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

Coupon-mad

But I do FOI requests and the report is here:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/report_in_the_bcp_council_increa/response/3336203/attach/3/FOI%2000061344%20Response.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

Protest

What was the rationale behind the 2025 DFT decision not to increase PCN levelsoutside of London?

AI: The Department for Transport decided in 2025 not to raise Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) levels outside London primarily because it was not persuaded that higher penalties were justified nationally at that time, despite lobbying from councils and parking industry groups.

The rationale appears to have had several strands:

1. Concern about proportionality and public acceptability
   The DfT was aware that increasing fines during an ongoing cost-of-living squeeze could be politically sensitive. Outside London, standard parking PCNs had already risen substantially over previous decades, and ministers were cautious about being seen to impose additional costs on motorists. (Transport Xtra)
2. Lack of a compelling national evidence base
   Organisations such as the Local Government Association and the British Parking Association argued that existing PCN levels had been eroded by inflation and were no longer strong deterrents. However, the DfT did not accept that there was sufficient nationwide evidence that current levels outside London were failing to secure compliance badly enough to justify a blanket increase. (Transport Xtra)
3. Different governance from London
   London operates under a separate statutory framework where London Councils and the Mayor can approve higher penalties locally. In 2025 London increased PCNs for the first time since 2011, arguing inflation had weakened deterrence and enforcement costs had risen. The DfT chose not to automatically mirror that approach nationally because parking pressures, congestion levels, and enforcement economics vary considerably outside the capital. (sutton.gov.uk)
4. Avoiding perceptions of revenue-raising
   Ministers have historically emphasised that PCNs should be about compliance and traffic management, not income generation. There has been recurring criticism from motorists’ groups and media that some enforcement regimes resemble “cash cows.” Keeping national PCN caps unchanged avoided reinforcing that criticism. (Transport Xtra)
5. Preference for targeted/local evidence before reform
   The DfT indicated it had considered submissions from councils and parking professionals but ultimately chose not to proceed with a national uplift. That suggests a preference for further evidence or more localised approaches rather than an immediate England-and-Wales-wide increase. (Transport Xtra)

Did DfT publish anything?

Yes — but not as a standalone policy paper explaining a final “decision not to increase” PCNs outside London.

What the Department for Transport did publish (or state publicly) in 2025 was relatively limited and procedural:

• A parliamentary written answer on 2 April 2025 from minister Lilian Greenwood said the department had received research from local government stakeholders on raising PCN levels outside London and would “consider carefully their findings and recommendations along with other relevant evidence before any decision is taken.” (Parallel Parliament)
• Trade press later reported that the DfT had decided not to raise PCN levels nationally outside London after considering submissions from councils and parking bodies. However, no detailed impact assessment, consultation response, or formal rationale document appears to have been published alongside that outcome. (Transport Xtra)

So the public record is mainly:

1. acknowledgement that the issue was under review,
2. confirmation that stakeholder evidence had been submitted,
3. and then reporting that ministers chose not to proceed nationally.

I cannot find evidence that the DfT published:

• a formal consultation response,
• an equality or economic impact assessment,
• a ministerial direction,
• or a detailed explanatory memorandum setting out the reasoning in depth.

Most of the rationale has therefore been inferred from:

• parliamentary answers,
• ministerial language about “considering evidence,”
• and reporting in specialist transport media. (Transport Xtra)

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

Given current election results DfT might want to reflect that:

• 1) There is no identifiable official Reform UK policy specifically on whether DfT should raise PCN levels outside London.

2) Their broader anti-bureaucracy / anti-local-authority-penalty positioning suggests they would probably be politically unsympathetic to large increases in parking fines,

3) Councils wishing to incentivise good driver behaviour should be able to use community service options rather than cash. Since the aim is not to raise revenue the incentive should not lead to revenue increase - this argument does not extend o private parking were the invoiced sum should meet the cost of appropriate enforcement costs.

patient_dream

British Parking Association argued that existing PCN levels had been eroded by inflation and were no longer strong deterrents.

The BPA are still living in cloud cuckoo land … what the hell do they think is happening to everyone in the country ?? Who writes this rubbish in the BPA?

DfT did not accept that …

Nor should they listen to the junk the BPA spit out

Car1980

Funny how the £170 is hidden away on every sign. If deterrence was the name of the game that would be front and centre 🤣

Nellymoser

@Protest This may interest you since those bodies pushing for higher penalty charges in E/W are using the Scottish model of increased parking penalties to lobby the UK DfT to adopt similar, higher charges.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81826021#Comment_81826021

A consultation response from Scottish Government was expected at 12wks (8th May) Nothing published yet on website. I imagine the Scottish Parliament elections may have delayed it.

MothballsWallet

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81993436#Comment_81993436

But you've still got the SNP in charge there, which will make things even worse, imo.

