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

Not_A_Hope

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82175080#Comment_82175080

I hope you are right but the devil as always in the detail. If any additional £70 has to be justified when a payment is deemed overdue I don’t see how it can be for the initial DVLA fee of £2.50, or stamps and letters up to the conclusion of any appeal. These costs are included in the original maximum cost of £100 for a PCN.

Unless of course PPCs start agreeing to actually shell out £70 to their ‘buddy debt collectors’ to start chasing the alleged debt after a failed appeal. ‘That is how much it costs us your honour’. Kerching.

cooldude255220

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82175080#Comment_82175080

I think this is an overgenerous reading of it. I think the effect is to say it's capped, but just because it's capped at that amount doesn't mean you can use that as justification as to why it's fair.

Bazarius

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82175160#Comment_82175160

The caveat is that the government has added a disclaimer in the Code saying their stance on both the parking charge level and the DRA fake add on is not an admission that either is fair or proportionate. They’ve left it to the courts ( and ultimately the CMA under the DMCC regime to determine enforceability. it still looks like business as usual for us .

Car1980

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82175160#Comment_82175160

The words "fair" and "recoverable" are important I think.

How can it be judged to be fair or not without a factual breakdown of what it entails?

How can it be recoverable without it being shown that they spent a sum of money?

Papermate2

The New Private Parking Code is Laid in Parliament – The Good, The Bad, and the IAS FOI Scandal

Yesterday, the draft of the Private Parking Code of Practice was officially laid before Parliament, triggering the 40-day scrutiny period.

This has been a long time coming, and we should all be thankful to @Coupon-mad for her tireless work on the Government Steering Group fighting our corner. From my quick appraisal, there will be long-term consumer gains—but largely only for those who actively appeal. Otherwise, it is sadly more of the same, relying on the majority of consumers paying up just to make the threat go away.

The Good & The Bad:

• The £100 Cap: The current parking charge cap of £100 is confirmed, with no reduction.
• The Discount Trap: Only a 40% early payment discount remains.
• The Fake DRA: The highly contentious £70 debt recovery add-on for non-payment within 28 days is embedded into the Government Code, despite likely breaching consumer law per the CMA. There is the promise of maybe a change in the future, but not now.
• The Appeals Hub: There will eventually be a common, secondary appeals process truly independent of the industry—but it is likely a year away, and the same ATAs remain the gatekeepers in the meantime.

Moving forward, the Government’s "Next Steps" consultation document states:

"In the meantime, the trade associations will continue to apply their existing sanctions processes, including the allocation of sanction points, with the ultimate sanction being the loss of access to DVLA data, under section 5(2) of the Act."

The DVLA Sanctions Cover-Up I have current Freedom of Information responses from the DVLA proving that zero sanctions have been issued by the IPC. Furthermore, I have written today to Tim Moss (CEO at the DVLA) escalating my complaint as to why his FOI team is suddenly hiding behind a Section 12 cost limit refusal to avoid answering the exact same question regarding the BPA. In short, the ATAs remain the gatekeepers while completely failing to perform what will be their statutory enforcement functions. (Technical note: the internal review period of this FOI has now exceeded the absolute maximum 40-day statutory limit).

Sorry to sound negative, but if a motorist doesn't fight and appeal, there is not much short-term gain yet. It’s a start, as the AA and RAC have noted, but Will Hurley’s mob at the recent IPC conference were likely busy congratulating themselves on a stellar job protecting their revenues while continuing to screw consumers.

The IAS / Accord Regulatory Scandal On a concluding note, the plainly unfair "Independent Appeals Service" (IAS) is now supposedly administered by a separate entity (Accord Dispute Resolution Ltd). However, through recent FOI disclosures, I have forced BIST and the CTSI to admit a staggering regulatory failure:

The government has confirmed that Accord does not hold its own statutory Competent Authority certificate. Instead, the CTSI is allowing Accord to illegally "sublet" the original September 2015 certificate issued to Unity (the IPC's parent company). The certificate holder has so far failed to gain approval under the new 2024 ADR rules, so the current "arrangement" is questionably operating under the original 2015 certificate.

