society Arena 20/21 May

Parking on Private Land (PoPL) Session (Sponsored by DCBL)
1:45PM - 3:30PM - Wednesday 20th May

1. Transport Select Committee Chair Keynote
   Date: 2:00PM - 2:15PMWednesday 20th May
   Ruth Cadbury
   Labour MP for Brentford & Isleworth &
   Chair, Transport Select Committee
2. Panel: Delivering the Road Safety Strategy
   Date: 2:20PM - 3:00PMWednesday 20th May
   Location: Roadmap Theatre: Powered by Highways Magazine
   From Strategy To Street-Level Change: With a new Road Safety Strategy in focus, this panel examines how national ambition translates into practical action — from legislation and accountability to funding, enforcement and local delivery.
3. Parking Technology Learning Lab: Tackling Evasion Through Innovation to Protect Our Communities
   Date: 2:15PM - 2:45PMWednesday 20th May
   Location: BPA Live Theatre
   Modern vehicle evasion undermines road safety, erodes public trust, and places unnecessary strain on enforcement services. The Parking Technology Learning Lab brings together leading practitioners, technologists and data specialists to explore how innovation—particularly AI, data intelligence, and multi agency collaboration—can transform our ability to identify offenders, protect communities, and support compliant drivers
4. What Next for the Private Parking Sector and the Government Code of Practice?
   11:00AM - 11:40AM - Thursday 21st May
   BPA Live Theatre
   Parkex

This session explores the latest developments, the anticipated next steps for the Code, and what they mean for operators, landowners, and service providers.
Expert [industry] speakers will discuss the regulatory landscape, likely implementation timelines, and how organisations can remain future‑ready in an environment shaped by rising consumer expectations, technological change, and compliance pressures.
Attendees will gain practical insight into preparing their operations, supporting fair customer outcomes, and navigating the future of private parking with confidence.

5. Ministerial Keynote
1:10PM - 1:15PM - Thursday 21st May

Simon Lightwood

Labour Co-op MP for Wakefield & Rothwell & Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at DfT,

Minister for Roads and Buses

Protest

What chances the private parking industry is behind this? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/05/04/parking-fines-outside-london-double-160-labour-plan/

The argument is that the higher charge has been shown to be a more effective incentive to secure motorists' good behaviour. But the argument if accepted then quickly transfers to the civil contract situation.

We may trust LAs not to entrap motorists - at present, just about…..? But we already know that a much lower sum already works very effectively to incentivise all sorts of dubious behaviour in the private parking (civil contract) sector. Hence the need for a Code of Practice.

Protest

AI overview of the £160 fine idea:

Here's the full picture of the Sandbanks parking fines trial:

The Background

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (BCP) Council carried out its trial in August 2025 along a seven-mile coastal stretch from Sandbanks to Hengistbury Head, involving 29 car parks and 543 roads. The council is Liberal Democrat-led.

The trial came after repeated surges in illegal parking during the busiest weekends — with more than 4,000 Penalty Charge Notices issued in just three weekends across June and July alone.

In July, the Secretary of State for Transport, Heidi Alexander MP, approved BCP Council's request for a trial of tougher measures from Sandbanks to Southbourne to tackle irresponsible and dangerous parking.

This was the first time such an enforcement level had been trialled outside of London.

The Fine Levels

Fines rose to £160 for higher tariff offences (such as parking where it is not allowed) and £110 for lower tariff offences like overstaying in a marked bay. Tow-away fees also increased sharply, with same-day vehicle release costing £280 during the trial period. Standard national rates outside London are £70 and £50 respectively.

How Many Fines and What Income?

During the trial, the council issued higher tariff PCNs of £160 and £110 to more than 4,000 motorists over three weekends. The fines were halved if paid within a fortnight.

No precise total income figure has been published by BCP Council. The council's own report focused on behavioural deterrence rather than revenue generated, and the government's own position is pointed on this: a Department for Transport spokesperson said: "We are a Government firmly on the side of drivers and we fully expect councils only to use penalty charge notices as a deterrent for law-breaking — not as a way to raise funds."

At the raw maths: 4,000+ fines at an average somewhere between £80 (discounted higher rate) and £110 (lower offence full rate) would suggest gross income in the region of £320,000–£440,000 from those three peak weekends alone — but the full month's figure, administration costs, and any enforcement overhead have not been broken out publicly.

What Did the Trial Claim to Show?

Instead of an anticipated 8.9% increase in PCN issuance, the trial area saw a 6.8% decrease, equating to 433 fewer PCNs than forecast — suggesting higher penalties had a measurable deterrent effect.

The August Bank Holiday was a notable exception, seeing a 13% increase in PCNs, driven by extreme visitor pressure and perceived capacity constraints. Legal spaces were available throughout the trial, with average utilisation at 57%, meaning illegal parking was a choice rather than a necessity.