Disclosure: I grew up in NE Scotland and left in 2000.

Nellymoser

Sorry MothballsWallet I'm not understanding your point.

I wasn't implying the consultation response was delayed until it was seen who got voted in. I just meant MSPs would have been concentrating on the lead up to the election. John Swinney made no secret last time when he u-turned on increasing the parking penalty charge so Councils could raise more revenue. He did suggest Councils should be 'mindful of the cost of living crisis' but that fell on deaf ears.

Protest

There is strategic pressure from organisations charging low ticket prices to find low-cost ways of ensuring 100% payment, Rather like supermarkets the low-staff/slow-surveillance is the most profitable - losses are an acceptable cost. Common law rejected the idea of penalty payments for breach of contract (a civil matter) - any payments were restricted to the cost of the remedial action. Where non-payment is a criminal offence, then Govt may determine the fine to impose.

There is a logic that suggests that compliant behaviour can be discouraged (or incentivised) but increasing the cost of non-compliance and the Courts seem sympathetic to that view even though there is no law for them to interpret or enforce!! They have also adopted a rather loose approach to determining the actual remedial costs, leading to the current practice of charging c£100-£200 for breach of contract.

The tobacco industry have succeeded in persuading Govt that vapes are a good idea. BPA have similarly been successful in lobbying, initially to block the CoP, more recently to push for higher non-compliance penalties. DfT is dominant in this via their cap on LA parking penalties. Other agencies might look askance at BPA being positioned as industry experts to advise Govt especially if the values of the parking industry begin to rub off on LA officers and councillors.

The obvious weakness in "incentive charging" is that it also incentivises the enforcer to "game" the system - the eco parking meter that does not waste paper by issuing silly windscreen tickets - not used in an ANPR carpark. But - surprise - suddenly there is a rash of cash-paying motorists facing £170 invoices because there is no evidence of payment (and no receipt was issued!) Other "games" are also available - as we know!!

Meanwhile " Junior minister Miatta Fahnbulleh resigned from her government post [today]" so we now await the next mini-steer to be brought - as soon as possible - up to snails-pace……

8 Jan 26 Commons

Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)

Every parking fine from rip-off private operators hurts drivers and our city centres, and Derby is no exception. Last October, Jumpin Fun play centre closed its doors for good because families could not trust that they would be treated fairly at the nearby Copeland Street car park. I welcome the Government’s recent consultation on fairer parking rules, but will my right hon. Friend encourage a timely response to the consultation so that we can put an end to the rip-off private operator parking industry?

Sir Alan Campbell

As my hon. Friend mentions, we are cracking down on unjust private parking charges through a new, stronger private parking code of practice. I will ensure that he receives an update on the timing of the response.

5 March 26 Commons

Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)

My constituents regularly complain about private parking companies. Recent examples include a firm passing a case to debt collectors after the constituent provided evidence that they were ill and another issuing a charge when the driver had paid but the machine failed. Following last September’s consultation on raising standards in the private parking industry, will the Leader of the House confirm when the Government will bring forward a new code of practice and compliance framework to protect drivers from exploitative parking operators?

Sir Alan Campbell

I cannot confirm when, but I know that this issue is uppermost in the minds of Ministers, because it is a problem in many communities, and I will take it up with the relevant Department and get the hon. Lady an answer.

16 April 26 Commons -

Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)

In Wick in my constituency, over 1,000 local residents have raised with me their concerns about unfair and confusing parking charges, which are deterring shoppers and damaging local businesses. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State on the delay to the revised private parking code of practice?

Sir Alan Campbell

This is a frustrating issue for a lot of people, not least in my constituency, and it is a bit of a moving target for legislation**. I will draw it to the attention of the Secretary of State and see where we can get.

** Really. Moving? The legislation has been standing unscathed on the books since 2019. And despite his keen interest and ministerial contact, Sir Alan seems to be at a continuing loss in responding meaningfully to MP enquiries.

Nellymoser

Nesil Caliskan MP is Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/appointments-12-may-2026

Coupon-mad

She doesn't seem to have ever contributed anything in Parliament about private parking.

She used to lead Enfield Council and AI says this:

As the Leader of Enfield Council, Councillor Nesil Caliskan oversaw several key parking and development strategies in the London Borough of Enfield.

 [1]Key Parking and Development Issues (2018–2024)

• Tottenham Hotspur Stadium Parking: Cllr Caliskan supported the introduction of a new Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) around the Tottenham Hotspur stadium to prevent matchday parking issues for local residents
• Low Traffic Neighborhoods (LTNs): Cllr Caliskan has defended the implementation of LTN schemes, arguing for the need to change transport habits
• General Policy: Her administration focused on creating "high-quality public realm spaces" that are accessible, while navigating the need for new homes, supporting local businesses, and managing parking spaces, particularly in town centres like Enfield Town.