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

cooldude255220

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice

canuk_UK

One potentially significant provision in the new statutory Private Parking Code of Practice is section 2.22, which states:

"For the purposes of determining whether a parking charge may be issued, the time at which a vehicle enters the relevant land must not, without more, be treated as establishing the start of the contractual parking period."

This could have interesting implications for the vast majority of ANPR-issued NtKs, which simply reproduce entry and exit timestamps, often describing the alleged contravention as something like "period of parking prior to... (referring to the entry ANPR timestamp)" without actually identifying when the vehicle was parked.

PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a) specifically requires the NtK to identify the period of parking, not merely the period between ANPR entry and exit.

The government now expressly recognises that these are not necessarily the same thing.

Does this strengthen the argument that NtKs relying solely on ANPR timestamps fail to specify the period of parking required by PoFA, and therefore cannot establish keeper liability?

It will be interesting to see how POPLA, the IAS and ultimately the courts interpret this distinction.

canuk_UK

One provision that should cause some embarrassment for the IAS and its adjudicators is section 8.1.3 of the new statutory Code, which expressly states:

"Whilst the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 allow parking operators to issue a notice of parking charge to a vehicle keeper or vehicle-hire firm, operators must not when issuing or pursuing a notice of parking charge presume that the keeper of a vehicle was the driver at the time of that vehicle breaching conditions leading to issue of a notice of parking charge."

For years, we've seen various IPC operators issuing non-PoFA NtKs, with the IAS then performing its usual contortions to uphold appeals against their members, including dragging out the thoroughly discredited Elliott v Loake argument to suggest that the keeper must have been driving unless they can prove otherwise.

Of course, Elliott v Loake established no such presumption, but that inconvenient detail never seems to have troubled IAS adjudicators.

Now the government's statutory Code will expressly prohibit operators from making precisely that assumption.

It will be interesting to see what inventive reasoning the IAS comes up with next when an operator has failed to establish keeper liability under PoFA, has no evidence identifying the driver, and can no longer hide behind the fiction that the keeper must have been driving.

Car1980

Some nuggets in there. Sign heights must be visible by wheelchair users. I don't see how 8 foot high signs would comply.

3.1.4

Signs informing drivers that a parking charge may be applicable and of the level of that charge must do so in a font of comparable size and boldness to the main body text on the sign, and where included on signs also displaying the parking tariff a font no smaller than the tariff text/numbers.

3.1.6

Signs must be designed and installed so as to be conspicuous and legible in all lighting conditions during which the relevant land may legitimately be accessed, at a height that takes account of whether the signs are intended to be viewed from the vehicle (including by headlight in the hours of darkness) or having left the vehicle by a driver on foot or in a wheelchair.

Car1980

I can see them having trouble with small text that you can't read from your driving seat.

4.1

The parking operator must ensure that at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking can be viewed without the driver needing to leave the vehicle, in order for drivers with a disability to be able to make an informed decision on whether to park at the premises.

canuk_UK

Another potentially useful provision is section 8.1.2(b) which requires operators to inform recipients:

"whether the notice is being issued under Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 provisions (where this is relevant);"

This could prove particularly interesting given the number of NtKs that leave motorists guessing whether the operator is relying on PoFA to establish keeper liability.

Operators have been able to get away with ambiguous wording while the two trade associations have shown little interest in challenging the practice.

Once the statutory Code comes into force, operators will have an explicit government requirement to clarify whether they are invoking PoFA. Simply including PoFA-style wording without making that clear could therefore constitute a breach of section 8.1.2(b).

However, such a breach would not automatically invalidate the PCN or prevent keeper liability. PoFA itself does not require an express declaration of reliance, so an otherwise fully compliant NtK could still establish keeper liability. Equally, merely claiming to rely on PoFA cannot rescue a notice that fails to satisfy its mandatory requirements.

The real gain is that motorists will have an additional, independent basis for challenging ambiguous NtKs as regulatory non-compliance, rather than relying solely on PoFA arguments. More importantly, repeated breaches could be raised through the new compliance and certification arrangements, potentially threatening an operator's continued access to DVLA keeper data.

canuk_UK

@Coupon-mad, there's a potentially significant loophole in the new statutory Code that I think deserves attention from the MLCHG.

The government has expressly removed no-stopping enforcement from the Code, explaining in its consultation response that the 2019 Act and PoFA concern parking rather than stopping. This reverses the position in the withdrawn 2022 Code, which included no-stopping restrictions, particularly on airport access roads.

Yet, somewhat bizarrely, the new Code retains section 7.2, which addresses camera vehicles recording motorists who stop momentarily to check directions, and section 19 of the Appeals Charter, which provides for cancellation where a vehicle pauses on a private road network because the driver needs to check directions.

So where does that leave motorists, for example, receiving VCS Charge Notices for briefly stopping on airport access roads, whether to check directions, read signs or simply establish where they're supposed to go?

We know how VCS operates and how routinely it dismisses such explanations. What's to stop it arguing that these protections don't apply because its charges concern stopping, which the government has deliberately excluded from the statutory Code?

More importantly, if no-stopping enforcement falls outside the Code, will those activities be subject to the new independent certification and compliance arrangements at all? Could VCS continue obtaining DVLA keeper details and pursuing these charges while claiming that its no-stopping operations remain outside the statutory regulatory framework?

I appreciate that exclusion from the Code doesn't automatically make stopping charges unlawful or remove existing DVLA reasonable-cause requirements. However, it potentially leaves precisely the sort of enforcement practices that need independent scrutiny subject to little more than the industry's existing self-regulation.

Has the MLCHG raised this apparent contradiction with the government? It seems essential to establish whether these operators will remain subject to meaningful independent oversight and sanctions for their no-stopping enforcement, rather than allowing them to exploit a loophole in legislation that was supposed to protect motorists.

yarpsnehpets

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82174702#Comment_82174702

More importantly, this renders PCNs issued at airports totally unenforceable assuming that the original keeper recipient knows the rules and writes back to the operator specifying that they will not be identifying the driver.

yarpsnehpets

10. Action to recover unpaid parking charges

If a driver, keeper or hire company does not respond to a notice of parking charge or subsequent correspondence, or a parking charge has not been paid in full, reasonable endeavours – including contacting credit reference agencies to undertake a ‘soft trace’ – must be undertaken by the parking operator and/or its appointed debt recovery agent to establish the correct correspondence details of the driver, keeper or hire company before commencing enforcement action. Where a new address is discovered the notice of parking charge should be re-issued at the original rate but with a further 28 days from service for a response (payment or appeal).

Debt recovery agents that are involved in the collection of debt related to private parking charges must be full members of an accredited parking association.

daveyjp

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82174788#Comment_82174788

Or this has been done deliberately so airport operators can ensure roads aren't used for drop offs. Leave it woolly, the current status quo continues with the odd case going to none binding small claims court.