There was no evidence of reduced visitor numbers or negative economic impact, supporting the feasibility of adopting higher PCN levels permanently.

The Private Parking Industry Angle

This is where it gets interesting. A hike to £160 is backed by cash-strapped councils and the parking industry, which have launched an aggressive lobbying campaign to strong-arm MPs and ministers into backing raising the cap.

The transport minister's own written parliamentary answer confirmed the industry's fingerprints on the policy push. Transport minister Simon Lightwood stated that the DfT recognises "research carried out by the British Parking Association, the Local Government Association and other key stakeholders" alongside the BCP trial report.

So the British Parking Association — the trade body representing private parking operators — has been actively conducting and submitting research in parallel with the BCP trial, feeding directly into the ministerial review. Critics would say that is the private parking industry helping to write the case for higher fines that will ultimately benefit their members' enforcement businesses on private land too.

Political Fallout

Shadow Transport Secretary Richard Holden said: "A one-month trial in one seaside town, designed and run by a Liberal Democrat council, is apparently enough evidence for this Government to consider doubling parking fines for drivers across England. This is entirely about raising revenue and raiding drivers."

AA president Edmund King called it "crazy," pointing out that someone who steals up to £200 of goods or causes up to £300 of criminal damage receives a £90 fine — asking at what point a driver who parks badly deserves a harsher punishment than a shoplifter.

In short: the trial itself was a genuine (if brief) local experiment in deterrence, run with DfT approval. The revenue figures haven't been published transparently. And the policy escalation from a four-week seaside trial toward a potential national doubling of fines has clearly been turbocharged by active lobbying from the parking industry — whose members stand to benefit if higher PCN norms become entrenched across both council and private enforcement.

Coupon-mad

There's more.

We analysed that trial on a thread somewhere here (maybe the Media thread?) in February and:

• Significantly more than usual PCNs were issued in car parks where the £160 PCN level applied, so off-street it was absolutely shown NOT to act as a worthwhile deterrent and the increased PCNs in car parks in the trial area merely increased income for the council and had zero effect on buses and highways;
• Most of the on-street PCNs appear to have been for stopping too long on double yellows, with no info whatsoever as to which type of vehicles were getting those PCNs and why. Given the exempt activity that double yellows are there for, I would say it suggests the area likely needs more loading bays and more disabled bays to facilitate exempt activity for a fairer period of time rather than punish van drivers and Blue Badge holders for correctly using double yellows but perhaps taking too long (but who knows because the council didn't break it down by vehicle/reason which would have been very revealing if most were for commercial deliveries taking too long to unload, or Blue Badge Holders visiting but exceeding the 3 hours allowed);
• a significant decrease in PCNs occurred in Christchurch which was not included in the trial (PCN levels there remained at £70 and £50) scuppering the Council & BPA's entire argument. They had hoped to use Christchurch as the 'control' BAU example with more PCN issuance but despite their efforts, the opposite happened. The Council & BPA swept that disappointment under the carpet.
• Council signs on-street are brief (by statute) and never state the Penalty level so the majority of visitors would have had no idea of the changed risk. There is no evidence of this trial influencing driver behaviours and the entire argument about effective deterrents fails on that basis alone!

Protest

I only have the DT data, from which

Expected: £230000-£160000 = £70000 (PCN income - enforcement cost = net income normal fines)

Got £400000 – £140000 = £260000 (PCN income - enforcement cost = net income x2 fines)

So LA increased its income by almost £200000 off the backs of 4000 motorists.

Average utilisation 57% → illegal parking was by choice. Which is a rubbish inference.

It does show local and national politicians don't have a clue about research design or criical appraisal (of methodology & results)

It may have been run with a genuine intention at LA level, but it is amazing that DfT approved such a shoddy piece of research design. That decision (and the Forum analysis from February) should be referred to the UK Statistics Authority (UKSA) - the primary independent statutory watchdog for UK government research and statistics, promoting and safeguarding the production and publication of official data to serve the public good.

LA should now decide to return the extra cash to the motorists - they know who they are!

Coupon-mad

You don't only have that data.

The full report from Bournemouth & Poole Council is Googleable and was pulled apart on this very forum months ago, in detail.

This is a very good point though:

That decision (and the Forum analysis from February) should be referred to the UK Statistics Authority(UKSA) - the primary independent statutory watchdog for UK government research and statistics, promoting and safeguarding the production and publication of official data to serve the public good.

Protest

I only have numbers from the DT article - so approach my work with due caution, even though the AI review was helpful. The AI link gave me the summary minute of the BCPC presentation. And if you don't know where the earlier debate is……….😎. I don't do speleology. 😕