Under the 2015 ADR Regulations, a statutory certificate is strictly non-transferable. The government is permitting a totally unvetted shell company to run consumer adjudications "on licence" using the trade association's 10-year-old paperwork. How BIST or the CTSI can legally justify this subletting of a statutory certificate is beyond comprehension.

canuk_UK

The issue is not simply whether Accord possesses a certificate bearing its own name.

The questions are:

• Which legal entity is recognised as the ADR provider responsible for IAS decisions?
• What functions does Accord actually perform?
• Which entity employs, appoints or controls the adjudicators?
• Did the competent authority approve the present operational arrangements?
• Do those arrangements satisfy the applicable independence and accreditation requirements?

The fact that two companies are legally separate does not prove independence.

The government's response requires that the parking trade associations should not own or manage the day-to-day running of the second-stage appeals service. It also requires decision-makers to be free from industry affiliations and interference in their decisions.

These provisions are relevant whether the IAS is operated directly by Unity, administered by Accord, or provided through some other arrangement. Merely creating a separate legal entity would not necessarily establish the independence the government requires.

There is an important connection between the DVLA sanctions issue and the IAS allegations. The government's own consultation acknowledges concerns about bias, inconsistent decisions and evidential standards favouring operators. It has responded by specifying stronger independence requirements.

However, that is not the same as independently verifying that the existing appeals arrangements already meet those standards.This creates two questions worth pursuing.

First, can the government demonstrate that the existing ATAs have actually enforced their sanctions regimes?

The answer needs evidence of complaints received, breaches established, sanctions imposed and action taken against persistent offenders.

Second, can the responsible regulator demonstrate that the IAS is being operated by a properly authorised and genuinely independent ADR provider?

That requires examination of the actual corporate arrangements and approval records rather than accepting an assurance that the service has been transferred to a separate company. The authorities should be able to identify precisely which legal entity is responsible for IAS adjudications, what authority it operates under, whether the present arrangements have been reviewed and how genuine independence from the IPC is ensured.

Don’t hold your breath!

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82174555#Comment_82174555

But they can renege on that and it'll never happen, look at the new policy:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/box-ticking-consultations-scrapped-to-speed-up-delivery

"For smaller slip-ups, like forgetting a parking permit, entering the wrong vehicle’s registration or forgetting to confirm it in the machine when parking, drivers will face a maximum charge of £20 on appeal."

This will greatly impact the no-permit housing parasites (where they have the right to operate)."

I'm in Prague this week, so only looking here for odd moments. But does the draft code even say how long that has to be on offer?! Not sure it does…

Car1980

I'm in Prague so only looking here for odd moments. But does the draft code even say how long that has to be on offer?! Not sure it does…

14 days.

yarpsnehpets

19. The Appeals Charter

19.1

The Appeals Charter sets out the following:

 i) Exemptions where a parking charge should not be issued;

 ii) Circumstances where a parking charge should be cancelled on appeal; and

 iii) Circumstances where the parking charge should be reduced to £20 for a period of 14 days.

yarpsnehpets

It rather seems to me, having read the document several times, that parking operators are going to have to make significant investments in camera technology if they wish to meet some of the new requirements.

ANPR entry and exit cameras are simply not going to be enough.

For example, the document 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."

So, the operator will need more imagery which shows the precise time that the parking event actually started - in other words, hi def cameras covering the whole car park, not just the entry and exit points.

Additionally, under 19.1(i) - "Circumstances where a charge should not be issued by a parking operator:"

• where the driver is physically unable to leave the car park in time i.e. where they are stuck in traffic within the car park resulting in the driver exceeding their permitted parking period and grace period (if applicable) or where they have considered the terms and conditions and chosen not to park.

Important to note that the above scenario is a scenario where 'a notice should not be issued' as apposed to a scenario where an appeal should be upheld - meaning that the operator must check video footage of the car park (at the relevant time) BEFORE issuing a parking notice.

The only way they can do this is with extra cameras.