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

Castle

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82175608#Comment_82175608

..

But who's going to have prove or disprove that there was traffic?

(Of course, being in traffic is driving, not parking!).

cooldude255220

The cynic in me wonders if a term on the sign that says the period of parking is to be calculated with reference to entry and exit is would be sufficiently "more" for the purposes of the Code.

Le_Kirk

"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."

I have read that statement on several threads now; what does it mean? More what? The whole sentence is poor grammar; one should not use "whether" in this circumstance, it is conditional, one should write, for example, "whether or not". For what they wanted to convey, they could have used a simple "if".

1505grandad

If anyone interested:-

Detailed Explanation

What “without more” typically conveys

In legal reasoning, courts and lawyers use “without more” to indicate:

• A fact or allegation is not enough on its own to justify a legal conclusion.
• Additional supporting information is required to meet a legal standard.
• The statement does not create legal rights or obligations by itself.

Examples of how it is used

• “Mere possession of an item, without more, does not prove intent.”
• “A defendant’s silence, without more, cannot establish guilt.”

Why this phrasing is used

Legal language aims for precision to avoid ambiguity. Phrases like “without more” help clarify that a particular fact or statement lacks legal sufficiency unless accompanied by additional elements. This reflects the broader principle that legal terms and conclusions must rest on clearly defined criteria.

Relation to other legal expressions

While not identical, the concept parallels terms such as:

• “Without prejudice” — meaning an action does not affect legal rights. 

. “Under no legal obligation” — meaning no duty exists under law.

These examples show how legal phrasing clarifies the presence or absence of legal effect, just as “without more” clarifies insufficiency.

The phrase “without more” ultimately signals that a fact or statement lacks legal significance unless supplemented by additional legally relevant information."

canuk_UK

Most ANPR-issued NtKs simply reproduce the entry and exit timestamps and claim that these represent the "period of parking", sometimes using wording such as "period of parking prior to" the recorded exit time.

But PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a) specifically requires the NtK to identify the period of parking, not merely how long the vehicle was on the site.

Now section 2.22 of the new statutory Code expressly states that the entry time must not, "without more", be treated as the start of the contractual parking period.

That's the important bit. The ANPR timestamps alone are not enough. The operator needs something more to establish when the vehicle was actually parked.

So how can an operator claim its NtK satisfies PoFA 9(2)(a) when all it has done is reproduce two ANPR timestamps and call them a period of parking?

If the NtK fails that mandatory requirement, there is no keeper liability under PoFA. Unless the operator can establish that the keeper was also the driver, it has no basis for pursuing the keeper.

This gives us some useful ammunition against the routine practice of dressing up ANPR timestamps as a period of parking and pretending that satisfies PoFA.

cooldude255220

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82175818#Comment_82175818

The way it is worded is concerning, and it does not in my mind necessarily follow that the "the operator needs to establish when the vehicle was actually parked."

"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."

Note that it does not say:

"For the purposes of determining whether a parking charge may be issued, the time at which a vehicle enters the relevant land must not be treated as establishing the start of the contractual parking period."

It also does not say:

The operator must establish the actual period of time for which the vehicle was parked.

In my mind it is squarely leaving open the possibility of operators being able to somehow justify using the entry/exit times as parked times and the easiest way to do that would be to include it as a term on the signage.

Although how that would play with the consideration/grace periods remains to be seen.

yarpsnehpets

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82175617#Comment_82175617

The point I was trying to convey was that the operator is expected check if there was traffic BEFORE issuing a PCN. If they simply issue a PCN (based on ANPR) and then rely on the driver / keeper appealing the notice with proof of traffic then they will be in breach of the term since the term relates to circumstances when a notice should not be issued in the first place - can you see the difference?

canuk_UK

I agree that the inclusion of "without more" leaves operators some room to argue that additional evidence establishes when the contractual parking period commenced. I can certainly see them trying to exploit that wording.

However, section 2.22 also defines the parking period as the time the vehicle was actually stationary, otherwise than in the course of driving, after any relevant consideration period has expired.

Section 5 then expressly recognises that drivers need time to find a space, read the signs and make payment before the parking period commences.

So I don't see how simply adding wording to a sign declaring that parking begins at the ANPR entry point could override those requirements. A contractual term cannot simply redefine driving around a car park as parking.

The question remains what constitutes the "more" that an operator must establish. Merely pointing to its own signage and two ANPR timestamps shouldn't automatically satisfy that requirement.

Importantly, none of this removes the separate obligation under PoFA paragraph 9(2)(a) to specify the period of parking in an NtK. The point is that "without more" leaves the evidential standard open, but it does not leave the definition of parking entirely at the operator's discretion.

yarpsnehpets

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82175658#Comment_82175658

Many of the current signs contain wording which states that 'the entire period of your visit must be paid for' (or equivalent wording) - this was of course deemed, by the CMA, to be a breach of consumer legislation.

yarpsnehpets

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82175828#Comment_82175828

I think @1505grandad's prior post heads that off and I agree with what he sets out.

You also have to look at the context of the sentence where the wording is placed - entry time on it's own is not enough to establish the start of a parking contract - it would however be enough to 'start the watch' when assessing a consideration period if the driver left the car park without accepting the contract to park.

Report